Rochdale and Bury

You can say what you like but they both seem to know what they are doing

And to simply say that they are operating at a lower level may be a bit patronising

There have been quite a few clubs that have shot up the leagues, season after season

So to simply decry Hill and Flitcroft seems unfair to me, as they may achieve the same

Hill was a public relations pillock. He deserves to manage Rochdale again. But watch where he ends up

Flitcroft - he takes great credit for what happened last season. But we would have gone down this eseason had he not been sacked.

I am not sure what strategies are applied, and the tactics etc depending upon which division you are in.

But I do not believe that a manager who has secured promotion for a team may be inclined to say that he has no experience in the next division up and thus tenders his resignation

There may be no more inexact science than being a football manager

 

It's an interesting one for sure, both have evidently made a huge impact on their respective clubs

 

Operating at a lower level it really is as simple as that I'm afraid. Sone are able to take the next step and some aren't. Hill failed. Flitcroft in the longer term failed.

 

when you say that Hill failed , what was the clubs target during his tenure ?

 

Retain Championship status

Season 1 = achieved

Retain Championship status as well as operating the new financial rules at least two years In advance of other clubs

Season 2 = Obviously we will never know, but it wasn't looking great.

To describe him as failed is wrong in my opinion. Failure would have been relegation in season 1 or failing to get promotion if we'd pumped 50m into club

 

His aim wasn't, presumably, to be the worst manager in our history. Pretty strange target if it was.

 

On my home watching a team managed by a proper manager so can't be arsed with all the Hill bollicks. Show me some actual statistics that show anything other than Hill being Barnsley's worst ever manager. Not your opinion or ifs and ands but actual facts based on results.

 

Flitcroft and Hill know League Two inside out so it's no surprise they're doing well. The problem they had with us is they tried to apply lower league principles to the Championship which was never going to work.

 

2012 - Hill oversaw one of our worst annual years that year. Rochdale through and through was Keith, still is. Couldn't even go without making our away kit the Rochdale colours. Should never have left Spotland imho. His tenure at Oakwell simply cannot be described as anything else but detrimental to Barnsley Football Club. So for that, he will always be regarded as a failure for me.

 

There may be more than a grain of truth in that

But it doesn't seem to explain Butterfield and McCourt and Vaz Te etc.

What were these principles? And if the principle of working your ******** off is wrong, then what were the other principles thet were missing?

Flitcroft had ouir lot working and believing and we stopped up.

What thus was "never going to work"?

He used a system, that was subsequently discarded this season

Lord knows why

Tell me what lower league principles they both applied, apart from shuffling in lower league players to kick off with

 

When your only scouting technique is signing Rochdale players, players who once played for Rochdale or players who had a good game against Rochdale you are always going to struggle.

Credit to Keith he gave a very talented lad in Butterfield a lot of confidence.

Good signing in Vaz Te. Making up for a lot of crap ones. Still handled him very badly often preferring Matty Done

Let's be honest who gives a **** anymore

In Danny we trust.

 

I find football management fascinating for that reason, it is largely an inexact science. There's so much more to it than just being "a good manager" (and whatever components make one up). A good/bad/indifferent - board, players, team spirit, chairman, support base, finance, youth players, scouting network, facilities, coaching staff etc. have to align to some greater degree to make an excellent team. But even that doesn't guarantee success - just ask Mr.Wenger.

Excellent Managers: They are few and far between. Ferguson, Mourinho, Shankley etc. all had the skills to shape winning teams. But they also have all of the above in order to help them.

Very good managers: Well known, have a good track record but never quite reach the 'excellent manager category. They might even have failures at clubs despite their reputation to turn around teams and improve them. Look at Martin O'Neill's record at Sunderland for instance. It doesn't make him a bad manager, but it's interesting to ponder what of the above factors meant he didn't have the relative success you might have imagined him to.

Decent Managers: Middle of the road, have relative success, relative failures, journey men who are well known to do a job but aren't going to win you promotions and trophies year on year. Sam Allerdyce might fall into this category as an example, Steve Bruce & Mark Hughes maybe two more examples... Danny Wilson on a relative basis might also fall into this, although given his success at smaller clubs you might say he is a very good manager....

Everyone else: Un-even records, some good some bad, chairman know what they can do and might employ them due to financial constraints etc.. Too many to mention.


For our club it's a bit of a lottery - and we can argue we've had bad managers in recent years, but they've not been bad enough on their own or combined with others in order to relegate us. So we can assume we've had better managers than many teams who have been relegated in our place. That's pretty good for a club running gates of about 10,000 people in a division where we have historically played most of our football, but in today's footballing financial climate have a decent chance of dropping out of.

 

I wanted Danny not because of his past record with us (although it's clearly a help he knows the club), or because i thought he'd definitely keep us up, or because i thought he'd get us promoted, but because he had the best skills and experience of those who were available to us. He was easily the best choice. But all of his experience doesn't mean he will be a success, even if we we re to be relegated. All that stuff above has to align with some lady luck - a good finish here, a brilliant save there. A goal line clearance, a poor referee decision. Football isn't often seen as a game of small margins, but they are everywhere.

 

Why do people keep posting about the previous managers, when all that happens is that the threads end up as massive arguments?

I know some people fail to see that the previous managers are just that PREVIOUS managers. They are no longer here because they ended up being just not good enough, it matters not one jot if you believe they wer unlucky or anything else, they have gone. End of story, leave them alone at their new clubs.

 

Aye that's the point isn't it? Did they fail? Aye obviously cos they were sacked.

 

Spot on...

 

Good submission

I do think that if managers are having the rug pulled from beneath their feet - Vaz tae, Butterfield. Stones etc. then what do people expect?

Better to have a team of earnest grafters - like Danny had when we went up - that nobody cherry picks half way through the season.

Hill was given a job without funds. Robins was not prepared to work without those funds. People do not understand that.

So what does he do in a higher league? He imports from lower leagues cos he has little choice. He gets Vaz Te and has to sell him. And he tells the world that if you have only peanuts (compared to others) then you'll get monkeys.

In that he is partly right. Hopefully

Cos if he's completely right then we are a perpetual Leauge 1 team

Danny has before congregated a bunch of players whose individual talent blossoms into a far greater team whole.

It has not happened before and it is far less likely to happen again

Survival in this league will be more of a miracle than last season

A home win and I will start believing

 

Robins never said he was not prepared to under those restrictions!! He said he wanted to reassess his options for moving forwards, yours is an argument made over and over by people that cannot accept Hill was not as good at the job of being Barnsley FC manager , as he told you he was ! Hill was quite happy to take the job on under those restrictions, then when he realised just how hard it was, continually bleated about not having the funds he said he didnt need, That is what some people do not understand!

Hill has gone, so has Flitcroft, no amount of moaning about how misunderstood they were is going to change that, I for one am glad Hill got the push , he made it a fecking chore to go to Oakwell and I really disliked Flitcroft personally, nothing to do with the job he did as manager.

 

He had no money boo hoo same as every other Barnsley manager.

He had to sell his best players boo hoo same as every other Barnsley manager.

The main difference between Keef and the rest is that he was worse than the rest.

I can't stand a ******* whinger.

 

So Robins was sacked whilst he was reassessing his options?