The fact that it took until the 27th of December for a manager to be sacked was a bit of a revelation for the Premier League – this time last year, five managers (25%) had already taken their leave.

But Neil Warnock’s abrupt dismissal has set the unforgiving iron-clad ball in motion. Roberto Martinez, who guided Everton excellently last year, suddenly seems vulnerable after taking one point in 21 while Nigel Pearson and Steve Bruce’s declines at Hull have received significant amounts of attention and scrutiny.

Alan Irvine became the second in the firing line late last night. Given West Brom’s stalling form in recent times, perhaps that was fair. They’ve won once in their last nine. Superficially that may therefore have made sense, but in reality, it really doesn’t.

Irvine’s biggest weakness lay in his pedigree, or lack of it. He was previously the head of Everton’s youth academy and before that he led Sheffield Wednesday through an austerity-dampened relegation battle. Either way, unlike Martinez who won the FA Cup with Wigan and led Everton with merit last season, or Bruce and Pearson who commendably navigated their teams out of the Championship, Irvine has no previous success to vindicate his initial appointment. Inevitably, when the club faced adversity, the doubt surrounding him became significantly more emphatic.

The West Brom board should never have appointed him if they were unwilling to stand by him during any period of genuine difficulty. It’s unfair for him to be a victim of his own lack of success. They appointed him fully aware of the ramifications of his lack of experience. For them to bow down to the myopic-mob-like pressures of fickle football fans and sack him for leading West Brom to roughly where you’d expect them to be is entirely illogical.

Granted, Irvine isn’t blameless. West Brom could be doing better. But considering they only just survived last year, sacking him when they’ve largely performed at a similar level is harsh. The club have hardly faltered under his tenure.

The interesting facet regarding West Brom as opposed to other clubs is their unique managerial structure. Irvine isn’t a manager, he’s a Head Coach, exclusively responsible for training his players, devoid of administrative duties. He works in tandem with their technical director, Terry Burton, Director of Administration, Richard Garlick, and Director of Performance, Mark Gilett,  who all collectively have a part to play in this seemingly more bureaucratic process of management. They should all be liable to West Brom’s fall – it’s vastly unfair for Irvine to act as a magnetic point of criticism for all of their shortcomings.

After 19 games Irvine has led West Brom to 17 points, leaving them in 15th. Pepe Mel, a coveted foreign import who was deemed worth taking a risk on, led them to 18 points in the same position. The year before that, Steve Clarke had them at the dizzy heights of seventh with 33 points.

The over-riding question remains – why appoint an unproven manager, in an unorthodox managerial structure, and then dispose of him when he fails to exceed an unrealistic set of expectations? Sacking him will cost additional compensation, and the opportunity costs associated with replacing him could exacerbate their decline further.

Ask anybody who’s worked with Irvine about his ability to coach – not manage – and you’ll receive favourable response. If he’s only empowered to coach the team, then that’s the only way in which he should be judged.

Irvine hasn’t set the world on fire, but sacking him has undermined the purpose of his appointment. Loyalty and consistency can pay great dividends in football and Irvine deserved longer.

[ad_pod id=’ricco’ align=’center’]