A Tale Of Two Managers

Personally, I liked Keith Hill. I liked the way he talked on the radio, I liked the way he talked to the press, I liked the way he tried to get the team playing. Even when he criticised the support, I knew that he did not really mean me. If he had had results as good as Flicker, he would have been a folk hero by now. But he didn't, and there lies the problem. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, what really counts in football is the size of the manager's budget. Sad but true. If Flicker fails to live up to the hype that he generated in the last half of last season, who will be the first on here who reminds everyone of the "Sidekick" jibe? Who will be the first to say that Flicker was part of the problem? Who will be the first to say, we need to change our manager. Because the only thing that separates Flitcroft from the same fate as Keith Hill is results, and if results change, how long before our fickle fans follow suit.

However, if Flitcroft can continue to sprinkle his fairy dust, and achieve success in spite of the budget, and in spite of having to sell his best players, what then .... Unfortunately, Flicker will be gone in three years whatever his results. If he fails, then the fans will turn on him, just as they turn on every manager who loses games. If he succeeds, he will be snapped up by somebody with far bigger pockets. Unfortunately, this is the end result when the club is determined to pursue a policy of minimising the down side, and hoping for the best.

 

It's irrelevant what Keith was planning to do. It's what he didn't do that resulted in his downfall.

 

Surely Flitcroft's performance has blown the budget argument out of the water.

 

I remember when we signed Andy Gray. My mate, a Burnley fan, said he'll be a top player for us so long as we play to his strength, ball in to his body/feet, he would hold it up, lay it off, bring people in to the game, and retain possession. From that point on I watched us smash the ball up to him at a height Peter Crouch would struggle to reach and everyone whinge at him for being crap.

 

Or validates Hill's policy of bringing in quality lower league players?

 

The long term relationship between budget and on the field performance has been studied and reported upon at length on the BBC web pages. Whilst it is possible to buck the trend over a short period, over the longer term, there is a relationship. The problem is that arbitrary time periods are selected which correspond to the dates of tenure of particular managers. These arbitrary short periods bear no relationship to the budget over those periods because they take no account of things like the strength of the squad at the date of the takeover, the augmentations of the long term budget for short term expediency, long term injuries and player sales. All these factors could affect the short term performance of the team, but in the longer term, these factors will even out. If you are saying that based upon 23 games in charge, Flitcroft is a success, then I think that you have nailed your colours to the mast too early. I supported Flitcroft to be our new manager from the day Hill left, but I will not class him as a success until has repeated his magic over a full season. That does not mean that I will be the first to turn on him either. In fact, I will probably be the last.

If the size of the budget was not a factor, then Man United would have the same chance of success as say Rochdale, and Van Persie would have no more right to score goals at the top level than say Dagnall, because transfer fees and players wages are the budget.

 

His best game was against Leeds under Robins.

Oh and he played under Keef didn't he?

 

Aye, upfront on his own, Butterfield, Vaz Te, Davies off him, right team.

This year we couldn't hold the ball up til Harewood clicked and o'grady arrived.

 

But I thought we booted the ball up to him for all his time here?!

 

Conan thou doth protest too much. Keith Hill living legend.

 

Sorry, meant until the messiah arrived