|
Post by Danny D on Apr 29, 2005 10:15:13 GMT 1
Take a long hard look infact who do you think was the better manager?
Ratcliffe got us relegated, Quinn got us promoted... but tactically, efficientley who was the better man and will Gary Peters be any better as a manager? The case is will luck be on our side, is the sun shining on Shrewsbury Town with Gary Peters in mind?.... Only Time will tell...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Apr 29, 2005 10:18:22 GMT 1
Rats was the worse. He took us down into the conference. Quinn did the job he was brought into do, so good man in my opinion.
As to Gary Peters, time will tell. Statistically, our league position is not much different than what it was when he took over, though I do think we are playing better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2005 10:33:34 GMT 1
Statistically, our league position is not much different than what it was when he took over, though I do think we are playing better. that's true, but when JQ left we had something like 11 points from 14 games, and were getting worse. That sort of form would have given us just over 30 points by now and we would have been relegated already. GP's main job was to keep us up (he did). JQ's main job was getting us up in the first place (he did). Rats kept us up in 2000, almost got us into the play-offs in 2002 and gave us that memorable Everton game. It's actually a bit of a shame, although inevitable I guess, that we will probably only really remember Rats as the guy that took us down.
|
|
|
Post by Daviimo on Apr 29, 2005 10:35:28 GMT 1
I think he was a good manager, he just lost it, I heard there was rumours he suffered a mental health breakdown near enough from a reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 29, 2005 10:46:32 GMT 1
Rats up untill the las couple of months KR had taken the club forward. Unfortunatly he seemed to lose the plot/interest etc... Quinn did what was hoped of time (he had been given 2 years...) to get us promoted on the first attempt. He left before he;d reversed the positives of his previous season. Rats will go down in history, but the football we played under Jake King was far more chrnic and for less ineffective, added to the fact we continually went backwards. So i vote Jake King
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Apr 29, 2005 10:56:49 GMT 1
quinn will never get the credit he deserved he took us up at the first attempt walked away when the fans turned on him and still has the guts to congratulate peters ratcliffe took us down stayed until the death brought in a load of timewasters quinn imo just had some hard luck his last 4 home games a goal up against yeovil and threw it away late on well yeovil are the best side in the league and quinn got slated beyond belief for trying to protect a 1-0 lead if anyone went to the bournemouth game you'll agree we played some cracking football and brushed aside a higher league side we played well against rushden & grimsby and maybe could have won both, we managed 1 point and the team got booed off and quinn walked quinns biggest mistake was bringing in bates as bates proved in his few games in charge peters came in and unlike quinn he seems to have the gift of the gab and a few decent contacts in bringing in players (ratcliffe even talked a bad game) we have witnessed some great and some almost awful displays under peters i can now say i'd prefer peters to quinn but quinn before rats anyday
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2005 11:02:08 GMT 1
The Facts:
Rats got us relegated JQ got us promoted
The Debate:
This is the difficult bit, because it's all hypothetical.
- Could KR have got us promoted from the Conference with the same resources JQ had? - Would JQ have got us relegated this season?
The debate is a difficult one, but based on facts the fans will only remember JQ as the successor and KR as the failure.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 29, 2005 11:07:45 GMT 1
Ant's got it spot on really.
Relegation was avoidable in IMHO...ratcliffe should of been sacked after defeats against swansea and Boston.....they were dire.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Apr 29, 2005 11:27:01 GMT 1
Rats much worse. 92 goals conceded with a top defender as manager?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2005 11:28:13 GMT 1
Rats much worse. 92 goals conceded with a top defender as manager? It's the ultimate irony. Defensively we were crap under Ratcliffe while going forward under Quinn we were poor.
|
|
|
Post by True_Shrew on Apr 29, 2005 12:07:02 GMT 1
In terms of results then Rats was obviously worse, in terms of football Quinn was the worst. I enjoyed the football we played under Rats, open and free flowing but it just proves how wrong I was when we got relegated.
I 100% agree with Pilch on this one, a very good post.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Apr 29, 2005 12:10:05 GMT 1
in theory ratcliffe & quinn could make a brilliant partership
|
|
|
Post by mike-in-cairo on Apr 29, 2005 12:11:16 GMT 1
agree with ant. i thought rats would sort the defence, centre halves at least, and that is always a building block for a decent side: he couldn't even do that. he took us down hopelessly. absolute useless w@nker! quinn did a job. knew the non-league and got us out. well done! we must be grateful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2005 12:12:54 GMT 1
Both equally poor tho ratcliffe did deliver 2 reasonably good seasons including a play-off push the season before going down-was given time, support & money. No excuse for the ultimate failure in 2003. A terribly managed season in 2002/03, truely awful with a team proped up by over the hill, expensive idiots who only raised there game when we played higher league opponents (IE Everton & Crewe) -personally I feel the board should have acted sooner, whilst we had a chancem. Quinn-Got us promoted but from the quality of other teams last year we should steamrollered everyone as promotion seasons go it was pretty dire, we didn't really destroy any of the relegated teams & were promoted on penalties in a game we would have lost if Aldershot had been a full time club(arrogant I know). Again given time support etc. Losing to Telford twice in the manner we did was truely unacceptable, as were his comments to the media RE: fans & Luke. True lack of managerial skills became painfully obvious this season-continually trying to play 5-3-2, blatantly playing for draws away & home (YEOVIL). Glad he went whilst we still had time. Still he achieved his main mission in getting us promoted-dread to think what would have happended if we had stayed down Both very poor managers-Quiin edges it for we for knwoing when to walk-THANK GOD FOR GARY
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 29, 2005 12:32:32 GMT 1
Pilch has got it about right, the main failings for both managers for me is they both lost the trust/respect/contol of part of both squads.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 29, 2005 12:32:50 GMT 1
Who cares?
Its history. Neither manager meant to do anything but move the club forward. Neither were capable enough of doing that - hence they got the push / jumped.
GP is shrewd enough to know that you must get to grips with as many elements as possible if you are to succeed - from the Youth and training facilities to the Boardroom. I bet GP already knows more about this club and its staff than KR and JQ put together.
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Apr 29, 2005 13:14:10 GMT 1
The Facts: - Could KR have got us promoted from the Conference with the same resources JQ had? - Would JQ have got us relegated this season? IMO we would have walked the conference with Rats team because they scored goals almost at will - most teams in the conf cant defend. However if we had had Quinn the season we got relegated we would have stayed up cos teams with a tight defence rarely get relegated.
|
|
|
Post by Mattm on Apr 29, 2005 13:27:21 GMT 1
I'd agree with grizzlyshrew.
Attacking wise we were much better top watch under Ratcliffe than Quinn, but Quinn had the the team much better organised from a defensive point of view.
The relegation season under Racliffe must go down as one of the most bizarre in Town history. The performences against Everton in the FA cup and Crewe in the LDV were some of the best I've seen at the Meadow, adn we scored goals for fun all season.
But in the same season there were some midnumbingly bad performances (Boston home and away, Rushden away). I still can't work out how we were so bad defensively - Heathcote getting injured didn't help, but Ratcliffe was an international defender and should have been able to sort that defence out.
My biggest problem with Quinn was the way he set back Rodgers and more recently Dave Edwards. His insistance on playing himself up front - ok he scored a few goals but it was highly embarassing having a 44 year old playing up front for us.
|
|
|
Post by stainesr on Apr 29, 2005 15:31:44 GMT 1
Look back to 2002-2003 and you will see the rot set in before the season started. We did not buy anyone, or at least anyone of note. Rats just kept with the same old journeymen who had squandered a play-off place by letting in too many goals. Atkins, Jemson and most importantly Heathcote were all becoming long in the tooth. It can't really be that hard to find a half-decent central defender but instead all Rats could bring in was Buster Bloodvessel and, after Heathcote became injured, he bought in the patchy Artell on loan. Once Heathcote was injured and no-one was there to clear up Redmile's f@ck ups we were totally screwed. Looking back, I also have to say Bavo was not up to the job and could not deal with crosses: surely a vital skill in the hoof-fest that was Div 3. Secondly there were the bizarre training arrangements when "senior pros" - fat washed up has-beens Jemson and Woan that is - were allowed to train separately from the rest of the squad. This probably made them even less motivated than they would have been anyway. It was a combination of bad succession planning, a poor training regime (which Ratcliffe tried to excuse by slagging off the town's facilities) and pure laziness from a man who should have had a contact book bulging with players' phone numbers who could have come in and done a job for us. Rats was complacent and bred the same attitude in his players. Jimmy Quinn I liked to start with because he seemed to talk a good game and at least recognised the problems with training. But his man management skills were awful and could not handle having a lot of money (by his standards) to spend. He got us promoted though but I personally think he was tapped up by Barry Fry when we played the Posh pre season and didn't care from then on. My verdict: Rats totally crap, for reasons above. Quinn: better than Rats, but that's not saying a lot!
|
|