Jason Wilcox

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Yes he did and mattresses I believe 

his banning of the press was almost as funny as going back to them with him tail between his legs when they would use the clubs name referring to us as south coast club. Plus a sponsorship deal with the biggest recruitment company in chillworth was as hipster as it comes  

The mattresses and sheets things is fine, it was part of the marginal gains thing that Brailsford had with cycling. Kind of makes sense really, pro athletes sleeping in different beds, make it as close home as they’re used to.

Banning the echo, banning Franny and mlt, getting a national newspaper to report on you as South Coast Club, and getting the best sponsorship deal in Chilworth were all belters. As was interfering with and fucking up the kit design not once but twice (and still some absolute wallies lapped it up, “all red is good for the Asian markets” we were told). The Cult of Cortese were a strongly knitted group with spurious, nefarious objectives. We were well rid of them and Nic Nac in the end.

Edited April 25 by The Kraken

[adrian lord]

If they are all so hipster, why on earth don't they relocate us to Shoreditch? 

[pimpin4rizeal]

9 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

‘Results’ isn’t a style of football. I’ve no idea why anyone would think we prioritised a particular style over actually winning games. We thought we would succeed playing the way we did, it’s that simple. We weren’t wrong as such, it’s simply that the players and the manager who implemented that style didn’t get it right.

We don’t have an obsession with City youth players either, we hired Shields and Wilcox, who both have a strong link to their academy, and went with the highest rated prospects they knew from their previous employment, with mixed results.

But we chose a manager with average results , based on his style of play and possession stats .. pretty much EVERYTHING the Swansea fans said about him turned out true .. hindsight’s a wonderful thing .. but in this case he’s pretty much delivered exactly what anyone who researched him would expect really 

also we don’t have a city obsession ? we just keep hiring the likes of Wilcox and shields ., yeah coincidence 😆.

our whole identity  at the minute is style over substance .. I really can’t see why anyone would argue against that 

Edited April 26 by pimpin4rizeal

[Maggie May]

38 minutes ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

But we chose a manager with average results , based on his style of play and possession stats .. pretty much EVERYTHING the Swansea fans said about him turned out true .. hindsight’s a wonderful thing .. but in this case he’s pretty much delivered exactly what anyone who researched him would expect really 

also we don’t have a city obsession ? we just keep hiring the likes of Wilcox and shields ., yeah coincidence 😆.

our whole identity  at the minute is style over substance .. I really can’t see why anyone would argue against that 

I’ve backed RM this season but now believe we won’t go up after the showing of the last two defeats. It’s a big shame. However, RM has got results. This is his best season as a manager and we’d be pushing for automatics any other season. If it wasn’t for Ipswich’s incredible season, the top three would be exactly how the bottom three looked in the Prem last season, and I don’t think you can argue with that, can you? Play offs was always the most likely scenario.

[egg]

11 hours ago, Midfield_General said:

Just so I’m clear, what does being a hipster actually mean in this context, according to the Saintsweb intelligentsia?

I like the suggestion upthread that wearing jeans and/ or a suit, and owning a laptop, is at the dangerous cutting edge of innovation and should therefore be scorned and discarded as new-fangled witchcraft. Absolutely amazing 

Style over substance / wanting to be seen to do it well rather than actually doing it well / good theory over good reality / good intentions over good actions. 

Basically, what we've been seeing this season. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Style over substance / wanting to be seen to do it well rather than actually doing it well / good theory over good reality / good intentions over good actions. 

Basically, what we've been seeing this season. 

Yep. It's propaganda football where you have 60+% possession and lose 5-0

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yep. It's propaganda football where you have 60+% possession and lose 5-0

Absolutely - that was a great expression from Strachan and describes our football perfectly. 

 

[Fabrice29]

11 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

It’s not just that it’s the obsession with city youth players etc too .. in choosing Martin we went for possession over results .. he’s done exactly what was on the tin when selecting him 

You’re going to be shocked when you actually check our results btw. There’s quite a lot of wins. 

Edited April 26 by Fabrice29

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Yep. It's propaganda football where you have 60+% possession and lose 5-0

It’s absolutely no different to playing ugly, route one football and losing by the same score. The fact that we have a way of playing which doesn’t always work doesn’t mean it’s pointless or ‘propaganda football’, just that it isn’t being properly implemented. If you lose 5-0 with 30% possession it’s just as sh*t.

[Weston Super Saint]

14 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

You’re going to be shocked when you actually check our results btw. There’s quite a lot of wins. 

You're going to be shocked when you actually check out results btw. There's quite a lot of missed opportunities.

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s absolutely no different to playing ugly, route one football and losing by the same score. The fact that we have a way of playing which doesn’t always work doesn’t mean it’s pointless or ‘propaganda football’, just that it isn’t being properly implemented. If you lose 5-0 with 30% possession it’s just as sh*t.

Too many goals against. That’s because the style of play is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t always work because it cannot always work. We’re not talking about the occasional defeat here. I’m tired of seeing the opposition waltz through our wide open defences and score at will. All the joy I get out of us scoring a goal is taken away many times over when we concede.

Is this how a junky feels? Shoot up to get a high followed by a bout of depression?

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You're going to be shocked when you actually check out results btw. There's quite a lot of missed opportunities.

It’s the gambler’s fallacy. Ignore the losses and only concentrate on the wins.

[Toussaint]

24 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

You’re going to be shocked when you actually check our results btw. There’s quite a lot of wins. 

Not when it really mattered. 

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, The Kraken said:

The mattresses and sheets things is fine, it was part of the marginal gains thing that Brailsford had with cycling. Kind of makes sense really, pro athletes sleeping in different beds, make it as close home as they’re used to.

Banning the echo, banning Franny and mlt, getting a national newspaper to report on you as South Coast Club, and getting the best sponsorship deal in Chilworth were all belters. As was interfering with and fucking up the kit design not once but twice (and still some absolute wallies lapped it up, “all red is good for the Asian markets” we were told). The Cult of Cortese were a strongly knitted group with spurious, nefarious objectives. We were well rid of them and Nic Nac in the end.

Remember that shite adidas kit we had with gold badge and sponsor, you could buy the exact same shirt without the badges on for about £15 a shirt off a kids football suppliers website. A brilliant design as the asian market love all red shirts was the mantra 🤣

 

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

You’re going to be shocked when you actually check our results btw. There’s quite a lot of wins. 

I wonder how many of those were comfortable* wins versus narrow wins? (actually, genuinely interested in how we compare with Leeds, Leicester and Ipswich on that measure. My perception is that they win 'comfortably' much more often than we do, but I admit that perception and reality can often be different)

(*for the sake of discussion, let's say 'comfortable' = 2 or more goal margin.... I'm sure there are also games won by 1 goal that could be described as "comfortable" based on how the game played out, but its obviously easier to use goal difference per game rather than something more subjective such as "performance")

Edited April 26 by trousers

[Dman]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

You’re going to be shocked when you actually check our results btw. There’s quite a lot of wins. 

Relegated team, with a budget bigger than 99% of the leauge win more than the lose... shock horror. 

[hypochondriac]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s absolutely no different to playing ugly, route one football and losing by the same score. The fact that we have a way of playing which doesn’t always work doesn’t mean it’s pointless or ‘propaganda football’, just that it isn’t being properly implemented. If you lose 5-0 with 30% possession it’s just as sh*t.

It would be difficult for you to make a case that our style of football has not contributed to the volume of goals we concede. It was largely the same with Swansea. 

[Chez]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would be difficult for you to make a case that our style of football has not contributed to the volume of goals we concede. It was largely the same with Swansea. 

It would be an over-simplification to say our `pass it out from the back' and possession-based game is the only cause though. A case in point is when we are hit on the break from our own corners, which has happened a lot over the last few years. This has nothing to do with style or football and everything to do with player positions, our shape, awareness of potential danger, players being responsible and having the desire and pace to get back.

Our style of football has helped us score goals too. 

 

[Dman]

45 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would be difficult for you to make a case that our style of football has not contributed to the volume of goals we concede. It was largely the same with Swansea. 

I don't think its the style (i.e possession based), I think its the way in which Martin sets it up. Far to slow to play out meaning we need to throw men forwards leaving us vunerable. 

For some reason, our full backs (both of them) never try and stop the cross. 

Martin is decent enough coach, but a poor manager imo. 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

It would be an over-simplification to say our `pass it out from the back' and possession-based game is the only cause though. A case in point is when we are hit on the break from our own corners, which has happened a lot over the last few years. This has nothing to do with style or football and everything to do with player positions, our shape, awareness of potential danger, players being responsible and having the desire and pace to get back.

Our style of football has helped us score goals too. 

 

How a team sets up for corners is part of a managers style of play.

[egg]

9 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s absolutely no different to playing ugly, route one football and losing by the same score. The fact that we have a way of playing which doesn’t always work doesn’t mean it’s pointless or ‘propaganda football’, just that it isn’t being properly implemented. If you lose 5-0 with 30% possession it’s just as sh*t.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you're right on this. If the managers way of playing isn't being implemented properly is it not the case that:

a) it's possibly because the manager/coaches isn't adequately coaching the players adequately to do so?

B) it's possibly because the manager isn't picking the correct players to implement it adequately?

C) it's possible that the manager isn't reacting adequately (or isn't capable of doing so) to it not being implemented adequately?

D) the manager is too stubborn or inadequate to change to a way of playing that his players can adequately implement to improve results?

Edited April 26 by egg

[Lighthouse]

12 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

But we chose a manager with average results , based on his style of play and possession stats .. pretty much EVERYTHING the Swansea fans said about him turned out true .. hindsight’s a wonderful thing .. but in this case he’s pretty much delivered exactly what anyone who researched him would expect really 

also we don’t have a city obsession ? we just keep hiring the likes of Wilcox and shields ., yeah coincidence 😆.

our whole identity  at the minute is style over substance .. I really can’t see why anyone would argue against that 

We didn't hire him for his Swansea results, we hired him based on what we thought we could achieve with the players we have. Nigel Adkins was fighting Championship relegation with Scunthorpe when we hired him. He was replaced by a man who was 14th in La Liga with Espanyol. There's not a manager in football who hasn't been sacked from somewhere for a string of poor results.

I've no idea what your problem is with getting management from City's academy, they're one of the best in Europe. I don't know how two people constitutes an obsession either.

The point you're missing is that you can't choose results, there is no 'results' based system. Any idiot can sit here and say, "yeah we need to be one of those winning every game 3-0 type teams," but you need a good strategy, properly implemented to get there.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

We didn't hire him for his Swansea results, we hired him based on what we thought we could achieve with the players we have. Nigel Adkins was fighting Championship relegation with Scunthorpe when we hired him. He was replaced by a man who was 14th in La Liga with Espanyol. There's not a manager in football who hasn't been sacked from somewhere for a string of poor results.

I've no idea what your problem is with getting management from City's academy, they're one of the best in Europe. I don't know how two people constitutes an obsession either.

The point you're missing is that you can't choose results, there is no 'results' based system. Any idiot can sit here and say, "yeah we need to be one of those winning every game 3-0 type teams," but you need a good strategy, properly implemented to get there.

Which I don’t believe we have.

[pimpin4rizeal]

19 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

We didn't hire him for his Swansea results, we hired him based on what we thought we could achieve with the players we have. Nigel Adkins was fighting Championship relegation with Scunthorpe when we hired him. He was replaced by a man who was 14th in La Liga with Espanyol. There's not a manager in football who hasn't been sacked from somewhere for a string of poor results.

I've no idea what your problem is with getting management from City's academy, they're one of the best in Europe. I don't know how two people constitutes an obsession either.

The point you're missing is that you can't choose results, there is no 'results' based system. Any idiot can sit here and say, "yeah we need to be one of those winning every game 3-0 type teams," but you need a good strategy, properly implemented to get there.

The point your missing is that we got exactly what research would have told you we would have got when appointing Martin ..

When we where looking at candidates for the job the only selling point Martin had was the possession stats and style of his football there was no success and nothing else  so yes i absolutely think his appointment was based on that 

if we was instead looking for a manager with multiple promotions you could have gone for a Neil warnock type but that’s no where near hipster enough for us 

[CB Fry]

22 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

We didn't hire him for his Swansea results, we hired him based on what we thought we could achieve with the players we have. Nigel Adkins was fighting Championship relegation with Scunthorpe when we hired him. He was replaced by a man who was 14th in La Liga with Espanyol. There's not a manager in football who hasn't been sacked from somewhere for a string of poor results.

I've no idea what your problem is with getting management from City's academy, they're one of the best in Europe. I don't know how two people constitutes an obsession either.

The point you're missing is that you can't choose results, there is no 'results' based system. Any idiot can sit here and say, "yeah we need to be one of those winning every game 3-0 type teams," but you need a good strategy, properly implemented to get there.

I think we hired Adkins because he'd been promoted from L1 twice, so he was a good fit for a team trying to be promoted from L1.

Martin has been promoted nowhere ever.

[Hodgey]

23 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

We didn't hire him for his Swansea results, we hired him based on what we thought we could achieve with the players we have. Nigel Adkins was fighting Championship relegation with Scunthorpe when we hired him. He was replaced by a man who was 14th in La Liga with Espanyol. There's not a manager in football who hasn't been sacked from somewhere for a string of poor results.

I've no idea what your problem is with getting management from City's academy, they're one of the best in Europe. I don't know how two people constitutes an obsession either.

The point you're missing is that you can't choose results, there is no 'results' based system. Any idiot can sit here and say, "yeah we need to be one of those winning every game 3-0 type teams," but you need a good strategy, properly implemented to get there.

We do have an obsession with City group - that is clearly the model we are trying to replicate to the point of employing a number of their staff and players (don’t forget we also got turned down by the Leicester manager).  Problem is we are a pound shop version who has not adapted to the resources we actually have - City are massively successful as they have spent billions over a number of years and got the best people out there. 

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, Hodgey said:

We do have an obsession with City group - that is clearly the model we are trying to replicate to the point of employing a number of their staff and players (don’t forget we also got turned down by the Leicester manager).  Problem is we are a pound shop version who has not adapted to the resources we actually have - City are massively successful as they have spent billions over a number of years and got the best people out there. 

That's exactly it, there have been other clubs who have tried to 'play like Man City', even that bat-shit crazy Forest Green Rovers tried to adopt a Man City style, that went well.

At the end of the day Man City could play whatever flaming style they want, and they'd still win every week. It's all about the players and that's why that style works for them. 

I've always had the belief that if a lesser side really wants to zone in on a philosophy, their best chance is to try and disrupt the 'bigger sides' - pressing, closing down, catching them on the break etc. If you just play them at their own game there will only ever be one winner. 

I hope the club realise that this summer and drop this insane obsession. When we were successful under Pards, Adkins and Koeman you didn't hear any bollocks about a philosophy or a style, we just played a team to win with winning players - it's as simple as that.

[Fabrice29]

32 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

That's exactly it, there have been other clubs who have tried to 'play like Man City', even that bat-shit crazy Forest Green Rovers tried to adopt a Man City style, that went well.

At the end of the day Man City could play whatever flaming style they want, and they'd still win every week. It's all about the players and that's why that style works for them. 

I've always had the belief that if a lesser side really wants to zone in on a philosophy, their best chance is to try and disrupt the 'bigger sides' - pressing, closing down, catching them on the break etc. If you just play them at their own game there will only ever be one winner. 

I hope the club realise that this summer and drop this insane obsession. When we were successful under Pards, Adkins and Koeman you didn't hear any bollocks about a philosophy or a style, we just played a team to win with winning players - it's as simple as that.

Remind me again the philosophy we had over the last few years during our gradual decline and resulting in finishing bottom? 

[S-Clarke]

35 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Remind me again the philosophy we had over the last few years during our gradual decline and resulting in finishing bottom? 

We lost our way under Ralph, but what we were trying to follow was a good fit for the limited nature of the squad, and he got a song out of them during large parts of his reign as well, not sure you can deny that.

But it kinda backs up what I said also, philosophy's don't really mean anything, it's the players you have and making the most of said players. Like I said, during our really, really successful years you didn't hear any nonsense about philosophies or styles, we just played the best players in the best positions and like magic we did well.

[Fabrice29]

28 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

We lost our way under Ralph, but what we were trying to follow was a good fit for the limited nature of the squad, and he got a song out of them during large parts of his reign as well, not sure you can deny that.

But it kinda backs up what I said also, philosophy's don't really mean anything, it's the players you have and making the most of said players. Like I said, during our really, really successful years you didn't hear any nonsense about philosophies or styles, we just played the best players in the best positions and like magic we did well.

It was the recruitment of players suited for Ralphs system that left us utterly devoid of any quality on the ball, so yes, whilst it started well it gradually declined and left us very short and out of our depth by the end of it.

We've gone to the other extreme end this year, I personally much prefer it and I agree there's probably a happy medium ground to be had but I actually don't mind us doing what we've done, because it's much easier to watch and has quite clearly got much better results (obviously with the caveat of the levels).

[trousers]

16 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

there's probably a happy medium ground to be had

Huzzah! A statement upon which the whole forum could probably unite... (Well, almost... 🙂)

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

I think we hired Adkins because he'd been promoted from L1 twice, so he was a good fit for a team trying to be promoted from L1.

Martin has been promoted nowhere ever.

No we didn’t, we hired him to get to the Premier League and stay there, getting out of League 1 was just the first step. We clearly hired him to do something well beyond what he’d ever achieved before at Scunthorpe and we were right. I don’t mind the principle of trying to do the same with Martin but clearly the execution is some way lacking. It wasn’t unreasonable to expect him to achieve higher with our squad than Swansea’s.

[CB Fry]

12 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No we didn’t, we hired him to get to the Premier League and stay there, getting out of League 1 was just the first step. We clearly hired him to do something well beyond what he’d ever achieved before at Scunthorpe and we were right. I don’t mind the principle of trying to do the same with Martin but clearly the execution is some way lacking. It wasn’t unreasonable to expect him to achieve higher with our squad than Swansea’s.

In that case he hired Pardew for the same reason but fucked him off pretty quick.

Cortese would have sacked Adkins within three months if we weren't in contention for promotion.

Objective one was promotion to L1 and Cortese got a guy who'd done just that.

Russell Martin has never done anything.

[Lighthouse]

31 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

In that case he hired Pardew for the same reason but fucked him off pretty quick.

Cortese would have sacked Adkins within three months if we weren't in contention for promotion.

Objective one was promotion to L1 and Cortese got a guy who'd done just that.

Russell Martin has never done anything.

All of that is still beside the point - we hired Adkins to take us to the PL. So what if L1 promotion was the first step, we clearly hired him to do much more than languish in 15-17th in the Champ once he got there. We correctly deduced, from the way his teams played, that he’d be able to achieve far higher with better players at his disposal. Pretty much every other club out there has made a similar choice at some point, with varying degrees of success. 

[CB Fry]

27 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

All of that is still beside the point - we hired Adkins to take us to the PL. So what if L1 promotion was the first step, we clearly hired him to do much more than languish in 15-17th in the Champ once he got there. We correctly deduced, from the way his teams played, that he’d be able to achieve far higher with better players at his disposal. Pretty much every other club out there has made a similar choice at some point, with varying degrees of success. 

I'm not sure that "football club hires manager that they think will do well for them" is quite the killer insight you think it is.

The point is Nigel Adkins had a track record of delivering exactly the success that was required, while Russell Martin achieved fuck all anywhere at all.

 

Edited April 27 by CB Fry

[Turkish]

24 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

All of that is still beside the point - we hired Adkins to take us to the PL. So what if L1 promotion was the first step, we clearly hired him to do much more than languish in 15-17th in the Champ once he got there. We correctly deduced, from the way his teams played, that he’d be able to achieve far higher with better players at his disposal. Pretty much every other club out there has made a similar choice at some point, with varying degrees of success. 

Incorrect. He hired Adkins to get us out of league one. He had done that before and did what was expected of him. In the championship No one at the club expected promotion immediately but expected us to build for promotion the following season so When we made an unbelievable start to life in the championship he kept him on and it was expected that wed go up that season.  when we had a wobble toward the end of the season he tried to fire him twice, the second time was after we lost at home to Reading which effectively cost us the league. we went up anyway and when we got to the premier league Cortese first sounded out Di Matteo for the managers job then Pochetino who he appointed. So not quite the genius long term appointment making it out to be. 

[Lighthouse]

This is a weird argument, I've no idea why people are pretending not to understand it. It's very obvious why we hired Martin; Wilcox thought that his methods, coupled with our better players and higher budget than Swansea, would deliver promotion. Clubs hire managers based on what they think they could potentially achieve with the resources they have, not what they achieved in the past with another clubs players.

We didn't hire Adkins so we could sack him after two years, 15th in the Championship, neither did we expect Poch to hover around 14th in the PL because that's what he did at Espanyol, nor did we expect Ralph to take us to the Champions League.

[CB Fry]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

This is a weird argument, I've no idea why people are pretending not to understand it. It's very obvious why we hired Martin; Wilcox thought that his methods, coupled with our better players and higher budget than Swansea, would deliver promotion. Clubs hire managers based on what they think they could potentially achieve with the resources they have, not what they achieved in the past with another clubs players.

We didn't hire Adkins so we could sack him after two years, 15th in the Championship, neither did we expect Poch to hover around 14th in the PL because that's what he did at Espanyol, nor did we expect Ralph to take us to the Champions League.

Why are you pretending that you are the only person that understands that Wilcox appointed Martin to get us promoted?

Er, well, yeah. Of course he did. Of course he believed it.

Thanks for the guidance.

 

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

This is a weird argument, I've no idea why people are pretending not to understand it. It's very obvious why we hired Martin; Wilcox thought that his methods, coupled with our better players and higher budget than Swansea, would deliver promotion. Clubs hire managers based on what they think they could potentially achieve with the resources they have, not what they achieved in the past with another clubs players.

We didn't hire Adkins so we could sack him after two years, 15th in the Championship, neither did we expect Poch to hover around 14th in the PL because that's what he did at Espanyol, nor did we expect Ralph to take us to the Champions League.

Well your argument was that Adkins was some genius long term appointment when he achieved what what was expected of him then overachieved. 
 

Quite why you’re pretending that no one else other than you thinks Wilcox hired Martin to get promotion is a bit weird. The main point being Adkins had already done what he was hired to do, Martin hasn’t got anywhere near it

[Dark Munster]

We all know Wilcox/Ankersen hired Martin to get us promoted.

Thinking Martin, who had achieved the square root of f*ck all previously, was the right person makes Wilcox/Ankersen a pair of deluded twats.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

We all know Wilcox/Ankersen hired Martin to get us promoted.

Thinking Martin, who had achieved the square root of f*ck all previously, was the right person makes Wilcox/Ankersen a pair of deluded twats.

I don't think they did.

I think they hired him because of the 'system' that he has a blind faith in, which also matched their philosophy of how football should be played (BeCAusE MaNN CiTy something something) and therefore the 'system' would see us through to victory.

I don't think they really cared who they hired as long as they believed in the system.  It's like a weird cult.

 

[Fabrice29]

 

17 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

The point your missing is that we got exactly what research would have told you we would have got when appointing Martin ..

When we where looking at candidates for the job the only selling point Martin had was the possession stats and style of his football there was no success and nothing else  so yes i absolutely think his appointment was based on that 

if we was instead looking for a manager with multiple promotions you could have gone for a Neil warnock type but that’s no where near hipster enough for us 

 

9 hours ago, CB Fry said:

I'm not sure that "football club hires manager that they think will do well for them" is quite the killer insight you think it is.

The point is Nigel Adkins had a track record of delivering exactly the success that was required, while Russell Martin achieved fuck all anywhere at all.

 

There was lots of this chat last summer and it didn’t really make sense then and rarely ended with any realistic/inspiring names. You can now point to the highly experienced, however many promotions and not at all wedded to a possession based style, manager Enzo Maresca as an example too.

[CB Fry]

10 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

There was lots of this chat last summer and it didn’t really make sense then and rarely ended with any realistic/inspiring names. You can now point to the highly experienced, however many promotions and not at all wedded to a possession based style, manager Enzo Maresca as an example too.

What "summer" was this then?

The club approached Martin and Swansea etc in mid May, a couple of weeks before the season ended, Selles still in role.

You seem to be making up a phase with lots of speculation and names flying about but sorry, that didn't happen.

It was Martin before the relegation season had even finished at the end of May.

Edited April 28 by CB Fry

[Miltonaggro]

I think the most positive thing in such circumstances is to invoke the Eric Black defence. The current club malaise is clearly down to this dictatorial shortarse Mancunian chancer. A poundshop Napoleon who doesn’t even speak French! 

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

What "summer" was this then?

The club approached Martin and Swansea etc in mid May, a couple of weeks before the season ended, Selles still in role.

You seem to be making up a phase with lots of speculation and names flying about but sorry, that didn't happen.

It was Martin before the relegation season had even finished at the end of May.

Okay, last May and the subsequent summer. You can find all this from page 1 of the Russell Martin thread. It wasn’t speculation, just people posting how we should be going for someone with experience of getting promoted, and rarely actually coming up with any realistic/good names. 

[CB Fry]

53 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Okay, last May and the subsequent summer. You can find all this from page 1 of the Russell Martin thread. It wasn’t speculation, just people posting how we should be going for someone with experience of getting promoted, and rarely actually coming up with any realistic/good names. 

Mainly what it was was the usual forum routine of forum intelligentsia giving it "there no other candidate better than Russell Martin" and sneering at any other suggestion.

Whereas if we'd recruited someone else that manager would become the "there is no other candidate" person and the exact same people would be sneering at anyone suggesting Russell Martin instead.

Edited April 28 by CB Fry

[Miltonaggro]

13 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Mainly what it was was the usual forum routine of forum intelligentsia giving it "there no other candidate better than Russell Martin" and sneering at any other suggestion.

Whereas if we'd recruited someone else that manager would become the "there is no other candidate" person and the exact same people would be sneering at anyone suggesting Russell Martin instead.

It felt rather like the prelude and early days of the Nathan Jones debacle albeit with a more socially aware and less grating and irritating candidate. Terrifyingly, on paper Jones probably had the better CV in terms of relative success. These choices say much more about Sport Republic incompetence than fanbase tolerances and unreasonable expectations - and both the Board and their online fluffers need to accept this. Basic competence gets us back to the top division - where we had been for twelve years when they took over - consolidation comfortably keeps us there. Neither seem overly likely right now. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think they hired him to take us to mid table.
 

After a 24 game blip, he’s finally settled in & is starting to look like delivering. 

[Dark Munster]

7 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't think they did.

I think they hired him because of the 'system' that he has a blind faith in, which also matched their philosophy of how football should be played (BeCAusE MaNN CiTy something something) and therefore the 'system' would see us through to victory.

I don't think they really cared who they hired as long as they believed in the system.  It's like a weird cult.

 

I agree with all of that except that I’m sure they thought we’d go up with him, tippy tappying our way with their fantastic system to the PL and then Europe.

After which Rasmus could write another book on how brilliant he is. 

[hypochondriac]

7 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't think they did.

I think they hired him because of the 'system' that he has a blind faith in, which also matched their philosophy of how football should be played (BeCAusE MaNN CiTy something something) and therefore the 'system' would see us through to victory.

I don't think they really cared who they hired as long as they believed in the system.  It's like a weird cult.

 

I think a little of column A and a little of column B. They didn't just want promotion, they wanted a marketable identity and they wanted promotion so it isn't necessarily just the person who is most likely to get us promoted, they want us to go up in a particular way.