There are currently only 15 managers in the entire 4 divisions of the league who have managed longer than 3 years. At Arsenal, Exeter, Morecambe, Wycombe, Wimbledon, Bournemouth, Burnley, Rochdale, Bristol Rovers, Tottenham, Accrington, Carlisle, Brighton, Millwall, Cheltenham (yes, our old friend Gary Johnson). Forgetting league positions in terms of Premiership, Championship etc, the balanced view would be to also consider the impact of stability on these clubs along with the aforementioned lists of the previous post? 6 Currently play in league 2, 4 of which have not experienced promotion under the current manager. Of the 9 remaining sides, 7 have achieved promotion with the 2 remaining being Arsenal and Tottenham. 6 currently occupy a promotion, play off or European Place with one in a relegation place. 4 (+25%) namely Morecambe, Cheltenham, Wimbledon and Rochdale are arguably not in an enviable position?
1. Arsenal - currently a distant 6th in the prem with the 4th highest wage budget. Haven't won much in many a year. Slightly under achieving.
2. Exeter - 5th in league2. Boxing a little above their weight this season but certainly in the 'correct division' as far as their financial muscle is concerned. Slightly over achieving.
3. Morecambe - 20th in league2. Probably about their natural level these days given their facilities etc. Bang on the money.
4. Wycombe - 3rd in league2. Like Exeter, boxing a little above their weight this season and again in the 'correct division'. Slightly over achieving.
5. Wimbledon - 18th in league1. Id say they are a division above their natural level. Fan owed so very impressive. Massively over achieving.
6. Bournemouth - 11th in the prem. A few positions above the level their finances dictate but were absolutely bank rolled into the premier league. Slightly over achieving.
7. Burnley - 7th in the prem. An utterly amazing job. Massively over achieving.
8. Rochdale - 21st in league1. In every way a league two club but struggling to stay in the division above. Slightly over achieving.
9. Bristol Rovers - 11th in league1. About par to where you'd expect them to be. Bang on the money.
10. Tottenham - 4th in the prem. 6th highest budget. Slightly over achieving.
11. Accrington - 1st in league2. Nothing to add. Massively over achieving.
12. Carlisle - 10th in league2. Bang on the money.
13. Brighton - 13th in prem. Bank rolled to get there. Slightly over achieving.
14. Millwall - 6th in championship. Unless Im not up to speed on something, hugely impressive stuff. Massively over achieving.
15. Cheltenham - 16th in league2. Where you'd expect them to be give or take. Bang on the money.
Interesting debate!
By my reckoning - from these 15 most stable clubs managerial wise:
Massively over achieving - 4
Slightly over achieving - 6
Bang on the money - 4
Slightly under achieving - 1
4 of those clubs (Wimbledon, Bristol Rovers, Exeter and Bournemouth) were all taken on at lower levels with a massive budget advantage compared to their rivals which enabled them to gain momentum etc. So there is unique situations each time.
I wouldn't say that these stats provide any significant proof that keeping a manager for a long time makes a jot of difference overall. Most clubs will find 'their natural level'.
Id say our 'natural level' is top half league2/bottom half league1. With the Chinese money/extra budget this season we've heavily under performed, almost certainly relegated. Hence why JFH was sent on his way.
None of those 15 clubs did the manager start particularly badly. Johnson did take Cheltenham down from a difficult position before winning the national league the following season to buck the trend a little. I can't think of a situation where a manager has proper bombed out in his first season and then several years later still been in the job and lorded up because of it!