You know it’s a grim state of affairs…

[kent-blade]

…when your second in charge is a man who walks around like a serious real-life person, whilst other people who are walking around like they’re actual real-life people are referring to him, without a hint of irony, as “Rhino”.


I have to hand in a 10,000 word dissertation in on Friday, and it’s worryingly bad shape. I was going to write a long analogous post on this forum about my experience of writing it – how it seemed fine when I had a lot of solid research, but no flair, and that somewhere along the road I lost my way. I was going to write about how I overheard a slimy business-studies student in the library advocating those large cans of energy drink instead of coffee to help tackle the work, only to take his advice and find that despite giving me an immediate sugar rush - it wasn't long before I crashed pretty badly, and found myself in my current predicament. I was even going to end with the line “anyway, condescending and forced analogies aside…” before getting to my main point, to let me off the hook for being a prick. Yes, I was going to write all of this, but the whole Sheffield United situation at the moment is just so turgid I simply can’t be bothered. Plus, I should really be getting back to my dissertation.

Anyway, patronising, self-referential, postmodern bollocks aside…

The problem with hiring Morgan was the message it sent out. Not only did we turn to a manager to produce an immediate response, which usually lays the foundations for a deeply un-fulfilling bi-polar pattern for the foreseeable future of the club, we turned to one who in absolutely no way you could describe as a unique or progressive in any dimension.
Chelsea obviously have the same approach. I imagine Roman Abramovic has a sacking app on his iPhone, similar to Angry Birds and, as each of his ‘executionees’ eventually find out, the message learned is much the same as that from the popular game – the king pig always wins. As a result Chelsea are constantly in flux, a glance at the last two seasons perfectly demonstrates their un-doubtable potential for success yet similar capacity to underachieve and do their best to prise the “paradigm for instability” award from the Blackburn Rovers’ owner’s desperate grip. More recently Liverpool have done the same, three managers in quick succession. Whilst Chelsea can afford to always have the chance to compete for titles on the back of a constant wave of world class signings arriving for herculean pricetags, and the stimulus of never ending new-manager syndrome (sort of like the football club equivalent of a millionaire coke addict) – financially Liverpool find that when applying the cut-throat approach they can only afford to sit just outside the top six and sign the detritus left behind by the heavyweights as they go off on another bender. They seem to have realised this, and I don’t think they’ll see Brendan Rodgers leaving any-time soon.
The benefits of stability are fast becoming another tedious footballing cliché. Moyes at Everton, Wenger at Arsenal etc. etc. Like most of the bullshit and hypocritical opinions on Match of the Day, the ‘stability is good argument’ is said with the bullish conviction of a man who hasn't given up on life, but is betrayed by [INSERT PUNDIT]’s vacuous, dead stare. Of course, it isn’t as simple as that – simply not sacking the manager is not stability, and you do have to get the right individual for the job (a predicament that naturally lends itself to self-doubt and therefore, potential instability). However, I’m sure most would agree – if the circumstances are correct, amongst its many benefits, stability increases a team’s capacity to overachieve which brings in more money and gradually hauls them up through the footballing strata.

Back to United. When Morgan was hired I despaired at what seemed obvious: that he would take us up, get the full-time job on this merit, before going on to lose his job halfway through the next season on similar grounds that Wilson lost his – cue the next angry northerner who embodies all of our apparent values at the lane (battling values like ‘determination’, ‘desire’, ‘passion’. Values that also lend themselves to, say, murder). However, instead it’s even worse than that! He’s not even given us a lift.
I don’t know where McCabe picked this blow up, but it’s bad shit, man.

Out of interest, in the situation we are in now – would you rather Chris Morgan or Danny Wilson?

 

[Kev Gee]

TBH i dont think sacking Wilson has made a diffrence. We may have lost the Swindon match & picked 3 up at Portsmouth. The end result is the same. Play Off Failure.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

Ah, but the question is; given that we're in the play-offs (and I agree it's where we would have been with Wilson) would you rather have Wilson in charge or Morgan?

It's a question I've been mulling over too. I think on balance we'd be more likely to win the play-offs with Wilson in charge. I think experience is a big factor for managers in games as big as these, and that Wilson would have kept his nerve. We'd have been dull - indescribably dull - but we might just have sneeked though on away goals in the semis and a break-away goal in a strong defensive performance in the final. The odds were against it, but it's possible.

With Morgan I feel a little less hopeful. All things being equal the chances of winning the play-offs are 25% anyway, so predicting play-off failure is an easy business. However, I struggle to see what the strategy's going to be really. With Wilson I'd feel that he had a plan - however mind-numbing - based upon significant experience. With Morgan...not sure. Perhaps a barn-storming approach at home, in line with the Swindon and Brentford games, and then a polite reminder to the players that until recently they seemed to know how to play away from home, and perhaps they'd like to go back to whatever Wilson used to tell them to do, and follow that.

Then Wembley...um...any ideas?

 

[blade too long]

Stability ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Football_League_managers
length of service
get past top 21 managers out of 92 and 24 months is long service medal time
75 % of league clubs have managers under 2 years in the job
54 of 92 league managers have been there under a year 60%

stability must be over rated

 

[JohnDenver]

Stability ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Football_League_managers
length of service
get past top 21 managers out of 92 and 24 months is long service medal time
75 % of league clubs have managers under 2 years in the job

You can have stability from above the level of first team manager.

Swansea and West Brom. Both have changed managers at regular intervals but the clubs continue along similar lines across each change. Our board are incapable of grasping that. Their serial gambling on random managers and methods is driving the club deeper into debt and footballing obscurity.

Given our owner's financial concerns, the real irony is that putting this small thing right wouldn't be expensive....

 

[Bergen Blade]

…
When Morgan was hired I despaired at what seemed obvious: that he would take us up, get the full-time job on this merit, before going on to lose his job halfway through the next season on similar grounds that Wilson lost his – cue the next angry northerner who embodies all of our apparent values at the lane (battling values like ‘determination’, ‘desire’, ‘passion’. Values that also lend themselves to, say, murder).

When we have changed managers the last we have usually also tried to change our style, putting it very simplistically:

Bassett LONG
Kendall SHORT
(Kendall then turned to LONG)
Spackman SHORT
Thompson LONG
Bruce SHORT
Heath SHORT
Warnock LONG
Robson SHORT
Blackwell LONG
Speed SHORT
Adams LONG
Wilson SHORT
Morgan LONG (?)


In bold are the managers who have been hired in the summer, when the club had some time to make a considered appointment on which direction they wanted us to take, i.e. they ideally want someone who will try to get us playing an 'attractive', passing style. When that's been unsuccessful we've gone for someone who are thought to be more direct, sacrificing attractivity for effectivity.

Exceptions to the rule are Kendall and Speed, but both had quite a bit of time left of their first seasons to get things right. Both also succeeded managers who the board had gradually become tired of.

Based on this our next manager will be someone with at least a reputation of playing short/passing football.

 

[Gavlar]

When we have changed managers the last we have usually also tried to change our style, putting it very simplistically:

Bassett LONG
Kendall SHORT
(Kendall then turned to LONG)
Spackman SHORT
Thompson LONG
Bruce SHORT
Heath SHORT
Warnock LONG
Robson SHORT
Blackwell LONG
Speed SHORT
Adams LONG
Wilson SHORT
Morgan LONG (?)


In bold are the managers who have been hired in the summer, when the club had some time to make a considered appointment on which direction they wanted us to take, i.e. they ideally want someone who will try to get us playing an 'attractive', passing style. When that's been unsuccessful we've gone for someone who are thought to be more direct, sacrificing attractivity for effectivity.

Exceptions to the rule are Kendall and Speed, but both had quite a bit of time left of their first seasons to get things right. Both also succeeded managers who the board had gradually become tired of.

Based on this our next manager will be someone with at least a reputation of playing short/passing football.

interesting stuff bergs. for me i couldnt give a monkies whether we play it long or short, as long as we win and show some passion and desire. probably why i loved the bassett and warnock eras, im a simple man to please!

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

When we have changed managers the last we have usually also tried to change our style, putting it very simplistically:

Bassett LONG
Kendall SHORT
(Kendall then turned to LONG)
Spackman SHORT
Thompson LONG
Bruce SHORT
Heath SHORT
Warnock LONG
Robson SHORT
Blackwell LONG
Speed SHORT
Adams LONG
Wilson SHORT
Morgan LONG (?)


In bold are the managers who have been hired in the summer, when the club had some time to make a considered appointment on which direction they wanted us to take, i.e. they ideally want someone who will try to get us playing an 'attractive', passing style. When that's been unsuccessful we've gone for someone who are thought to be more direct, sacrificing attractivity for effectivity.

Exceptions to the rule are Kendall and Speed, but both had quite a bit of time left of their first seasons to get things right. Both also succeeded managers who the board had gradually become tired of.

Based on this our next manager will be someone with at least a reputation of playing short/passing football.

Very interesting post. I'm with Gavlar when it comes to personal preferences - the Bassett and Warnock eras were great. There's something satisfying about beating technically superior teams with sheer will and passion, and the press hating it. I'd imagine that makes me a neanderthal or something...

 

[louthblade]

…when your second in charge is a man who walks around like a serious real-life person, whilst other people who are walking around like they’re actual real-life people are referring to him, without a hint of irony, as “Rhino”.


I have to hand in a 10,000 word dissertation in on Friday, and it’s worryingly bad shape. I was going to write a long analogous post on this forum about my experience of writing it – how it seemed fine when I had a lot of solid research, but no flair, and that somewhere along the road I lost my way. I was going to write about how I overheard a slimy business-studies student in the library advocating those large cans of energy drink instead of coffee to help tackle the work, only to take his advice and find that despite giving me an immediate sugar rush - it wasn't long before I crashed pretty badly, and found myself in my current predicament. I was even going to end with the line “anyway, condescending and forced analogies aside…” before getting to my main point, to let me off the hook for being a prick. Yes, I was going to write all of this, but the whole Sheffield United situation at the moment is just so turgid I simply can’t be bothered. Plus, I should really be getting back to my dissertation.

Anyway, patronising, self-referential, postmodern bollocks aside…

The problem with hiring Morgan was the message it sent out. Not only did we turn to a manager to produce an immediate response, which usually lays the foundations for a deeply un-fulfilling bi-polar pattern for the foreseeable future of the club, we turned to one who in absolutely no way you could describe as a unique or progressive in any dimension.
Chelsea obviously have the same approach. I imagine Roman Abramovic has a sacking app on his iPhone, similar to Angry Birds and, as each of his ‘executionees’ eventually find out, the message learned is much the same as that from the popular game – the king pig always wins. As a result Chelsea are constantly in flux, a glance at the last two seasons perfectly demonstrates their un-doubtable potential for success yet similar capacity to underachieve and do their best to prise the “paradigm for instability” award from the Blackburn Rovers’ owner’s desperate grip. More recently Liverpool have done the same, three managers in quick succession. Whilst Chelsea can afford to always have the chance to compete for titles on the back of a constant wave of world class signings arriving for herculean pricetags, and the stimulus of never ending new-manager syndrome (sort of like the football club equivalent of a millionaire coke addict) – financially Liverpool find that when applying the cut-throat approach they can only afford to sit just outside the top six and sign the detritus left behind by the heavyweights as they go off on another bender. They seem to have realised this, and I don’t think they’ll see Brendan Rodgers leaving any-time soon.
The benefits of stability are fast becoming another tedious footballing cliché. Moyes at Everton, Wenger at Arsenal etc. etc. Like most of the bullshit and hypocritical opinions on Match of the Day, the ‘stability is good argument’ is said with the bullish conviction of a man who hasn't given up on life, but is betrayed by [INSERT PUNDIT]’s vacuous, dead stare. Of course, it isn’t as simple as that – simply not sacking the manager is not stability, and you do have to get the right individual for the job (a predicament that naturally lends itself to self-doubt and therefore, potential instability). However, I’m sure most would agree – if the circumstances are correct, amongst its many benefits, stability increases a team’s capacity to overachieve which brings in more money and gradually hauls them up through the footballing strata.

Back to United. When Morgan was hired I despaired at what seemed obvious: that he would take us up, get the full-time job on this merit, before going on to lose his job halfway through the next season on similar grounds that Wilson lost his – cue the next angry northerner who embodies all of our apparent values at the lane (battling values like ‘determination’, ‘desire’, ‘passion’. Values that also lend themselves to, say, murder). However, instead it’s even worse than that! He’s not even given us a lift.
I don’t know where McCabe picked this blow up, but it’s bad shit, man.

Out of interest, in the situation we are in now – would you rather Chris Morgan or Danny Wilson?

No idea what half of it means but I like it

 

[grafikhaus]

You can have stability from above the level of first team manager.

Swansea and West Brom. Both have changed managers at regular intervals but the clubs continue along similar lines across each change. Our board are incapable of grasping that. Their serial gambling on random managers and methods is driving the club deeper into debt and footballing obscurity.

Given our owner's financial concerns, the real irony is that putting this small thing right wouldn't be expensive....

Exactly. The main thing is, all this serial changing of managers proves that clubs' board-level personnel are deficient in interviewing techniques. Clubs act to cover up their own failure - usually in haste - the new bloke brings his old pals in and the circle continues. Isn't there a saying about repeating the same mistakes over and over?

This well-established circus only leads to disappointment and hefty pay-offs. At the other end of the footballing universe to us, Bayern Munich have deposed Jupp Heynkes despite walking the Bundesliga, and replaced him with Guardiola - a club looking 5 years ahead.

At our level, I seriously doubt that the traditional, figurehead manager role is actually necessary. Instead, have a cadre of people with motivation, tactical, talent-spotting skills with a decent network of contacts - in short, horses for courses. Currently, we expect one man to fulfill all these duties, which is impossible. Let's have 'one of a team' instead of 'a team of one'.

It's a radical model which might be worth a try. The alternative is the pool of 'talent' most likely to be seen on 'Late Kick Off' such as our own 'short list'.

 

[Bladesway]

If we didn't have a magic 8 ball making club decisions you would have sacked wilson following the Coventry defeat, not before and not after. The fact that we had a decent if dull us dishwater manager who at least had relevant experience under his belt made me confident we would be ok.

The fact we have thrown the eqivalent of an apprentice in to run the team is beyond crazy. The dabblings of a lunatic you might say. And i would agree.

If we get up great, but if we don't then McCabe ought to have some serious questions to answer. He is getting some from me although I doubt he will lose sleep over it in his Belgian fortress.

 

[shorehamview]

At the other end of the footballing universe to us, Bayern Munich have deposed Jupp Heynkes despite walking the Bundesliga, and replaced him with Guardiola - a club looking 5 years ahead.

Alternatively Bayern Munich are taking a massive step back, getting rid of the man who has got them playing so well, and appointing a man who will get them playing in the Barcelona style, a side beaten recently 4-0 by Bayern Munich. Guardiola will dismantle the Bayern side and build a side based on a team that Bayern pasted.

This opinion was put forward in the Guardian last week, and although I don't necessarily agree with it all I can see the point they were trying to make. They need evolution, but Guardiola will be more in the way of revolution. We need evolution, and a playing style developed through the academy that isn't all blood and thunder, and any manager coming in must buy into that philosophy, rather than seeking to imprint his own identity all over the club.

 

[raul]

But then we lose a few, the booing starts and the Chairman loses his nerve, bullets the guy and reaches for Bladey Bladey Bladeness to pacify the masses.

I know the SCF,s get accused of knee-jerking but the bloke in charge is the biggest of them all.

 

[blade too long]

You can have stability from above the level of first team manager.

Swansea and West Brom. Both have changed managers at regular intervals but the clubs continue along similar lines across each change. Our board are incapable of grasping that. Their serial gambling on random managers and methods is driving the club deeper into debt and footballing obscurity.

Given our owner's financial concerns, the real irony is that putting this small thing right wouldn't be expensive....

classic example of clubs with more than 1 investor , we have been reliant on one man who wants out both swansea west brom have 3 who invest and its thats where the buck stops
Stability , only comes from financial stability, something weve never been blessed with apart from mccabes early years, but it was never going to be enough on its own

 

[JohnDenver]

classic example of clubs with more than 1 investor , we have been reliant on one man who wants out both swansea west brom have 3 who invest and its thats where the buck stops
Stability , only comes from financial stability, something weve never been blessed with apart from mccabes early years, but it was never going to be enough on its own

Beg to differ. Agree we're not going to be a runaway success without money. But this is about maximising what money we do have.

 

[blade too long]

We all strive to do that, but football now is , even at championship level is 2 tier , you have your squad , registered players , and then you get 5 loan players and where you finish depends on these 5 , how lucky you are they gel , go through the table and those whos loan players have clicked are in the standing solely on that.
Watford classic example, 5 serie a reserves in with a chance of promotion , piggies 5 old men needing a last day win
The only teams in the championship who spent more than a million on a player had parachute money , or sold big , thats in the championship , div 1 no ones spent substantial ammounts , we all trust to getting good loan players , which is a lottery. All prem clubs hog all the decent players then loan them out to keep them fit , its how it works now and it sucks

 

[Darren]

I really can't understand why we sacked Wilson with 5 games to go and replaced him with Morgan - i.e. sacked a vastly experienced for a no experience manager with no possible change in the playing staff. Apparently merely because the latter is a big Yorkshireman who shouts a lot (however, given that Morgan was at the club alreday, it's a bit of mystery as to why we couldn't have the advantage of his motivational skills, such as they are, and keep Wilson).

I mean, what was the point?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Dumping Wilson - Good call
Replacing him with Morgan - Bad call

 

[Revolution]

I really can't understand why we sacked Wilson with 5 games to go and replaced him with Morgan - i.e. sacked a vastly experienced for a no experience manager with no possible change in the playing staff. Apparently merely because the latter is a big Yorkshireman who shouts a lot (however, given that Morgan was at the club alreday, it's a bit of mystery as to why we couldn't have the advantage of his motivational skills, such as they are, and keep Wilson).

I mean, what was the point?

If you look at the press conference on the Star website, the only reason given by McCabe was that we were not winning at home.

Either this is all there was to it - in which case it was ill thought out to say the least - or something else had happened.

I have always wondered whether Wilson had "lost the dressing room", so to speak, but to me that says more about the senior players, many of whom have let us down this year, than it does Wilson.

 

[Rodders]

If you look at the press conference on the Star website, the only reason given by McCabe was that we were not winning at home.

Either this is all there was to it - in which case it was ill thought out to say the least - or something else had happened.

I have always wondered whether Wilson had "lost the dressing room", so to speak, but to me that says more about the senior players, many of whom have let us down this year, than it does Wilson.

Indeed - I heard on here (so definitely true) that he lost the dressing room following the 4-0 at Stevenage.

It is a thoroughly depressing thought that a decent, honourable man has lost his job because of arsewipes like Barry Robson and Michael Doyle

 

[blade too long]

Dumping Wilson - Good call
Replacing him with Morgan - Bad call

the defeat to Crawley meant hed failed , as it is all about results, and this one was vital, I thought he was a decent honest bloke , hard working , but the signings in January did for him, he bet on 2 forwards that have fallen well short of acceptable, had he got 2 in that scored even say 5 each , hed still be in a job

 

[HoodedClaw]

interesting stuff bergs. for me i couldnt give a monkies whether we play it long or short, as long as we win and show some passion and desire. probably why i loved the bassett and warnock eras, im a simple man to please!

Very interesting post. I'm with Gavlar when it comes to personal preferences - the Bassett and Warnock eras were great. There's something satisfying about beating technically superior teams with sheer will and passion, and the press hating it. I'd imagine that makes me a neanderthal or something...

The Bassett and Warnock years were great fun, unfortunately football has moved on and we need to as well. I'd quite like to be beating teams with quick passing and movement and having the press rave about the type of football we play. The old up n at 'em philosophy only works so far and I believe its effectiveness is reducing.

We need evolution, and a playing style developed through the academy that isn't all blood and thunder, and any manager coming in must buy into that philosophy, rather than seeking to imprint his own identity all over the club.

This is the way forward, but I'm not sure if we have the fans to allow us to do this. To implement a total change of ethos and to see it come to fruition is going to take time unfortunately, but all I can see happen is:

But then we lose a few, the booing starts and the Chairman loses his nerve, bullets the guy and reaches for Bladey Bladey Bladeness to pacify the masses.

I'm not sure how to do it but based on this thread I'd love to do a poll to see if we are a win at any cost or an implement a plan for the future set of fans now.

 

[Gavlar]

I really can't understand why we sacked Wilson with 5 games to go and replaced him with Morgan - i.e. sacked a vastly experienced for a no experience manager with no possible change in the playing staff. Apparently merely because the latter is a big Yorkshireman who shouts a lot (however, given that Morgan was at the club alreday, it's a bit of mystery as to why we couldn't have the advantage of his motivational skills, such as they are, and keep Wilson).

I mean, what was the point?

fair questions Darren. for me something needed to give after the Stevenage and Crawley debacles. I think sacking Wilson was the right call, but as others have said, putting morgan in probably wasn't (tho we could still be wrong on that). the home form has improved esp re goals scored since Wilson went, but strangely the away form is worse. maybe morgans gun-ho tactics are too naïve away from home? I really think if we would have stuck with Wilson we would be pretty much where we are now, and would limp to a defeat in the playoff final, whereas under morgan we are more likely to do some more adventurous things and thus lose in the semi or actually do something different and even win in the final. wilsons too cautious to achieve success for me, morgan might be worse tho granted.

 

[blade too long]

Much as I love Morgan if he is lucky and gets us up , Id still want a new man , could work with him in some form , but he has no experience , but I am prepared to be proved wrong .

 

[Bladesway]

the defeat to Crawley meant hed failed , as it is all about results, and this one was vital, I thought he was a decent honest bloke , hard working , but the signings in January did for him, he bet on 2 forwards that have fallen well short of acceptable, had he got 2 in that scored even say 5 each , hed still be in a job

But it was too late by then regardless. You don't sack a manager with 5 games to go. Its almost as daft as sacking a bloke 3 games into a season when he has blown what little money we had. Oh shit, we did that as well.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

fair questions Darren. for me something needed to give after the Stevenage and Crawley debacles. I think sacking Wilson was the right call, but as others have said, putting morgan in probably wasn't (tho we could still be wrong on that). the home form has improved esp re goals scored since Wilson went, but strangely the away form is worse. maybe morgans gun-ho tactics are too naïve away from home? I really think if we would have stuck with Wilson we would be pretty much where we are now, and would limp to a defeat in the playoff final, whereas under morgan we are more likely to do some more adventurous things and thus lose in the semi or actually do something different and even win in the final. wilsons too cautious to achieve success for me, morgan might be worse tho granted.

It was right based on any new guy would want a contract with a term attached and we only had a few days to find him and sort it before the 5 games kicked in.
The big problem we have given ourselves now is if Morgan gets us up, what to do then?

If we perform likle we did against Swindon and we were saving ourselves against Crewe and Preston then fair enough it will have been a plan that we can all relate to it and give him a go.

If we fall over the line and still pull it off then is he right?

Tough decisions to be made.