D
Deleted member 18477
Guest
Should never have sacked Mick McCarthy. He would have got them up again from the championship. Now look at them
Gutted...
Much as I agree with the sentiment (and believe in loyalty to the manager) it's difficult to ignore that it's not always correct. Look at Chelsea for example, they've burnt through managers but, at the same time, have won everything going.
I don't like it but it's doesn't seem to have hindered them all that much.
It's different when you talk about the very wealthiest clubs in the world. Money isn't an issue at Chelsea, and it doesn't matter who is in charge of the team, they can sign pretty much anyone they want as there are literally only about 6 clubs who can compete with them world-wide.Much as I agree with the sentiment (and believe in loyalty to the manager) it's difficult to ignore that it's not always correct. Look at Chelsea for example, they've burnt through managers but, at the same time, have won everything going.
I don't like it but it's doesn't seem to have hindered them all that much.
Much as I agree with the sentiment (and believe in loyalty to the manager) it's difficult to ignore that it's not always correct. Look at Chelsea for example, they've burnt through managers but, at the same time, have won everything going.
I don't like it but it's doesn't seem to have hindered them all that much.
Indeed - it always amazes me how quickly you see fans shout for the manager to be sacked ( and there are a few like that on here ) yet the most successful clubs are the ones that don't keep sacking their managers.
The trouble is that you have to find the right manager first- persevering with the wrong one won't get you anywhere. In hindsight they probably know they shouldn't have sacked Mick McCarthy.
Quite. It was quite obvious that Gus's only real flaw was not being able to pick a quality striker. He now seems to have solved that. Actually, the only other thing that ever grates is the way he handles criticism - "ees no' problem, I can always go home or sit on the beach if you don' like ee".That's why, going back a few weeks, I really couldn't believe the idiots suggesting Gus should go.
Indeed - it always amazes me how quickly you see fans shout for the manager to be sacked ( and there are a few like that on here ) yet the most successful clubs are the ones that don't keep sacking their managers.
20 Points from 20 games is reason enough for him to get the bullet - with hindsight, they probably should have stuck with Solbakken.
Wolves are a big club but anyone coming in has a very tough job. Players like Johnson, O'Hara and Doyle are on wages that could cripple the future of the club. Until they are got rid off, I can't see them finding it that easy to rebuild.
Quite. It was quite obvious that Gus's only real flaw was not being able to pick a quality striker. He now seems to have solved that. Actually, the only other thing that ever grates is the way he handles criticism - "ees no' problem, I can always go home or sit on the beach if you don' like ee".
Now they just need to appoint a third ex-Albion player to manage them to their third relegation !
I don't mind the attitude of looking at the bigger picture, but it's a fine line between making that point and giving the impression that you're not all that bothered.Am I in a minority for actually liking that about Gus? I'm so tired of the usual sanitized gubbins being trotted out by managers who receive criticism. As far as I see it, if you want a manager with passion (and Gus has it in abundance) then you get an emotional response to the negatives as well. Obviously you can take it too far (e.g. Di Canio) but I want him to openly react to the highs and lows of the fans' response, not pretend not to notice it. I never want a jelly-mold suited FA clone managing Brighton.
Or are the successful clubs the ones that don't need to sack their manager? I've always been a bit puzzled by the claim that not sacking the manager has made clubs successful.