Cod Almighty | Diary

A honeymoon in Cleethorpes

15 March 2018

Let's talk about honeymoon periods: the idea that new managers, almost irrespective of their competence, induce a bounce in team performance. Middle-Aged Diary has done some number crunching on Town managers since the turn of the century, and these are the results.

Paul Groves (appointed 28 December 2001): Town won 5 points under his first five games, compared with 2 under his predecessor.

Nicky Law (3 March 2004): 2 points in first five games, 6 in the previous five (and 1 under the last five games of his permanent predecessor.)

Alan Buckley (9 November 2006): 10 points in first five games, 4 from the previous five.

Mike Newell (6 October 2008): 3 points in first five games, 1 from the previous five (and also 1 under the last five games of his permanent predecessor.)

Neil Woods (18 October 2009): 3 points in first five games, 4 from the previous five.

Rob Scott / Paul Hurst (23 March 2011): 3 points in first five games, 8 from previous five (and 6 from the last five games of their permanent predecessor.)

Marcus Bignot (7 November 2016): 5 points in first five games, 5 from previous five (and 7 from the last five games of his permanent predecessor)

Russell Slade (12 April 2017): 7 points in first five games, 5 from the previous five.

Russell Slade's first spell and Graham Rodger are excluded as their tenures began in the close season, making a comparison unrealistic. Paul Groves and Neil Woods' figures include games played when they were still only in temporary charge.

Totting up the data, new managers collected a total of 38 points in their first five games, compared with 35 from the five Town games preceding their appointment. If we take for comparison instead our record under the last five games of the previous permanent manager (excluding games played under a caretaker), then Town won 30 points. Only the most modest of bounces then from a new manager, and occasionally even a deterioration in form.

What does this tell us? Very little, in my opinion, except that anyone imagining results will automatically improve simply from having 'a new voice in the dressing room' is indulging in wishful thinking. The imperatives on new managers do vary of course. Scott and Hurst, and Slade had licence to take stock of their inheritances. Law we really did need to make an immediate, and positive, impact.

The data highlights what a catastrophic appointment he was. It suggests Hurst was one for the long haul. It confirms that Buckley, even later in his career, could galvanise a team. All things we knew already.

We are in a curious position. Look at the league table without taking account of form and you'd put us under observation rather than in acute and critical care. Statistics only tell half the story, but when the drama is played out only in weekly episodes, we need something to fill the void: points projections; relegation calculators; sticking pins in voodoo dolls of Barnet footballers; invoking Augustine's prayer ("Lord, make Jack Lester good, but not yet."). And of course collecting random empirical data on new managers.

What we should do is put it all out of our minds between matches, and rely on those whose livelihoods do depend on it to be worrying about it all for us. But not only are we human, we are also football fans.

Only two days now until the next installment. Hang in there.