Fisher: Why Andy had to go (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter skyblu3sk
- Start date
Sky Blues
Active Member
They'd better not appoint Megson, Blackwell or McLeish then if they want people to attend games!
Ccfc1979
Well-Known Member
So much so, he had to have a little sit down for the whole of the rest of the game.
iamyouralterego
New Member
As people have said before, while the decision was after four games this season, it follows on, surely, from the form of last season.
He was allowed the ability to assemble a squad (which he did), but maybe after these three games and what they've witnessed on the training side of things too, the same traits and characteristics are being carried over from last season to these new players. I don't think many can or should deny that.
I don't necessarily think Fisher or Waggott are being dissolute in their approach when last season is considered. If the sacking would have taken place last year however after the squad being left emaciated then you could suggest that that was wrong indeed.
He was allowed the ability to assemble a squad (which he did), but maybe after these three games and what they've witnessed on the training side of things too, the same traits and characteristics are being carried over from last season to these new players. I don't think many can or should deny that.
I don't necessarily think Fisher or Waggott are being dissolute in their approach when last season is considered. If the sacking would have taken place last year however after the squad being left emaciated then you could suggest that that was wrong indeed.
skyblueman
New Member
Agreed OTIS - HAS to be more to this - if it isn't then we are in REAL trouble with Fisher at the helm as clearly he doesn't know what he's doing
CovKingChris
Facebook User
Actually, 18 people changed, not nine.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Apart from the odd quotes I agree with what he's saying and if he's speaking the truth I'm glad it was nothing more sinister. He's effectively saying exactly what I was saying after every game this season. I don't see how it's a knee jerk reaction, it's based on last season too, clearly.
13 wins in 60 games. End of story. Yes Thorn was dealt a difficult hand, but he failed before the flop.
Let's move on.
13 wins in 60 games. End of story. Yes Thorn was dealt a difficult hand, but he failed before the flop.
Let's move on.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What else did Kilbane say?
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
I wouldn't say ALL forwards are thick Mr Stumpy Fingers!
ps. You're gonna need to change your avatar!
Otis
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say ALL forwards are thick Mr Stumpy Fingers!
ps. You're gonna need to change your avatar!
Oops ....
and
Oops!!!!
and
done
and
done!
Last edited:
Agreed mate, dont see how anyone can say its a knee jerk reaction. Even if it was based on this season alone, hes failed on what he promised to deliver and football management is a cut throat business (especially at the Ricoh!). If changing most of the playing staff and bringing in new coaches / assistants cant break the trend of throwing away 3 points all the time, then theres only one place left to look!
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Stevec189
New Member
Sounds to me as if Thorn did an end of season review on what needed to happen and that he was the man to do this a sort of reapplication for the job. He made promises and didn't keep them so based on last year and this he had to go. Was Thorn dealt a low hand? Undoubtably. But he knew what he was working with. Things clearly needed fixing after Ranson and deluded wrecked the football side of things offering contracts we could not afford. This appear to be underway under Fisher and Waggott. As for having to work with the current staff no problem for any of the candidates who apply since they now know the rules it will have been in their application packs or will be when they go out!
Stoppercurtis
New Member
Fisher sounds committed to me. This statement makes alot of sense. It was time for Thorn to go he just wasn't up to the job full stop.
Stopper
Stopper
Astute
Well-Known Member
I had always said that AT should be given a chance this season. He had the players he wanted. Maybe he should have been given a bit longer. We drew away to a team in form that are now top of the table. We drew against the favourites to win this division. We then drew a game we should have won.
I think he should have been given a few more games as we were getting better with each game, but can't argue with his sacking. The Bury game showed me I could be wrong. We need to start winning. We could do without going on a winning run just to keep on the tails of the teams at the top.
We are 4 points behind after 3 games. Should we have waited until we were 12 points behind after 10 games?
I think he should have been given a few more games as we were getting better with each game, but can't argue with his sacking. The Bury game showed me I could be wrong. We need to start winning. We could do without going on a winning run just to keep on the tails of the teams at the top.
We are 4 points behind after 3 games. Should we have waited until we were 12 points behind after 10 games?
skyblueman
New Member
Spot on Astute - it was just a handful of games not enough to judge AT on his new squad - OK so that's history - what worries me now is obviously patience of SISU/Fisher is non-existent - so how many games is the next guy going to get? Nobody is going to get a contract out of these guys that would require any sort of reasonable payout if they were sacked - who in their right mind is going to want this job? Somebody with nothing to lose? Doesn't sound like what we really need here - for sure I don't trust Fisher's judgement on getting in the right person anyway
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Mathematically, he's talking rubbish. The nature of an extrapolated analysis is to have an observational interval, from which you predict the subsequent trend. If he agreed with Thorn's explanation - and let's not start again about last year as that's not the issue here - and he must have done to permit the transfer activity he makes reference to; then to give him 3 league games into a 46 game-season is circa. 6.5% of the term.
That means he 'extrapolated' and made a decision on 93.5% based on the first 6.5% he saw.
That's like heading on a car journey from Coventry to Plymouth, and deciding it's going to be a crap journey based the A46 to Warwick is busy. And that's not hyperbole :facepalm:
That means he 'extrapolated' and made a decision on 93.5% based on the first 6.5% he saw.
That's like heading on a car journey from Coventry to Plymouth, and deciding it's going to be a crap journey based the A46 to Warwick is busy. And that's not hyperbole :facepalm:
hill83
Well-Known Member
MMM, it is based on last season too. Saying it isn't the issue is purely to back up your post and go off on one about percentages.
Back in the real world it is based on last season. This is clear to see.
Do you honestly think if we got a new manager in the summer he'd be gone by now?
Back in the real world it is based on last season. This is clear to see.
Do you honestly think if we got a new manager in the summer he'd be gone by now?
DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe
New Member
I don't know, can't see the back page. I assume you do know and it is another rhetorical question. I would posit a vague guess that your comment alludes to yet another anti-Thorn sentiment, not that you have grown predictable. At a guess, I would imagine Kilbane had good things to say about the new management structure (perhaps since he is Club captain, one of the two figures is one of his best friends in football, we have played one and won one, and because it is a hugely obvious sentiment in football). I am guessing he didn't say all the players hate Thorn, that he cancelled training sessions when they didn't bother arriving and would turn up drunk. Do you realise you can take near enough every vague football interview to peddle one agenda or another? This is not so far removed from the inanity of 'Thorn scouted this shit player / this good player'. I do wonder how long it will take for a few on here (of which you are one; perhaps I am another but I am striving to change the record) to drop their Thorn rhetoric and focus on the Club they support alongside just about every other punter on here.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to be as candid as possible here. In allowing Thorn to make his presentation with regard mitigating factors, bring in his own management team and players from 'his list', Fisher by implication was shouldering some of the blame for last year's performance. To an extent, the slate should have been wiped clean.
If not, and judgments were to be made only one twentieth into the season, then he would have been better served to have sacked Thorn the day after the last game of last season. Not saying that I would have agreed with that either - but in a shades-of-grey debate, it's better than where we've currently ended up
DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe
New Member
Mind you, this was a thread all about Thorn and what you said was fairly innocuous. Did it betray the fact I have gone a little tired of the same old back and forth and the fact you are a daily mouthpiece for one side. Apologies, it is a forum and people can say / ignore what they want.
hill83
Well-Known Member
I agree that it is odd timing, as do most people. Most people thought the same I'd say. I wouldn't have been disapointed if Thorn went last season, but I feel he is good at getting players in, and had faith that he could achieve something this season, also a lower league has a factor in that. He got players in, it was the same shit. Getting rid early was a big decision and we won't know if it was the correct one for a while, but his time was up.
iamyouralterego
New Member
It has to be based on last season too. No maybe the players as individuals were not quite good enough but there were traits within the team that were not rectified.
And using a variant of your analogy, its like driving from Coventry to Plymouth and trying to stay in the fast lane when your car just isn't capable.
And using a variant of your analogy, its like driving from Coventry to Plymouth and trying to stay in the fast lane when your car just isn't capable.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I guess on the final point we'll agree to respectfully disagree. Having permitted Thorn bring in his own management team and players to suit his 'style' of play, then for me - and not for one moment to I implore you to share my view, just be understanding of it - then 10 games should have been sufficient to make judgment upon.
For me, Thorn's tenure will therefore always be: Phase 1 - steadying the ship after Bothroyd's leaving: Phase 2 - last year's disaster with so many mitigating factors (both for and against Thorn) it's impossible to judge: Phase 3 - this season being cut stupefying short
As such, I'll never truly know what I thought of Thorn. I never considered him brilliant, but never equally considered him as bad as the dreaded 'win ratios' made him appear. Just wish I could have made my mind up. But that's football, eh? Differences of opinions and the endless debate over the 'if onlys'....
biggymania
Well-Known Member
I can't argue with any of Fisher's logic there - I think we've all by now noticed Thorn's complete inability to change a game and the number of leads we let go etc. Of course you have to question their judgement in giving Andy what he wanted after his "presentation", given how quickly they have changed their mind.
I do worry that at the board level we just don't have any footballing expertise anymore... and whoever this new manager is will have a very simple remit this season - get us up with this squad. No new signings - maybe the odd loan - but fundamentally this is it.
Are Fisher et al really smart enough to understand and critique the managers they will be talking to?
I do worry that at the board level we just don't have any footballing expertise anymore... and whoever this new manager is will have a very simple remit this season - get us up with this squad. No new signings - maybe the odd loan - but fundamentally this is it.
Are Fisher et al really smart enough to understand and critique the managers they will be talking to?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Having allowed him to make the changes, I think to an extent a line should have been drawn under some of last season.
To perhaps try and over-use the motoring-metaphor; it's closer to breaking down on your way back up from Plymouth, agreeing not to have the car fully-serviced and then selling it at Warwick on your way back because you think it might still break down, even if it didn't. And then thumbing a lift to Plymouth...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The irony is last night people were accusing me of continuing the thorn debate when even that was not true. I was respond to his advocates who could not leave the issue alone.
I have stated that I would not discuss the issue yet still the majority of regular posters cannot leave it alone.
The usual suspects appear giving half quotes without the full picture. Shaw gave an honest and candid view of what happens when a manager gets sacked from a players perspective.
I do want the debate to end but others will not let it lie.
Perhaps sick boy is right we should build a statue of the great man and allow don,Mmm and all the others who cannot let it lie pay homage to it.
I don't have a vendetta but even if I did it would be better than the bizarre idolisation that some are expressing.
He is history time to move on.
DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe
New Member
Who is history?
hill83
Well-Known Member
We do agree then, well kind of. I initially said give him 10 games this season. My only caveat to that was if we were in danger of being left behind. I feel that we were.
Where I disagree is you saying the decision made is based on this seasons games only. It isn't. 4 games isn't enough to make that decision.
Nobody is their right mind would sack a manager after 4 games of the season. To completely right off last season, the worst I've ever experienced as a Coventry City supporter, is madness. This 100% had a factor, the statement from Fisher says this was a factor.
Let's leave it at that.
Edited: Last part was drivel!
Where I disagree is you saying the decision made is based on this seasons games only. It isn't. 4 games isn't enough to make that decision.
Nobody is their right mind would sack a manager after 4 games of the season. To completely right off last season, the worst I've ever experienced as a Coventry City supporter, is madness. This 100% had a factor, the statement from Fisher says this was a factor.
Let's leave it at that.
Edited: Last part was drivel!
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Like on this thread you mean?
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/19981-The-one-that-got-away
I think this one was turned at post 11 into an anti-Thorn-by-insinuation thread. I think that's why people accuse you so.
Still, I agree with you. History. Let's move on
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Thorn. He's gone he will not be back. The majority support the decision. That is that but people who continue to support are tiresome.
It won't go away every win will be greeted with snide asides as to who scouted the players.
Let's see what thorn does next. That will be the true measure how good he is.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Guilty as charged. I was in a very boring marketing meeting and couldn't help myself.
guinnessandpotatoes
New Member
This certainly seems absolutely ridiculous but Joe Elliott said AT flipped his lid at after the Bury game as the club refused to pay for the traditional post match drinks for Peter Shirtliff and the visiting coaches and he had to send someone to Tesco to buy the drinks himself. Apparently it's symptomatic of the way they are running the club but on this occasion he was so embarrassed by the lack of respect this showen for the visiting back room staff he had a go...
It's a pretty entertaining (depressing) suggestion, anyway!
()