Nope, I was told I was incorrect on a previous post, and I'm just proving that what I said was not incorrect (That Poyet was heavily influential in Leeds' success and when he left for Spurs their good form and season gradually fell apart).
I also said Boothroyd and Coleman were each successful at Watford and Fulham. Both jobs eclipsed anything Wise did at either Millwall or Swindon, and they were both failures here. I would prefer a relatively young manager, who knows the lower divisions and has shown potential, than someone who would leave a side as manager (Leeds) for an off the field role at Newcastle.
I'm not suggesting he's an awful manager, I just don't think he's the right man for the job. Leicester, Norwich, Southampton and Leeds (Pearson, Lambert, Adkins and Grayson). These are the sort of managers we should be looking at, previously, successfully, managed at lower league and all have big futures in the managerial game. I'm sorry if people disagree, but I do not view Wise in the same way.
I see all these names being bandied around and I see the various winning ratios being paraded, but there are a few things I don't know that I'd like to know before I could say who I want as our new manager. Here are two examples:
Budget - what is it? We think we're skint, but Fisher said on the radio something along the lines of "we've turned the finances around". If that were to be the case (please note the "if"), then maybe the club management might be prepared to push the boost our budget a little to dig out the next manager.
Science - does the managerial candidate take sports science seriously, or are they one of the run around the pitch 2 times and have a game of head tennis types? The former should surely be a requirement for all serious professional sporting organisations.
Then there's a few things that we might have an idea about, but can only really be gleaned from an interview. For example:
Is this candidate a winner? Will they install a winning mentality into this club? Is this person a leader of men?
Ultimately, we can give our views based on what we know, but Fisher and co will - or should, at least - have more information to hand. Whether we like it or not, we're going to have to trust them to make a good decision. There may also be candidates out there that we don't know about (who would have suggested Michael Laudrup for the Swansea job before it leaked that the board were looking at him).
If you have a choice between an affordable experienced manager with a 40 percent win rate, who cares not a jot about sports science and has been sacked 4 times before, or a player who has just finished his career, is cheap because they have no experience, but does have an in-depth knowledge of the game, a winning mentality and is committed to being at the cutting edge of sports science, who would you pick?
I guess I'm saying it's a bit more complicated than "what's their win ratio" and "they need to be experienced". There might be a forward-thinking, tactically astute, experienced coach with a great win ratio, a model attitude and a winning mentality etc who comes within our budget. If so, I hope Fisher and co find him. Whoever they pick based on the interviews, feedback, CVs and whatever else they look at, I hope they get it right and pick someone who can rebuild the playing side of this club over years to come. I am fed up of the managerial revolving door at this club. I don't think we can afford to get it wrong again and be starting this process all over again in 8-12 months time.
Sky Blues - some very good points there. Of course we'll never know the answers to some of those questions and neither will the board until they interview. All we can do is put forward our preferred candidate based on what we know.
If Southgate has already been lined up as some have suggested then I'm ok with that appointment. If not I'd like Wise or Ince.