The only people elected to be national team manager is the above average and i think it is time for change.
Preach on, brother. By definition, only half of the managers can be in the top half of managers. There's no shame in being one of the ones that makes a top half possible.
On this platform of change, are you willing to commit to a strategy of playing only 3 roster players and lucky fans for the other two? That'll make us impossible to predict, since nobody will be able to calculate the skills of our lucky fans. Down with look inside, up with look to the bleachers!
Whille I agree that a person should not be elected solely based on how high they moved up in the divisions...anyone running should be able to demonstrate that they understand everything pertaining to running a team, and not have glaring weaknesses in their own personal team.
How dare you respond to that with what appears to be a reasonable post?
I have to agree with you for the most part. Progress up the league structure is something that is a function of both time and managerial aptitude, with some luck involved as well. (Well, time is less a factor for some, who find a way to go up from 4 to 2 in two seasons, but I digress). A team that built up a huge wad of cash and VSed their way up against woefully undermatched competition, for example, might not be an ideal choice. A team that's moved up with a flexible and relatively equal squad against similar or better competition, on the other hand, has something voters can look at as being a great qualification for the job.
Lower level teams don't have the track record to rely on, so you're right that they need to demonstrate that they understand the game. I am not sure that the "glaring weaknesses" in the personal team is as much an issue if they understand what the weaknesses are and explain why they're doing that. But there's a definite standard of knowledge that has to be demonstrated, and if their club doesn't do that, they'd better be able to do so in some other way, ideally starting with volunteering with the NT/U21.
Mostly, I just get a kick out of the idea that change for change's sake is the answer to every problem. I haven't seen nearly as many elections here as other games, but it's a recurring theme -- lower level managers saying that they'll achieve success via change and that electing higher-level managers has failed so it's time to try something new. Nothing wrong with that platform if they can back it up, of course, but ... yeah. ;)