Why would anyone want a "championship manager"?
We need a manager better than the championship, so we can get out of it, not one who knows it / operates in it. That's the absolute last thing we need.
I suppose it is realism and pragmatism.
Managers fall into these main groups.
A. Managers with a proven track record of success.
B. Managers with a proven track record of failure.
C. Managers with a proven track record of more humble results, perhaps success at lower levels, or mid table in premier league or equivalent.
D. Managers without a proven track record. Some of these might have had a promising season here or there.
I'd say under Lerner our appointments have been MON - A, Houllier - A, Mcleish - B, Lambert - C, Sherwood - D, Garde - D
Of course by the time they have left all their reputations have been tarnished. It shows their is no guarantee that previous results will have a bearing on performance. But presuming we are not going to attract managers from group A, and don't want to sign managers from group B, we will be left between punts on up and comers and steady but limited types.
I can see why people would feel nervous about taking another punt, even if the rewards could be far greater than hiring some steady eddy dull and known to be limited 'championship' manager. Because if the punt is anything like our last few appointments we'll get lost in the championship wilderness.
