I wasn't surprised this week. It maybe came sooner than expected but those in charge have done what they've always done. They have no conviction to see through a plan. The worst part of it is they make this decision when the plan is actually following its most likely consequence. The point where it gets worse before it gets better, so we've done the hard part and never get to reap the rewards. This goes back to Hill. Develop young talent and bring in players that others don't want and improve them to either make the team better or generate more funds to bring in more quality. All on the lowest budget in the division. Most likely outcome? Relegation, surely. Hopefully not and we would outperform our budget by doing things differently. But if we did go down we'd be very well placed to come back up. Of course this wasn't part of the press release but had to be understood by the board as a very real possibility. If it wasn't then they genuinely are deluded. So, we do stay up first year and what happens? Knives are out and one third of the board want him sacked. Hill may well have imploded but what was going on behind the scenes? Look at Flickers quotes about putting out fires. My defence of Hill was always based on him being hung out to dry by the club for implementing their strategy. I'm convinced he was told to bring in the loan players in the panic that enveloped us in November 2012 (ie abandoning the plan), and his public meltdown was an outpouring of his frustration at all of the above. For what it's worth, IMO the strategy was absolutely spot on. The board just didn't have the stomach for what it was likely to involve. And then we stay up. Not through design or plan or strategy but through momentum and bunker mentality. So the summer comes and we stick with project break even? Nope. Well not according to the recently published accounts. We start to spend and still go down. So then the new plan emerges. Basically the same plan as we were sold in 2011, but with some more money chucked in. At least this time though it will be managed by a club legend who isn't as abrasive as Hill meaning he, and the plan, will be given more support by the fans. Using kids might result in a few knock backs, and the problems shipping out high wage earners over the summer means it will take longer to stabilise. All accepted by the vast majority of fans. Consolidation is the word. Except here we are again. Wilson gone and a press release making it clear the board actually expect instant success. I saw the warning signs when we brought Ramage in. It wasn't to cover injuries and was in a position in which the squad was strongest. It was a loan signing because we thought he was better than we'd already got which is fair enough. But it wasn't part of the strategy to not rely on loan signings and develop our own players and build for the future. It was because it was thought it would improve our chances of instant success. I'm past caring about who we sack and who we bring in. They'll soon be gone again. I'd do what I normally do and suggest Paul Tidsdale from Exeter. But what's the point. He's at a club that have a plan and don't deviate at the first sign of trouble and don't sack him automatically when relegation comes. He'll never get that here.
I disagree on the Ramage comment. I saw that as an important signing to supplement the plan. Look at how poor we were without experience in the side ....... even worse than the Swindon and Fleetwood debacles. I understand the frustration of the fans who believe we've pushed the button too early, or we're deviating from the plan. On the flip side though, the plan can stay the same regardless of who is in charge. Swansea and Southampton are fine examples of that in recent times. Lots of circumstances that made it difficult for Danny, but he built his own grave with some of his decisions. There were only 250+ at Swindon away, but it was awful. The tactics, starting line up, and substitutions were not that of a man sticking to a plan or a strategy. They were of a man who just wasn't cutting it. Again, Fleetwood was awful, because of individual decisions of the manager. We've been terrible for three months. The statement released from the club was shocking, but the decision to get rid of Danny wasn't. Great to have a three year plan, but that doesn't guarantee someone a job for that length of time. If the owner felt (like many fans did) that the manager wasn't capable of delivering it, then he was right to get shut.
In what way? Swansea elected for a certain strategy and way of playing football, and despite three or four manager changes continued with that same strategy? Southampton removed Adkins, much to the dismay of the entire football world, and look where they are now post Pochettino? They then replaced him with someone has the same vision, and they're continuing with the same strategy. Your reply was daft, not my comment.
I just felt Ramage was in a position we had enough experience. We should have been able to form a working centre half partnership from Cranie, Nyatanga, Mvoto, Brown, and Holgate in League One without a loan signing.
Brown appears to have been signed as a right back. I don't believe Danny ever rated M'voto, and I'm not sure Holgate we earmarked for the first team as quickly as he ended up playing. James Bree was the chosen right back to step in the early part of the season, and Holgate wasn't even a name anyone mentioned. See your point, but I think Ramage was brought in to help the strategy, as much through personality and experience than anything else.
What I would say about Swansea and Southampton is that they've appointed managers who play the same way and type of football meaning the players who remain can fit the new manager. I actually thought we had a vision when we approached O'Driscoll after Hill, but then we went for Butcher who played the complete opposite type of football
I think back to Hill' s sacking and with hindsight should have just let him be, we were hanging on by a thread anyway, and ultimately went down following season. My mate who supports a Sheffield club said "you should have stuck with big KEITH and and had ideal gaffer to start a fresh and work your way back up" I cant help but think that might not have been a bad move
I don't think Adkins and Pochettino have the same philosophy at all mate really. Pochettino is possibly one of the only managers in England who insists on the high pressing game, which isn't what Adkins was about. When he first came in there were a few jitters as it didn't all go according to plan. They did both believe in being well organised, compact, and in giving youth a chance. That's where the strategy bit comes in for me.
I agree but I can certainly see why he was sacked. But I think Hill's failures were symptomatic of the stuff behind the scenes.The role of the board should be to create an environment and atmosphere for the man they appoint to be successful. This is where we consistently fail and for me where the criticism should fall. I don't have any faith that any manager will be successful with us sadly.
