Search results

Thing is, he was well on course to make the playoffs before Jim Smith was installed in the dugout. Nilsson had completely revolutionised the City squad.

That he will, and he has few reasons to complain.

11 managers in 11 years. Go back 11 years and you'll find the first change was Roland Nilsson. In his tenure, before Jim Smith was foisted upon him, his CCFC team averaged 1.77 points per game for an 81 point pace. That is comfortably in the playoffs and possibly challenging for automatic...

Just not true.

After letting him sign nine players?

Why hypothesise favourable scenarios for Thorn? You can just look at his body of work, which was consistently unsatisfactory.

Nothing wrong with sackings as long as you don't sack the strong-performing managers too soon (Nilsson, Black) or give the weak-performing managers too much time (Thorn, Strachan, Coleman).

This is another long-running myth. Thorn was installed as a caretaker manager - a natural course of events after a sacking. Fans enjoyed his initial results and football, liked Thorn the man, called him The Godfather, wanted him to be the permanent manager. SISU obliged. There is nothing...

That's absurd. If a sergeant couldn't get the best out of a bunch of new recruits (no matter how high or low their ceilings might be), the army would replace the sergeant. By your logic, no individual in a leadership position would ever need to be held accountable or fired. Right. And why...

There is just no credibility to this idea. What resounding evidence is there that managers get better the longer they are in the chair? And if the theory is completely wrong, then it can be extremely damaging to stick with a poor, underperforming manager for a long period of time. All they'd be...

It's a good question and one that is impossible to answer definitively. It is such a subjective thing. All you can really do is eyeball it, allow objective assessments to form, and then see whether the evidence mounts up in your favour. If you take Thorn as an example, many colour their...

Yep, him. No doubt he stayed on too long, but he was a clear upgrade on Atkinson.

IMO, not really. There is little evidence of perfect manager recruitment. "Track record" candidates fail (Reid), "up-and-comers" hit setbacks (Gary Johnson), inexperienced throw-ins do quite well (Nilsson). Try almost anyone - you never know who will fit. Who knows how the chain of command...

Fitness cannot be used as an excuse if the opposition were similarly handicapped.

Bury only had four days of rest too.

6 Generations: call more frequently!

Nice try, but I did read your posts in full and didn't accuse you of any of those things. Please quote where I did. Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice about reading arguments before responding, eh? So your point is that AT is tapped out and the players are underperforming. And your...

Not of a sales team, but certainly a leader with targets. If this was a new manager in charge of their first game, you could write it off. But this is Andy Thorn's Coventry City team, and we have seen this same guff for a year now. Show me the trajectory. Show me how we're improving. Show me...

I don't know how you qualify that. Leadership positions are in every industry for a reason - to hold an individual accountable for the production of the unit.

The players don't have to take responsibility. That sucks, I know all of us feel that we would give maximum effort for a game and club we love in return for massive rewards. But there are just too many of them...if you want to improve an army, you change the leadership, you don't wait for the...