Mark Venus (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ICHAN
- Start date
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I say we don't give anyone the job until he goes on a bad run of form. At the moment, he's caretaker and the results are coming in...what is it...4 wins from 5 or something like that?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just looked at his stats as a manager, 9 games, 5 wins 2 draws and 2 losses, scored 17 conceded 10, all three jobs he has had as a caretaker, doesn't sound bad presumably each time he's came into caretaker as the team was in the shit, I wouldn't give him the job just yet, let's see how he gets on until Xmas, then if he does well then keep him until end of season. We seems to give out contracts which we always seem to payout the manager on.
ICHAN
Well-Known Member
Why do some people have to look at things you put on a thread negative?
My opening post was positive towards MV and the results we've been getting, it's just usually when we get MOTM fortunes go against us but I know lets all just keep posting negative stuff against people who try and be positive, this is one of the reasons I stop posting on here
My opening post was positive towards MV and the results we've been getting, it's just usually when we get MOTM fortunes go against us but I know lets all just keep posting negative stuff against people who try and be positive, this is one of the reasons I stop posting on here
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Who's being negative? Am I misreading something? Thought these replies had a bit of positiveness behind them
WellI was holding off my negativity, but after the way this thread has gone...
Results are ultimately irrelevant to someone getting the job. Nilsson having a stellar run as caretaker didn't necessarily make him the right choice as boss, and we plunged downwards. Sure, we brought in Jim Smith, but that suggested the manager didn't have the strength of character to stand up and do things his way. Thorn did alright after replacing Bothroyd too. Neither were the right choice long term in my view.
What's more important is infrastructure, player spotting, integration of first team and aspirants, and a system. Much of that we can have no opinion of, but there seems little in the way of a match plan that can react if it isn't working - that's the key.
So recent results have bought time in finding the right candidate, is all. That right candidate may or may not be Venus, but it shouldn't be him just because we've won a couple of games when players are shaken out of their stupor with a need to impress a new(ish!) face.
sw88
Chief Commentator!
WellI was holding off my negativity, but after the way this thread has gone...
Results are ultimately irrelevant to someone getting the job. Nilsson having a stellar run as caretaker didn't necessarily make him the right choice as boss, and we plunged downwards. Sure, we brought in Jim Smith, but that suggested the manager didn't have the strength of character to stand up and do things his way. Thorn did alright after replacing Bothroyd too. Neither were the right choice long term in my view.
What's more important is infrastructure, player spotting, integration of first team and aspirants, and a system. Much of that we can have no opinion of, but there seems little in the way of a match plan that can react if it isn't working - that's the key.
So recent results have bought time in finding the right candidate, is all. That right candidate may or may not be Venus, but it shouldn't be him just because we've won a couple of games when players are shaken out of their stupor with a need to impress a new(ish!) face.
Alright Mr Negativity
hill83
Well-Known Member
Did you have this post ready to go regardless of how the thread actually went?
