Another Blackwell Thread...

[shorehamview]

My solution would be for McCabe to say "I employed KB and I believe he is the man to take us forwards. To this ends he has the rest of the season to get the squad in the play offs as a minimum."

Stops the fans in their tracks because then we all know where we stand. Hopefully galvanises the team around the manager knowing he has the season to sort things out.

Blackwell knows what is expected of him and knows its public knowledge rather than a wink and a nod between the two of them.

Perhaps I am wanting something that will never happen, doesn't mean it isn't the right way forward though.

That's a pretty good idea. How many of us at work have targets set by our bosses, be it sales/production/timescale/whatever? And how many of us can expect an Interview Without Coffee (a bollocking) if those criteria haven't been met? I dare say there are those amongst us who have been bollocked or even sacked for failing to perform at work, so why should Blackwell, or indeed any manager be different. There are some chairmen who do say what's expected of their manager, why can't McCabe? And then of course act when the time period had elapsed?

 

[grafikhaus]

So my choice is keep him for the season, if we get in the top 6 he has done his job, if he doesn't then he goes.

And what if we're in the bottom 3 by May? That's the way it's going.

It's taken a few years of incompetence, but we've managed to be below Wednesday in the table. Years when we've had ample opportunities to leave them way behind.

 

[Grecian2000]

There are some chairmen who do say what's expected of their manager, why can't McCabe? And then of course act when the time period had elapsed?

The problem with that is that you can paint yourself into a corner.

If KM comes out and says "It's play offs or out" and then we go into the final game of the season needing a point for sixth but we end up with Mike "Cheating C*nt" Dean and he wrongly sends off a player or two and ignores stone wall penalty shouts and we end up missing out, what then? Do you stick to the letter of your original target, which would now seem harsh, or do you give him another chance which would then seem gutless?

I'm sure he should have targets (and not just financial ones) but I'm not sure all and sundry need to know what they are.

 

[alcoblade]

you have to consider that McCabe considered selling Beattie and buying Jamie Ward as investment. Now I for one supported that move, for financial reasons. I also think it paid off, as were were better without BT (controversial I know).

I don't think selling Beattie improved the team. Indeed, we fell out of the playoff places over the next few games. We improved when Sharp was dropped and Cotterill simultaneously reinstated. I am always surprised that more people don't acknowledge this, as there's a clear correlation between these changes and things improving.

And considering where we are now, I don't think it is fair to say that the move paid off.

But it's clear McCabe wasn't confident enough to sell it that way, so dressed it up as investment (or strengthening, or whatever). Clearly "investment" is a subjective term.

I don't think it was dressed up as anything other than a sale for financial reasons when the deal went through. It was called "reprofiling" in the press release issued at the time, but that was just a word they or their lawyers/accoutants plucked out of the air because saying outright you were selling for financial reasons was too unpalatable.

We have since been told, of course, by McCabe at the Q&A that we had to sell because Beattie's agent backed us into it.

It certainly aren't the main cause of our down turn, as still on paper we look strong.

There's no way the team looks as strong on paper as last seasons. 3 or 4 worse players in defence on any given week, no Halford in midfield (he's better than anyone else we have there now) and no Beattie up front.

Like it or not, overall this is a worse collection of players. Some of this is not the fault of the club (Naysmith, Kenny), but it's still true.

I can't remember the detail but I thought we were outside the play-off's at the time we sold Beattie. I'm even more sure that we picked up far more points per game (last season) without Beattie than with him. Personally I thought the balance with Beattie oin the side was wrong, and penalties aside he was far from prolificv that season. But interesting as these debates are, overall I was "happy" to sell because I thought paying >£2M per year to one player in the championship to be financial suicide, and had no confidence that he was taking us up.



This season there's clearly a can of worms to put right before be understand what's gone wrong. Whatever we all thought at the start, we've clearly gone backwards.


UTB

 

[Revolution]

I can't remember the detail but I thought we were outside the play-off's at the time we sold Beattie.

we were 4th when we sold him, and fell down to 7th 6 games later.

 

[alcoblade]

I can't remember the detail but I thought we were outside the play-off's at the time we sold Beattie.

we were 4th when we sold him, and fell down to 7th 6 games later.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of that one. But I am absolutely certain that we delivered a far higher points per game without him that with him. Judging after a bfew games without his is meaningless, surley you'd agree? I can clearly remember the criticism's of our performances with Beattie (for all sorts of reasons). He'd also barely outscored Stephen Quinn if you allowed for penalties.

There is no strong case to suggest keeping him would have delivered promotion.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

We did get more points without him than with him.

45 in 23 games without.
34 in 21 games with him starting
1 in 2 games with him as a sub.

I still maintain, however, that this improvement was despite selling Beattie, not because of selling him. Dropping Sharp so you had 2 forwards who might score, as opposed to 1 who might and one who won't, and putting the only man in the squad who can cross the ball back in the side were the big differences for me. Also, the defence was fabulous - that's the main reason we finished 3rd, of course.

As for this he only just outscored Quinn stiff, I'd check who won most of the peanlties if I were you. And Quinn managed the grand total of 1 more goal - against a 9 man Cardiff - after Beattie was sold.

 

[alcoblade]

We did get more points without him than with him.

45 in 23 games without.
34 in 21 games with him starting
1 in 2 games with him as a sub.

I still maintain, however, that this improvement was despite selling Beattie, not because of selling him. Dropping Sharp so you had 2 forwards who might score, as opposed to 1 who might and one who won't, and putting the only man in the squad who can cross the ball back in the side were the big differences for me. Also, the defence was fabulous - that's the main reason we finished 3rd, of course.

As for this he only just outscored Quinn stiff, I'd check who won most of the peanlties if I were you. And Quinn managed the grand total of 1 more goal - against a 9 man Cardiff - after Beattie was sold.

you might be right about beattie. You might not be. I've been sidetracked from my overall point that I was happy to sell because I think we were paying silly money, and for that there was an open debate about exactly what he was delivering.

The other point just reinforces my point. Quinn isn't nearly prolific, yet was all but matching beattie at that point in time, penalties aside.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

My take on it is that as the seasons pass, and we stay in this division (or drop below it) for another 10-12 year stretch, we'll look back on last year as our best chance to make it back, and selling our best striker will come to be seen by more people as a bad decision. We'll see.

And there were other forwards who Quinn was actually outscoring who I'd have shifted before Beattie.

 

[alcoblade]

My take on it is that as the seasons pass, and we stay in this division (or drop below it) for another 10-12 year stretch, we'll look back on last year as our best chance to make it back, and selling our best striker will come to be seen by more people as a bad decision. We'll see.

And there were other forwards who Quinn was actually outscoring who I'd have shifted before Beattie.

I think you're right, it will have been our best chance. Sadly we can't pay 'em in washers. The "other forwards" weren't earning upwards of two million pounds per year. I think the club were spooked by Beattie's injury in the closed season. A repeat could have seen him sitting out his contract with us then recieving no fee and paying his wages for a further year and a half - that makes it a £6M decision - and rightly or wrongly we took the cash.

My original point is that we tried to pin the sale as a strengthening measure and it wasn't (so we agree here). I personally think we ended up better without and could almost foresee that being the case, but it's a side issue. I wanted the club to be honest and sell it to as as the financial necessity that it was.

UTB

 

[Ollessendro]

It is not as clear cut as you make out Revolution. Beattie's last game was Charlton at home on 28th of December. We jumped from 9th to 6th that game. The next game was Norwich, which we won 1-0 and jumped to 4th. However BT did not play. He was still at the club, so technichally you are right. However in his last game we were flirting with/just inside the play offs. He left on 13th of Jan, so he was still a player when we jumped to 4th place by beating Norwich on the 11th. I think you purely stating that we were in 4th when BT left (without any context) is a little misleading.

I think Alco has a point regardless of the above. There is no strong case that BT would have fired us up to the premiership. I agree with this statement. It is all ifs and buts.

 

[Revolution]

It is not as clear cut as you make out Revolution. Beattie's last game was Charlton at home on 28th of December. We jumped from 9th to 6th that game. The next game was Norwich, which we won 1-0 and jumped to 4th. However BT did not play. He was still at the club, so technichally you are right. However in his last game we were flirting with/just inside the play offs. He left on 13th of Jan, so he was still a player when we jumped to 4th place by beating Norwich on the 11th. I think you purely stating that we were in 4th when BT left (without any context) is a little misleading.

that's a fair point, though I made my observation in response to alcoblade saying we were outside the playoffs when he wnet, which wasn't true before or after the Norwich game.

As a matter of interest, to what do you attribute United's improvement after the Pigs home defeat?

I see what you say about there not being a strong case that no sale = promotion. No one can know. But my starting point was, and remains, that teams in the promotion hunt should not sell their best players unless liquidation would otherwise result. I am far from convinced that was the case.

 

[TonyAgana]

teams in the promotion hunt should not sell their best players unless liquidation would otherwise result. I am far from convinced that was the case.

Given our current plight, I'm not convinced having him on the wage bill would've helped!

 

[Ollessendro]

I think a lot of it came from Coterill. Hea really added an extra dimension to our game and was instrumental in a lot of our home games. Of course the defence was a major part also. Killa and Morgan had already struck up a good partnership and this was to get better and better. I've actually argued the other way and said that selling BT was a good move. The team seemed to play more as a unit after he went. Almost like they thought, we'll show everyone we are still good enough without the glamerous BT.

So to summarise Revolution, I think it was a mixture of things. In this order.

a) continued solid defence
b) Coterill coming into the team and hitting form
c) luck
d) players gelling and working harder as a team

....... e) possibly Blackwell startd to learn from his mistakes. I seem to remember (at least a few) home games where we didn't worry about opposition and played to our strengths. This wasn't ahppening earlier in the season. He adapted his tactics to the opposition.

 

[alcoblade]

^^^^

what he said.

UTB

 

[Grecian2000]

The one thing I would add here is that I too thought that Cotts being given a few starts made the big difference. How much bigger might it have been had we still have had BT on the end of his crosses though?

 

[Ollessendro]

The one thing I would add here is that I too thought that Cotts being given a few starts made the big difference. How much bigger might it have been had we still have had BT on the end of his crosses though?

I wouldn't argue with your 1st point.

As for your 2nd ..... well how long is a piece of string??? How many of his crosses could Rob Hulse (best striker at the lane since Deane with the possible exception of Fjortoft IMO) have got onto if we hadn't sold him? Would the results have been the same without Henderson in the team?? Would jamie Ward have featured in any of the games (or even been signed) had we not sold BT??? Would BT have ever signed for us if Rob Hulse hadn't have broken his leg and we hadn't gone down and Warnock had not left. Would the Republic of Ireland have done better with Roy Keane in the team had he not spat his dummy out in 2002???? Would England have qualified and gone ono win the World Cup in 1994 if a) when Platt was fouled we'd been given a penalty, b) Koeman had been (rightyl) sent off (hence he couldn't have scored the winner), c) that Geordie wanker hadn't hit Gazza outside a night club and injured him further and d) had Romario and Bebeto (and Cafu and Leanorado for good measure) both been knocked down by buses on their way to joining the Brazil squad?????? If's and buts. Impossible to tell. Certainly not clear cut. Alco states in in an abover post. There is no clear and strong argument as to why we would have done better with BT in the team!!!?

 

[Grecian2000]

"Would England have qualified and gone ono win the World Cup in 1994 if a) when Platt was fouled we'd been given a penalty, b) Koeman had been (rightyl) sent off (hence he couldn't have scored the winner), c) that Geordie wanker hadn't hit Gazza outside a night club and injured him further and d) had Romario and Bebeto (and Cafu and Leanorado for good measure) both been knocked down by buses on their way to joining the Brazil squad??????"

Now I know the others are all debatable, but if you come up with any other answer than NO to this then it would mean Graham Taylor as a World Cup winning manager. Time to find another sport to follow if that'd ever happened.

 

[Ollessendro]

Swiss, I am intersted. Can you find me a better sample than 252 Blades fans who voted on a forum (surveyed) which shows evidence of United fans backing Blackwell?

FAO Swiss Blade.

Swiss, never mind all this happy clapping, red and white spectacle cheering of our current circumstances I'm still waiting for you to answer a question of mine from some time back .......