So you sack keith Hill

...on the basis that he might take us down.

The first point, whether it was higher or not under Robins, is that it is pretty much accepted that our budget (owing to attendances and being the only club in the league choosing to run themselves properly and not at a loss) is one of the lowest in the league. That is why the bookies made us favourites to go down again. So really what you are asking Keith Hill, or any other manager we appoint, is to over achieve. This is based on actual studies that have shown that the wages paid (not transfer fees) have a direct correlation to success on the field.

The second point is, are you sacking him because you agree that we should be trying to play passing football but he is failing to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal? Or that you think we should play a more direct style? This is directly going to influence the type of manager with which you look to replace him. Are you simply happy to do whatever it takes season on season to stay up, or do you want a manager who is trying to implement a style of football which becomes ingrained in the club and future youth teams? Surely the board were sold on the latter vision as being the long term future or they wouldn’t have appointed Hill.

Thirdly, are you prepared to stick with any new manager if we get relegated. Are you just looking for a short term appointment to create a run of results that keeps us up? Or someone for the long term who will be allowed to build again from League One. What manager would consider taking the job without assurances that they wouldn’t be sacked if we go down, given it isn't their team?

Finally, how does sacking the manager deal with any of the actual issues at play, that even if they do keep us up then come next season whoever is in place will have the same odds stacked against them as Hill does now. Do you sack them next December if we are on a bad run and give someone else another go.

All of these are the kind of issues that seem to be ignored when people say they want Hill sacked. I can’t see how given the above we can sack a manager on the premise that we might as well give someone else a go, which represents a complete lack of strategy. Fair enough if there is a cohesive long term plan which underpins sacking the current manager who is one win away from a position that would acheive his given remit, but I can't see what that would be. I certainly can't see how you would come up with it mid-season without an extending period of a caretaker manager. And who would that even be?

 

The people who want Hill sacked are not interested in logic, they are not interested in reasons (which they see as excuses). They just want to see the team winning and everything else is invention in order to justify their belief. As I have said elsewhere, those who want Hill (and his staff) sacked are people who cannot think of a better way to waste £250K.

 

Mido.

 

Good post that and goes a long way to explain why (in my opinion) sacking Hill would be counter productive. Like Dyson said we're doing it 'the hard way'. But it's more than that, it's the only way. The club has to stand on it's own two feet and a long term managerial strategy is key to that.

One minor quibble re. "What manager would consider taking the job without assurances that they wouldn’t be sacked if we go down, given it isn't their team?" There's plenty of managers out of work currently and many more keen to get started. Despite of the drawbacks (financial backing, pressure, league position etc etc ) I still think the managers job would be attractive to candidates. Although I happen to think we've got a pretty decent candidate already in place.

 

Some good points there Ark, but can I ask you, at what point would you start to consider that he had 'failed' and get rid of him?

Or do you think, because we are skint, hence your assumption that no other manager could do any better on our budget, that we should stick with him, even if we keeping heading downhill towards League1/2/Conference?

 

My whole logic around it is he's doing an average job. He's got a side in the bottom 6 of the budget league in the bottom 6. We're playing decent stuff, I enjoy watching us and I like the fact we're doing it the proper way. If he was fantastic we'd be top 6. If he was **** we'd be bottom.

We've had a bad run but we've played a lot of good teams. There are a lot of good teams in this league but I think we've got enough to stay up and he needs until the end of the season to try and do that. If we go down, you re-evaluate and decide if he's the best man on offer.

 

I personally would stick with him to the end of the season on the basis that replacing him doesn't guarantee success, we are not yet cut adrfit from other teams, there isn't going to be any new money for a new manager to spend in January, and if we do become cut adrfit then what chance does a new manager have anyway? I would also add that the team showed enough in the early part of the season and since the new players have come in to suggest we are capable of winning football matches.

Given Hill is on a rolling contract then an informed decision can be taken at that point without costing any money. Should we get relegated (I don;t think we will but if we do so be it, there isn't a club in this division who's fans would be happy if we finished above them given our budget) I think the fact that we are well run club would allow us to challenge for promotion and whoever is in the job would need to do so. Whether that should be the manager who has taken you down would depend on the manner in which you had gone down and how you view the context of the relegation. Of the relegated teams last year all three kept their managers. One is doing very well, one was sacked with his team struggling and the other was perceived to be doing a good enough job to be offered the Blackpool role.

My main point would be that appointing a new manager is only likely to be successful long term if it is a well thought out process in which you are not limiting the candidates who would be interested. I think given the lack of new funds and the fact that we would have just sacked our manager who is only three points off of his season long remit would not make us an attractive option for a quality manager.

 

Who would be caretaker manager ronnie Branson or mark burton and how long would we have to wait for a new manager personally think hills football has been good just don't put chances away

 

An interesting post and good points made.

My view has shifted quite a lot in recent weeks. And it's not so much to do with the attempted style of football completely, but more the demeanour and attitude of the manager himself.

I think if we'd got thumped at Leicester and against Wednesday there could have been a perfect storm and he could have gone. The liklihood is much less now I reckon.

But what has dissappointed me is his attitude to defeats. Last season I thought he had a bad hand losing RVT, Butterfield and Drinkwater and having to patch up with loans.

I thought we had a workmanlike small squad with little talent and limited creativity which is why we sank like a stone.

This time around we have a squad bigger than Leicesters and most others, we've 33 players who have made an appearance for us or have been on the bench at some stage (even if unused) and thats way too big.

Our early season success was based on a lot of retention, patience and familiarity of the team playing most games, even if they werent normally first choice. But in recent weeks, as the back end of last season, we're changing formation and personnel like its going out of fashion.

Hill is criticising players for lack of quality and replacing them with short term loans who arent match fit and there seems a strong indication they won't be staying past the first week of Jan.

Hill's comments are getting more and more contradictory and if I were a player, let alone a fan... I could be seen to lose faith.

There's also a casual abandonment of players he's touted as quality and developing assets. Whether you agree or not, the way he has treated many in this squad is poor, and can't be doing squad harmony a great deal of good.

My disappointment is the feeling that he's going away from a central strategy i thought was good for the club medoum term, but he's lost patience with his own approach and rather than developing players, all of which he has signed, that will have to wait as we flood the team with players with little match fitness who want to stay with their clubs in most instances.

What is most concerning for me is that we have a huge squad. Huge. I can't recall us having such a big squad. Instead of 33, what if he'd gone for 22, or even 25. We could have had the same budget but just got a better quality.

At present it seems Hill is more fascinated with ensuring the opposition manager cant guess the line up and formation ahead of the game, the better Barnsley teams have been based on understanding, hard working and being set up the best way they can be. Chopping and changing is almost inevitable in such a big squad and still, it seems he wants to keep recruiting.

It feels bizarre and smacks of the Machin years when he chopped and changed and rotated formations til we ended up with 4 up front (althought that did include John Pearson!)

Having said that... a simple win could make a huge difference, I think the manager and players need that shot in the arm and we could well go on a run.

I wouldn't change the manager at this time... but I feel he's making it an easier decision for the board to remove him through his words and actions.

 

Think there's some valid arguments in there too. I think Hill is feeling the pressure and hasn't handled it brilliatnly. That said I think he has been very unlucky with key injuries that disrupted us at a crucial time, but more importantly he has been under huge pressure from a number of fans to drop players and has maybe cracked under that. I also think some players have let him down and he has had to replace them.

I do think it is Hill's strategy to deflect attention from the players performances on to himself and this has backfired because he's struggled to deal with it. BUT I don't believe that anyone else would necessarily have done any better

 

I agree with much of that.

 

Can't argue with much of that mate, my views are very much as put by DannyWilsonslovechild - in general terms I'm not happy with him because the results have been very poor overall in 2012, and I'm quite frustrated by some of the things he does, particularly all this chopping and changing of players and formations almost every match, but I still somehow have this belief that he's got more chance of turning it around (given that he has brought most of our squad to the club now) than a 'cheap' replacement would have. I really hope he does because the prospect of League 1 football again does not fill me with any joy at all!!

 

Oh I don't know, I get the distinct impression Wednesday fans much prefered League One!!! Only joking though, I agree, this is the place to be and hopefully Hill can keep us up.

 

Yes I understand the idea that nobody will want the job, and lets face it who will want to join a two bid club like ours. BUT, does this mean that Keith should be allowed to keep his job when we're losing games almost every single week ?

I think a change of manager at this stage of the season is/will be a massive gamble, but we ARE going down right now under Hill and a massive decision has got to be made very very soon.

 

I would have made a change after the Watford game I still believe the next few games are crucial, the last few seasons have shown that we have has struggled with form in the second half of the season but we have had enough points to survive. Will changing our Manager turn this around who knows! but its a very difficult situation we find ourselves in because the points ain't there this time around.

In my opinion if a Manager is successful and gets the opportunity to move up the ladder does he turn around and say I'm staying put because this club requires stability or does he think of his own interests?

 

Not many folk on here want him sacked. The majority wanted to give him a while longer, and a fair amount wanted him at least until the end of the season.
Only a handful want him out right now.
I posted the poll last week, and I went with the option of "lose the next 2 games and I'd like to see a change"
We drew at Leicester, and I expect us to beat Fritzl FC, so he's now got until January for me, to end this embarrassing run that stretches back to the Jurassic period I think.

 

As usual I agree YT. One point though, I don't want to see Hill sacked, I am disillusioned but I hope he can turn it around however if we don't beat the dee dars I think the relationship with the fans will be at breaking point. I'm all for giving him a fair chance but this winless run and the form of the team generally since January is enough to have seen many managers sacked already.

 

If BFC get relegated, BFC will not challenge for promotion next season.

 

We aren't playing decent stuff often enough, unless you consider three yard passing, usually backwards, to be "decent".

I've never been as bored watching us to be honest.

 

"we're playing decent stuff"

jesus feckin wept