Adkins' terrible transfers

[Barney]

so come on then Barny, why were you on here at such an ungodly hour? Still up after a night on the lash, up early for a fishing match, on shifts?

I had actually written it earlier on, think it was saved as a draft on the post topic screen so posted it after getting in from a friends/ heavy night.

 

[Pedro Verde]

Adkins is the best manager we could have hoped for in our situation
Do you want him sacked after 11 games ?
Or would you perhaps give him a little longer than 4 months in the job

He hasn't done anything to prove he's better than Clough whilst he's been at this club though,.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Adkins is the best manager we could have hoped for in our situation
Do you want him sacked after 11 games ?
Or would you perhaps give him a little longer than 4 months in the job

Can't say I've seen anyone ask for Adkins to be sacked.

barnyblade sums up quite well:

"Had he signed 2 CB's as first priority, a CM and a striker afterwards, and all done relatively early, I wouldn't have criticised the manager one bit as he would have done all he's capable of to improve the shite we have. Any blame then would lie entirely with the board. But since he hasn't chose that path, he deserves the criticism he's been given."

 

[Bladesway]

Can't say I've seen anyone ask for Adkins to be sacked.

barnyblade sums up quite well:

"Had he signed 2 CB's as first priority, a CM and a striker afterwards, and all done relatively early, I wouldn't have criticised the manager one bit as he would have done all he's capable of to improve the shite we have. Any blame then would lie entirely with the board. But since he hasn't chose that path, he deserves the criticism he's been given."

Appears to me that all those gnashing their teeth are sat up all night thinking about it, 4.55 again? Uncanny. Perhaps they all gather round the back of a building somewhere to vent spleens and sacrifice a manager to the god of sackings.

Yes I'm joking before someone lies in wait to be offended.

 

[grafikhaus]

Whilst I don't argue the point you are making in essence what would it prove? My point for years has been we (and others) keep changing managers but players get away with murder week in, week out. What we actually need is to keep the manager and get rid of the players but that takes time and no one seems to think we have any of that. Look at the threads about Adkins already. Don't we think he is any good now? 3 months ago we were wanking into paper cups about how we had the best manager for the job and the last bloke was a tosser. When Clough arrived the bloke before was shite, the bloke before that and the bloke before that ad nauseum. Appears few people appear to realise the 11 blokes on the pitch generally are the ones who win you games week in week out, but while they are all getting fat pay cheques (even at this level) that keep them in a nice life with a nice car and house etc why would they really give a fuck?

These players on 2/3 year contracts know that we get through a manager every season so if they don't like this one another one is along in a minute. Amazing how many of them up their game when its the last year of their contract.

Just a thought.

So in other words United - and most other clubs - pursue the definition of insanity. It's an interesting point. Do football teams actually need a manager? Most clubs have a 'fitness coach', 'goalkeeping coach' etc. so a near-seven figure sum for basically pinning up the team sheet seems a bit excessive. (Plus the tiresome post-match interviews that he's 'disappointed' in those same players)

But, given that as a nation we're intent on preserving the status quo (and never winning a global sporting event ever again), what 'signs' should the lamentably useless interviewing board at United look for? A distinguished career as a player? Absolutely not. Almost all successful managers had indifferent playing careers. History is littered with 'great' players who failed to cut is as managers.

A long career as a manager? No. It always ends in the sack. Besides, the ridiculous sums these chancers are paid means that they're multi-millionaires, which means they're no longer...

...young and hungry. Guys like Flitcroft at Bury who can still remember the slings and arrows he faced every match, and how to counter them. That's the best option at our level.

Just my thoughts but, as Rodgers and Advocaat proved at the weekend (and the 64 clubs who sacked their manager in the top four divisions last season), maybe I'm on to something?

 

[Bladesway]

So in other words United - and most other clubs - pursue the definition of insanity. It's an interesting point. Do football teams actually need a manager? Most clubs have a 'fitness coach', 'goalkeeping coach' etc. so a near-seven figure sum for basically pinning up the team sheet seems a bit excessive. (Plus the tiresome post-match interviews that he's 'disappointed' in those same players)

But, given that as a nation we're intent on preserving the status quo (and never winning a global sporting event ever again), what 'signs' should the lamentably useless interviewing board at United look for? A distinguished career as a player? Absolutely not. Almost all successful managers had indifferent playing careers. History is littered with 'great' players who failed to cut is as managers.

A long career as a manager? No. It always ends in the sack. Besides, the ridiculous sums these chancers are paid means that they're multi-millionaires, which means they're no longer...

...young and hungry. Guys like Flitcroft at Bury who can still remember the slings and arrows he faced every match, and how to counter them. That's the best option at our level.

Just my thoughts but, as Rodgers and Advocaat proved at the weekend (and the 64 clubs who sacked their manager in the top four divisions last season), maybe I'm on to something?

This is pretty much my thinking and has been for some time. The manager is actually there as an anal holder for the splintered broom handle from fans and the board whenever things go wrong. Good coaches, now that's an entirely different argument.

 

[BushBlade]

So in other words United - and most other clubs - pursue the definition of insanity. It's an interesting point. Do football teams actually need a manager? Most clubs have a 'fitness coach', 'goalkeeping coach' etc. so a near-seven figure sum for basically pinning up the team sheet seems a bit excessive. (Plus the tiresome post-match interviews that he's 'disappointed' in those same players)

But, given that as a nation we're intent on preserving the status quo (and never winning a global sporting event ever again), what 'signs' should the lamentably useless interviewing board at United look for? A distinguished career as a player? Absolutely not. Almost all successful managers had indifferent playing careers. History is littered with 'great' players who failed to cut is as managers.

A long career as a manager? No. It always ends in the sack. Besides, the ridiculous sums these chancers are paid means that they're multi-millionaires, which means they're no longer...

...young and hungry. Guys like Flitcroft at Bury who can still remember the slings and arrows he faced every match, and how to counter them. That's the best option at our level.

Just my thoughts but, as Rodgers and Advocaat proved at the weekend (and the 64 clubs who sacked their manager in the top four divisions last season), maybe I'm on to something?

A lot of clubs have now gone down the Director of Football/Head Coach route. However, you still need a good DoF with a good support team behind him.
Do you really think we've got the capability within the current boardroom set up to find the next Dan Ashworth or Mark Warburton?
I'd like us to go down that route because if you get it right it can be very effective. But we should have done it when the Prince came on board, before we got Clough. Or, thought harder about sacking Clough and looked to set it up next time we changed manager. Because we sacked Clough in haste we didn't have time to do anything but go in for another manager.

Do you think Advocaat failed because he was old or because Sunderland are a car crash club who have changed their manager more frequently than us and appear to have no strategy whatsoever?

Do you think Rodgers was sacked because he's not 'hungry' or because he was a relatively inexperienced manager who was given a massive job too early and has been hampered by the sales of his best players, a transfer committee where he didn't have the final say on transfers and unrealistic expectations to get into the top four above clubs who are established in the top four and can afford to spend much more than Liverpool season on season?

Flitcroft might be the answer but he might be this year's Graham Westley or Steve Davis.