There has been much debate about whether and when Richard Murray should fire Phil Parkinson, but the Chairman’s role doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, begin and end with the hire and fire decision. Surely a good Chairman should be managing the Manager, advising him and, when necessary, encouraging him? It seems clear, though in all fairness only with the benefit of hindsight, that the decisions to appoint Iain Dowie and then Alan Pardew were mistakes, but it also seems clear that Murray failed to manage either of them effectively. Perhaps they were unmanageable, but the same is clearly not true for Phil Parkinson. Murray himself has said as much.
What, therefore, might we reasonably expect the Chairman to do? At the recent EGM Murray said that Parkinson was the best manager he’d ever worked with. I was very surprised to hear him say that, but he seemed to mean it, so I’d be even more surprised if he were to fire Parky just a few weeks later. He also said that Parkinson was “an extremely good buyer of players”. Again, not the words of a Chairman who has doubts about his Manager. Moreover, since then Murray has backed Parky with the money to sign Paul Benson who, despite the widely-held doubts about his all round contribution, has already scored five league goals, all of which have been worth points. I might add that the players always seem motivated; it appears that they all want to play for Parkinson so that isn’t the problem either. If I were Murray, and assuming I had no intention of firing the Manager, my instinct would be to sit down with Parky to discuss what he thought was going wrong. This is what a decent Chairman should be doing IMHO. How might that conversation develop?
An entirely logical discussion might proceed as follows; “Phil, you know that I really respect what you’ve done for the Club so far. You’ve done a great job reducing the wage bill and rebuilding the squad and in doing so you have proven, again, that you are a very good buyer of players. Moreover, I can see that the players all want to play for you. However, I’m really concerned about whether the team will ever gel. Do you think we’re getting it right tactically? Are we as organised and strong at the back as you’d like? I sometimes wonder what on earth happens on the training ground during the week; we seem to have so little invention with our free-kicks and corners, for example. You’re the hardest working Manager I’ve had Phil [another quote from the EGM], but you can’t do everything. You have an Assistant Manager and a First Team Coach. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that Tim Breacker and Mark Kinsella are really pulling their weight?”
Of course, I have no idea what the answer to that last question might be, but if Richard Murray is still supportive of Phil Parkinson, as he seems to be, then it’s the question he should be asking. Parky clearly has something going for him, but it is also seems clear that something isn’t quite right. One way forward might be to retain Parkinson and change the team he has supporting him. Breacker and Kinsella must be accountable for something, but what? And are they delivering? This approach is also much less risky than removing Phil Parkinson and taking a “leap into the dark”. A recent and very interesting post suggested that in the event that Parky was fired, Damian Matthew might take charge of the First Team. That would be a huge step up and a very big risk, but a promotion to First Team Coach, reporting to Parkinson, may be a best of both worlds option. I simply don’t have a view about Matthew, but I do know that its all about specialisation and teamwork off the field as well as on it; the world’s top managers are very choosey about their backroom staff and that’s surely no coincidence.
Phil Parkinson may need to be encouraged to recognise the weaknesses of both of his teams, i.e. the one off the field as well as the one on it. Maybe Parky needs to think in terms of making a behind the scenes change. This would, of course, be in his own best interests, but it may be very difficult for him; he may feel a strong loyalty to both Breacker and Kinsella. If so, it is surely the role of the Chairman to challenge and advise and then to lend support when there is a difficult decision to be made. In my view at least, this is simply good Chairmanship.
I’ve no real idea whether this line of thought makes any sense; I’m simply not close enough to judge. However, I do feel that the change that we all seem to believe is needed doesn’t have to be all or nothing. If Richard Murray really does believe that Phil Parkinson is a very good Manager and, most importantly, the right Manager for Charlton, then it is part of Murray’s role to help Parky to address his weaknesses, including those of his support staff.
I’d be interested in reactions. I’m sure that there are many members who are much better informed than I am.
0
Comments
If I was Richard Murray I would carry on looking for investment and leave footballing duties to Parky and co as long as he is in contract then deal with what's needed next in the summer.
Parkinson's results and the team performances are not good. If things don't improve Murray needs to make a tough decision.
My money would be that if there is no significant improvement over the next month then he will have no option but to look for a new manager.
If we're being silly then why don't we get Roy Evans in, or maybe Big Ron?
I don't disagree with bringing in guest coaches,in fact in a different place I even suggested George Graham at one point during the Curbishley years.
The fact is things are not as bad as they feel and if Murray and Parkie can work together in a mentor leader partnership things could look really good especially with our home end of season run in. Of course, this is such a tight league that the wheels could come off.
Ok Les.You've done your time .Welcome back. ;-)
Great post, very thoughtful.
I follow your line of thinking. I have no more inside knowledge than you, probably less, so like you, I have no idea whether Breacker or Kinsella are doing their jobs.
I would say, that when people were getting fed up in Curbs days, some people started to question whether Mervyn Day was doing a decent job. But as far as i could tell it was only because he was a taciturn sod who shouted more than Curbs and was an ex goalie. None of us actually knew. Although come to think of it, I dont know if Day has a similar job nowadays, which may tell us something.
Personally I agree with you regarding Damian Matthew, because its the kind of move you'd make if football was a normal business. Indeed isnt that pretty much how Liverpool used to do it when they were supreme?
A chairman that manages the manager obviously didn't hire the right person.
1) It would seem that Richard Murray is a fan of Phil Parkinson and is, therefore, unlikely to fire him, at least not in the absence of a really disastrous run of results. Moreover, firing Parky would be high risk. There is no guarantee Murray could find someone better and, in any event, Murray’s confidence that he, personally, would be likely to make a good choice may not be very high.
2) However, both Murray and Parkinson must be disappointed with the team’s performances so far this season. Parkinson probably feels he has no option but to simply “get on with it” in the hope that with continued hard work the team will come good, but Murray, as Parkinson’s boss, ought to be thinking about what he can do to help Parkinson to be more effective. That ought to be an important part of Murray’s job.
3) If this is Murray’s mindset, it may make sense for him to challenge Parkinson on the performance of his Assistant Manager and First Team Coach. It would be quite normal for Parky to defend his team, but that doesn’t mean they are good enough and Murray’s role ought to be to “encourage” Parkinson to face facts and make tough decisions.
4) It is hard to believe that firing either Breaker or Kinsella, or both, would be prohibitively expensive and if the right replacements could be found the change might make all the difference, i.e. take a side that right now looks destined to struggle to get near a Play-Off place and turn into one that might yet challenge for automatic promotion.
5) I guess the questions are; a) should this discussion be taking place, b) if so, is it likely that it is taking place and c) are there good coaches out there? On the latter, it is worth remembering that there is a huge difference between what is needed to be a successful number one and what is required to be an effective number 2 or 3. I’d bet, for example, that there are ex Premier League defenders who whilst not anywhere near ready for management, may be very effective coaches. Some have suggested Christian Dailly as Manager. Again, a big risk, but might he do some coaching?
I profess no particular insight here. I’m just concerned that replacing Parky may end in tears whilst some lateral thinking might add some real value without undue disruption or risk. Is Richard Murray on the case? Simply letting Parky get on with it, and then letting him go at the end of the season when the team’s failure to challenge for promotion is confirmed, is just too passive and lacking in ambition from my perspective.
Nice work, all the same.
Just go to the games and enjoy them while you can, after Saturdays game I couldn't give a fuck what division we are in, mid winter, freezing cold, third division football, hundreds of miles from home, real fans, drama you couldn't dream up, damn near priceless...
Wouldn't swap it for the world...
Parky will probably keep his job because RM likes working with him and because there is no guarantee that anyone else, that we can afford, can manage our bunch of semi-talented misfits into a more consistent outfit.
Parky's responding by trying not to get any piss on his own shoes...
If Murray had the dosh Parky would have been long gone and that's the end of it...