Colonel Mustard
New Member
Majority of fans expected a relegation battle but didn't expect to be effectively relegated by the new year.
That's doing AT a service. We were effectively relegated by the end of November!
Majority of fans expected a relegation battle but didn't expect to be effectively relegated by the new year.
so therefore 'CM' what is your solution ?
on a reasoned & balanced level who would you advocate should take the reigns ?
I'm sorry - he's got a squad that finished 18th and had 9 first team players taken away.
We're still playing the same attractive football that got him the job and creating enough chances to win games. If Marlon King was still here we'd be doing much better - not to mention the rest of them.
Where do people imagine we ought to be with this squad? I think it's the worst squad in the league.
True. Very true.
The way I see it is, the team isn't good enough, the squad is too small, but we also have a manager who is not good enough to get what is required from the team.
It's a mixture of players, numbers, lack of investment, board and manager.
We could hold a quiz here to try and identify the "missing 9". Well a lot of these players were never in first team contention and are certainly no better than what we have got. O'Halloran was a disaster, Osbourne mediocre when fit, McIndoe constantly was ridiculed by our supporters, is Quirke on the 9?
So when you say 9 you mean 4. Turner never played a game for Thorn so did not contribute to the entertaining spectacle we allegedly saw last season (which by the way has now bought 1 away win since Thorn took over). Marlon King was only here because of his relationship with Boothroyd. If Thorn was in charge when King was available he would never even consider playing under him don't even bother to make an argument for him. Westwood would have left the club whoever the owners were as he was off to the Premiership. Our goals against ratio is no worse now anyway that it was then. You admit King was the factor well keeping Boothroyd would have been the only hope of keeping him. So we lost Gunnarson effectively.
This terrible squad managed to win back to back games recently. How is that possible with such a dire squad? Or is it just they have been under-achieving even by their own poor standards up to then? When this occured the Thorn disciples are quick to say told you so he is a good manager. So anyone who credits him for a win can expect comments back when we lose again, again and again.
We don't have to play youth players all the time - Thorn left Wood on the bench first game - his choice to play Christie.
Resources are what they are - look at our old friend Peter Reid. At Plymouth his resources made ours look like Manchester City. He was even helping to fund the club and was personal friends with the Chairman. But they were bottom of the league so what happened? His friend removed him from duty. Reid knows the score and did take it like a man.
Coventry are too lax with managers, most are never given a hard time (other than Reid and to a lesser extent Adams). Leicester want there manager booted after 8 games.
So I'm sorry you'll have to do a LOT better than that.
Just one point to pick up on, as KD identifies, Leucester look towards incessant manager change. And where's it got them?
They are one of, if not the best resourced team in the division, and they boast a league position not in keeping with their investment. Are all of their managers poor, or is constant change undermining their ability to achieve their goals?
Since they have had the new owners, they sacked off one manager and brought in Svengali. I think if we look back over his record over the last 10 years he is a poor manager of late. They have now sacked him and brought back the original manager that they realise was actually a good manager doing a good job.
So to answer your question, out of their two managers. One was poor.
And since 2000, they have had 12 managers. Have they all been so bad as to justify a change a season? Or is the policy of incessant change not producing results?
The bottom line is that this is a results business...and 4 wins in 27 is a clear indictment of AT's 'success' in the role.
Agreed, he has had a difficult situation to deal with, but he knew that when taking over...if it really is that impossible/frustrating a job, an employee has the option to resign and not be part of such a flawed/impossible role.
AT will do OK out of this....we stay up, he is a hero, we fail, and he can blame SISU.
As manager, he is responsible for tactics, fitness, motivation etc....and just in these three areas he has sadly failed.
Only a handful of mangers in each league have resources to play with, but AT has taken us to 24th out of 24 in a league where most clubs do not have a pot to piss in...so sorry chaps, but AT DOES have a case to answer.
So at the end of the day you can have the most skilled carpenter, but take away his tools and he's not going to do a good job.
Also it does make me laugh the arguments that the players we have lost don't count because they were injured (turner,osbourne, carsley), were boothroyds mate (king), would have left anyway (westwood, Gunnarsson) or weren't great anyway (mcindoe, o'halloran).
AT has done well with motivation I believe
Nobody is saying they don't count. The absence of King and Westwood are keenly felt. However, it is unfair to use them as a stick with which to beat SISU and/or back up Thorn.
You can't find a Kieren Westwood every three years. You're not going to get a Prem striker every year on a sweetheart deal because he's just out of prison and happens to be chummy with the manager. And you cannot give contracts to non-contributors.
With the greatest of respect to the thrust of your debate here Sir, you are missing the point - as did KD earlier. The debate isn't about how we came about King, or how good Westwood was, or wasn't. The debate is that Thorn operated with a squad last term that did contain this quality - and it was baraly good enough to stay up. The question being, now without them, should expectations of performance realistically be any higher than where we are?
BUT AT does not have the tools to work with. We apparently have no fitness coach, with regards tactics I'd say a lot of this is down to the coach Steve whatshisface who has been present throughout our poor form and should have the experience to help sort this mess out. AT has done well with motivation I believe and I think with fitter, more tactically aware players the diamond would work well. So at the end of the day you can have the most skilled carpenter, but take away his tools and he's not going to do a good job.
Unfortunately we don't have a skilled carpenter but an apprentice who will not make the grade. Give one shred of evidence to suggest thorn is a good manager instead of making excuses for him.
No fear, the debate is not being confused. It is evident to all that the squad is poorer than it was last season and that maintaining Championship status would be a struggle. But the "we've lost 13 players" line has gone without examination for too long, and is too readily used as a panacea for AT's struggles.
AT is not a championship manager. That's clear to all except for the deluded, or those living within an institutionalised environment. However, his performance will never truly stand the test of scrutiny; as to have done anything this season would have been to have expected - not hoped - he over-achieve. Which he hasn't been able to do.
He is not THE problem. He's operating at a level way, way out of his depth - because it suits SISU's aspirations he do so
AT is not a championship manager. That's clear to all except for the deluded, or those living within an institutionalised environment. However, his performance will never truly stand the test of scrutiny; as to have done anything this season would have been to have expected - not hoped - he over-achieve. Which he hasn't been able to do.
He is not THE problem. He's operating at a level way, way out of his depth - because it suits SISU's aspirations he do so