|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Apr 27, 2010 21:08:41 GMT 1
With our manager on his way out what is everyones lowest point during Mr Simpsons time here?
Blyth?
Staines?
Darlington?
Players bottling it at Wembley?
So many choices!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2010 21:09:50 GMT 1
With our manager on his way out what is everyones lowest point during Mr Simpsons time here? Blyth? Staines? Darlington? Players bottling it at Wembley? So many choices! Finding out the board are offering his job to someone else?? Realising there are supporters like you around??
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Apr 27, 2010 21:13:44 GMT 1
I pay my money I have my viewpoint, that a problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2010 21:15:00 GMT 1
I pay my money I have my viewpoint, that a problem? Nope, does not stop me thinking ur a c*** though eh!! that a problem??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2010 21:19:48 GMT 1
Thats what i like, a nice serious exchange of views. Grow up, both of you.
|
|
|
Post by d00bie on Apr 27, 2010 21:27:12 GMT 1
Man to man with thats what I like to see, or keyboard to keyboard in this case.
sss when you finish a statement with "that a problem" what kind of answer can you expect ?
There are 2 answers either yes or no, we have already seen your retort to yes, I would be interested in your answer if Downie had said no.
Oh if I was a betting man my money would be on the experienced Downie although I reckon your prob quicker on the keyboard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2010 21:50:20 GMT 1
This season? It has been awful.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2010 8:08:05 GMT 1
Apart from the Turner episode then the current one.
|
|
|
Post by len on Apr 28, 2010 9:50:06 GMT 1
Wembley for me. The majority of this season has been poor & boring to watch.
But Bury & Dag & Red were 2 great days that I'll never forget.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 28, 2010 10:10:52 GMT 1
I was at Blyth
I was at Staines
I was at all the games in the 6 games no wins/no goals run of 2010
I went to 15+ away games in the league in a row last season and never saw a win (untill we finally got one at Rotherham)
I went to Wembely and had my hopes dashed again
I was the home games to Grimsby this season where for the first time in my life i considered not bothering to go again the next week due to the lack of guts and fight from the players!
I have seen us waste one season of a most talented squad we have had for a while and then see this squad taken apart and replaced with lifeless, weak minded, unentertaining players and waste another...
Is it any wonder I want to see the back of the manager?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 10:26:23 GMT 1
And you think ALL of that is the managers blame eh??
Others should also be admitting the parts they have played in this......
As said before, I agree some of the signings have been poor. But there are many issues here for finger pointing, and if one head rolls, others should!!
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 28, 2010 10:37:23 GMT 1
Such as? Who are you pointing a finger at?
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Apr 28, 2010 10:40:40 GMT 1
If we are playing crap like we have been it means the players are not doing there job properly.its so simple glyn
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 28, 2010 10:42:56 GMT 1
And you think ALL of that is the managers blame eh?? The manager selects the players that are brought into this club. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, he is there to motivate the team, to change things if needs be (if certain players are not motivated, are not playing well, if certain tactics are not working). At the end of the day, it’s all down to the manager. He is fully responsible for the playing side of the club. Who else to we look to? Players? Well if the players are not doing their job, are not performing, are not putting the effort in then one man and only one can address that. Only the manager can drop them, sell them, get them out of the team, squad or even the club. The chairman, the board? As far as I am aware the board at Town do not and have never looked to interfere with team affairs or? So in just the one word our kid. Yes. By the by, good post from the Huracán. I don't think it is any suprise...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 10:45:29 GMT 1
And you think ALL of that is the managers blame eh?? The manager selects the players that are brought into this club. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, he is there to motivate the team, to change things if needs be (if certain players are not motivated, are not playing well, if certain tactics are not working). At the end of the day, it’s all down to the manager. He is fully responsible for the playing side of the club. Who else to we look to? Players? Well if the players are not doing their job, are not performing, are not putting the effort in then one man and only one can address that. Only the manager can drop them, sell them, get them out of the team, squad or even the club. The chairman, the board? As far as I am aware the board at Town do not and have never looked to interfere with team affairs or? So in just the one word our kid. Yes. And there in lies the problem!! does the MANAGER SELECT THE PLAYERS?? if so how come Holt left?? Simmo wanted him to stay!! the board overruled........ As far as you are aware, does not mean it does not happen........
|
|
|
Post by frustrated on Apr 28, 2010 10:58:03 GMT 1
[quote The manager selects the players that are brought into this club. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, he is there to motivate the team, to change things if needs be (if certain players are not motivated, are not playing well, if certain tactics are not working). At the end of the day, it’s all down to the manager. He is fully responsible for the playing side of the club. Who else to we look to? Players? Well if the players are not doing their job, are not performing, are not putting the effort in then one man and only one can address that. Only the manager can drop them, sell them, get them out of the team, squad or even the club. The chairman, the board? As far as I am aware the board at Town do not and have never looked to interfere with team affairs or? So in just the one word our kid. Yes. By the by, good post from the Huracán. I don't think it is any suprise... [/quote] True. The chairman/board wanted some players who left to stay. PS had the budget to keep them but wanted other players to come in. He made offers he said were good, that he wanted to keep them, but that was pr. He knew they would go and was happy to have more in the kitty for HIS new players.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 28, 2010 11:05:01 GMT 1
The manager selects the players that are brought into this club. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, he is there to motivate the team, to change things if needs be (if certain players are not motivated, are not playing well, if certain tactics are not working). At the end of the day, it’s all down to the manager. He is fully responsible for the playing side of the club. Who else to we look to? Players? Well if the players are not doing their job, are not performing, are not putting the effort in then one man and only one can address that. Only the manager can drop them, sell them, get them out of the team, squad or even the club. The chairman, the board? As far as I am aware the board at Town do not and have never looked to interfere with team affairs or? So in just the one word our kid. Yes. And there in lies the problem!! does the MANAGER SELECT THE PLAYERS?? if so how come Holt left?? Simmo wanted him to stay!! the board overruled........ As far as you are aware, does not mean it does not happen........ Ok, so there maybe one or two instances where we have had to release a player because the money offered was simply too good to turn down. Every single manager of Town has had to face this reality. Indeed, the vast majority of clubs in the 92 (and beyond) find themselves in this situation. That’s apart of managing a club like Town. However, even taking this into consideration he still had funds made available that would be the envy of the vast majority of managers at this level. If we are looking to spend a six figure sum in the transfer window then as far as I can see he had a lot more to work with than everyone else in the division when looking to strengthen the side…something that he has simply been unable to do. I can't simply shift responsibility to anyone else but Simpson purely because his hand was forced with the sale of Holt. That certainly does not change my opinion on his time at Town...
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2010 11:05:37 GMT 1
I was at Blyth I was at Staines I was at all the games in the 6 games no wins/no goals run of 2010 I went to 15+ away games in the league in a row last season and never saw a win (untill we finally got one at Rotherham) I went to Wembely and had my hopes dashed again I was the home games to Grimsby this season where for the first time in my life i considered not bothering to go again the next week due to the lack of guts and fight from the players! I have seen us waste one season of a most talented squad we have had for a while and then see this squad taken apart and replaced with lifeless, weak minded, unentertaining players and waste another... Is it any wonder I want to see the back of the manager? Let's hope this is one that gets printed for the inner sanctum.
|
|
|
Post by Liam on Apr 28, 2010 11:13:23 GMT 1
Low point for me was Aldershot away a month or so ago.
A 6 pointer in which we failed to muster a shot on target or a single chance worthy of the name. In fact, I can't even remember a single instance where we had possession - or even challenged meaningfully for the ball - inside the opposition's penalty area.
In spite of all this, Simpson changed nothing and stuck with the same formation - with an ambitious one up front - for 90 apalling minutes.
I've never seen a Town team so toothless or a Town crowd so miserable and listless.
Aldershot fans declared it the worst performance all season because, having been dreadful in the first half, 'they just came out and did exactly the same thing after half time.'
That was definitely the day I switched from being merely 'critical of' to 'strongly anti' Simpson.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 28, 2010 12:25:11 GMT 1
The manager bought in the players he wanted
He selects which 11 are going to play each week, and the subs
He picks the formation and the tactics that will be employed for matches
He decides on what motivation he will use to get them up for the match
He decides how well players are responding to his instructions
He decides what subs will be bought on and when
If something is not working, he is in the position to change it
If players aren't performing, the manager can drop them and replace them with another
Failures by the team must surely be because of either: 1. Poor players bought in 2. Poor selection by the manager in matches 3. Poor tactical set up 4. Poor motivation by the manager 5. Poor communication by the manager in what he wants the players to do 6. Poor understanding application by the players of the managers instructions, in which case it's poor management by the manager in not replacing these players 7. Poor reactions to a game not going to plan.
I don't see how it can be anything else.
I really can't understand how some people are saying simpson's had the rug pulled from under him. Holt was sold for a fantastic price, he had the opportunity to replace him and decided that Elder, Bright and Robinson and later Cureton would do so. He decided that Lewis Neal was the answer to our shortage in midfield and has picked him throughout the season. He decided that Holden was the replacement for our two right backs.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2010 13:25:51 GMT 1
I'll wade in support of Downie - and then the powers of be can have a word about both of us with his brother (LOL).
I don't think people can ever understand the thrust of Downie's comments if they have never worked in an organisation where the way it is run is seriously detrimental to the way you can do your job.
There are a few people on this thread making comments about Simpson's decision-making which I am not in a position to gainsay because I don't have any football coaching qualifications. All I can say is that Simpson successfully managed two promotions with Carlisle. May be he got lucky for two whole seasons. If so he has probably used up all of the luck anyone is entitled to have.
My view is as follows:
1) An immense amount was put into making an unbelievable selection of transfers in summer 2008.
2) By January 2009 the promotion impetus required a further freshening up of the squad. Not to the same extent but 1-3 quality signings even just on loan would have sufficed. Instead we got Dunfield and people who couldn't get a game elsewhere. Things has changed. Simpson was operating in a different environment, I doubt he had changed it himself. They are his signings. Was making no signings an option in January 2009?
3) In January contract negotiations were stopped with the current squad. Again it stretches the imagination that Paul Simpson instigated this. No doubt he went along with it. No doubt prioryshrew will repeat his nonsense that he should have resigned.
4) After the play-off final Roland Wycherley does his pieces. dudums.
5) Summer of 2010. Holt, Davies and (only in the context of losing the other two) Humphrey go elsewhere. That is extremely serious. The club has extreme difficulty in getting quality replacements - on the back of a play-off final - other things being equal it should have been easier. My suggestion is that targets were seeing quality players leaving, and there probably wasn't as much cash on the table. The signings of the likes of Elder and Bright were panic buys to plug the gaps in the squad. They're Simpson's signings. This left us with people on the contracts they were signed on in 2008 and the people who came in in 2009. Between the two the squad looked unbalanced with a lack of cover in defence. Did Simpson have more money to spend on new players in 2009 than 2008? Did he spend all of it? Did he spend it wisely? Well we couldn't go into the season with the number of strikers we had before Elder was signed.
6) Also during the summer of 2009 I suggest that there is a deteriorating relationship between Wycherley and Simpson, as Wycherley continues to fume over the play-off final loss. Fuming is a useful thing in an organisation. Wycherley then apparently, in August 2009 considers appointing Graham Turner as a director of football. If that is true then I think it is quite disgraceful. The effect today is that as a result of the resolution or at least patching up of the situation Simpson has Wycherley's pecker in his pocket and that is the only reason why I think that Simpson is still here.
For the record I will regret the departure of Paul Simpson from this football club far less than I regretted the departure of Gary Peters.
I think, like Symes, Pugh and others, it would do Simpson the world of good to get away from Shrewsbury Town. I just don't see how you can work properly in the environment.
My wish is for the environment to change before August 2010.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 28, 2010 13:32:32 GMT 1
Fair points but a lack of money cannot be used an excuse really???
All during this time we have far more talented managers working wonders with small budgets (accy, Daggenham) or resources (bournmouth)....
The clash between manager and Chairman is intresting, and that I do agree with, but on the pitch he still had the resorces to do a better job than he has, and at times hes been the arcitect of his own downfall (comments about fans, overseeing the limp performances in the cup, percived lack of motivational skills)
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2010 13:37:31 GMT 1
More talented or luckier. Combination of the two? What goes into making a successful football manager? Write the book Pricey if you can - I can't.
There are reasons for the difference in the quality of the signings in 2009 and 2008. Simpson was the manager on both occasions. I can't believe that money isn't one of them. The signings on 2008 were breath-taking.
Add Morecambe. Mcilroy has done a good job over a period. Although it helps when you can pick-up players like Drummond.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Apr 28, 2010 13:58:00 GMT 1
More talented or luckier. Combination of the two? What goes into making a successful football manager? Write the book Pricey if you can - I can't. There are reasons for the difference in the quality of the signings in 2009 and 2008. Simpson was the manager on both occasions. I can't believe that money isn't one of them. The signings on 2008 were breath-taking. Add Morecambe. Mcilroy has done a good job over a period. Although it helps when you can pick-up players like Drummond. I have tried to avoid commenting on the current situation in case other posters might think that I'm saying "I told you so" . Sean, any manager who feels that he is not getting the resources to do the job is entitled to resign and explain his reason for his resignation and claim compensation. Over the years other manager have done this. Surely, the chairman of any club has the right to structure his club in the way he feels fit. If Roland wanted to strengthen the ties between the Youth set up and the first team, which I think is a good idea, for a club the size of the Town. If to achieve that he decides to appoint a Director of Football then fair enough. If that doesn't change the responsibilities of the Team Manager surely he has no room for complaint. If it does change his Terms then he can resign and seek compensation. According to Simpson he has received total support from the Chairman and has never had a request turned down, even down to the situation where there was £100k on the table in January to buy O'Flynn. At the end of the day what happens on the pitch is down to the manager, Simpson has had for two years with one of the largest budgets in the division, in my opinion, he has failed to use those budgets wisely. He has failed to provide consistency from the team whether through poor tactics, poor motivation, poor signings or bad team selection. In any business a manager's failure to achieve his objectives when provided with the resources, is likely to result in a visit to the Job Centre. There is some evidence that a few footballing decisions were taken by another person, however one would guess that this maybe be the reason that that person has not been with the club for 9 months.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 28, 2010 14:25:29 GMT 1
Failures by the team must surely be because of either: 1. Poor players bought in 2. Poor selection by the manager in matches 3. Poor tactical set up 4. Poor motivation by the manager 5. Poor communication by the manager in what he wants the players to do 6. Poor understanding application by the players of the managers instructions, in which case it's poor management by the manager in not replacing these players 7. Poor reactions to a game not going to plan. I don't see how it can be anything else. Interesting list of reasons for a team to fail. All seven are the manager's responsibility. Only one is remotely the responsibility of the players and even that is that the player is poor so it's the manager's fault for bringing him in in the first place. How about an eighth reason: Decent, or even good, players fail to perform to their own standards. Don't tell me that's always the manager's fault as well. To me it's very simple - everyone has a responsibility and one person can't be responsible for everything, even if they're made to carry the can ultimately. Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Alan Hansen made a very sensible comment the other day about players having to take responsibility for themselves instead of wittering about everything and everyone else being responsible for their own failings. I couldn't agree more. We're setting ourselves up for another fall here. A lot of people are pinning all the blame on one person, then too much will be expected of his successor, then he'll fail to meet those unrealistic expectations. It's the cult of the manager - a club's success or failure doesn't begin and end with one person.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2010 14:26:23 GMT 1
Of course the Youth set-up is another story. Wholesale changes to an apparently successful team.
As I say I would like to see the environment changed by August 2010. Otherwise we will be having the same discussions in two years time about Simpson's successor.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Apr 28, 2010 14:35:41 GMT 1
How about an eighth reason: Decent, or even good, players fail to perform to their own standards. Don't tell me that's always the manager's fault as well. To me it's very simple - everyone has a responsibility and one person can't be responsible for everything, even if they're made to carry the can ultimately. Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Yes but you are missing the point, Each Saturday a manager selects 11 players out of 25 to go an do a job anytime after the first whistle the manager can change up to 3 of the 11 if they are not doing the job correctly not necessarily wait for the 60th minute. After 45 minutes he can change the way the team goes about it. All considered a good manager has plenty of opportunities to correct his mistakes every Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 28, 2010 14:42:31 GMT 1
Failures by the team must surely be because of either: 1. Poor players bought in 2. Poor selection by the manager in matches 3. Poor tactical set up 4. Poor motivation by the manager 5. Poor communication by the manager in what he wants the players to do 6. Poor understanding application by the players of the managers instructions, in which case it's poor management by the manager in not replacing these players 7. Poor reactions to a game not going to plan. I don't see how it can be anything else. Interesting list of reasons for a team to fail. All seven are the manager's responsibility. Only one is remotely the responsibility of the players and even that is that the player is poor so it's the manager's fault for bringing him in in the first place. How about an eighth reason: Decent, or even good, players fail to perform to their own standards. Don't tell me that's always the manager's fault as well. To me it's very simple - everyone has a responsibility and one person can't be responsible for everything, even if they're made to carry the can ultimately. Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Alan Hansen made a very sensible comment the other day about players having to take responsibility for themselves instead of wittering about everything and everyone else being responsible for their own failings. I couldn't agree more. We're setting ourselves up for another fall here. A lot of people are pinning all the blame on one person, then too much will be expected of his successor, then he'll fail to meet those unrealistic expectations. It's the cult of the manager - a club's success or failure doesn't begin and end with one person. Well I think managers have more chance to influence a club than anyone else does. Just look at the examples of Ferguson or Wenger in particular. Or look at the example of Redknapp at Spurs, who immediately improved results from Ramos without bringing in new faces. Point about the players, yes I agree they are responsible too. However, if they are not performing, not listening to the manager, not doing their jobs properly then they should be dropped. Only the manager can do that. Simpson has been in charge for over 2 years, he's bought in all his own players now, that he wanted, after claiming the old peter's squad didn't have the necessary attributes, this group is no better. Take Lewis Neal for an example, a player Simpson identified as wanting and then signed. he has made 23 starts and 8 sub appearances this season, i don't think anyone could say he's been performing this season, so why is this. Has he listening to simpson's instructions? if not why was he picked so often? if he was playing as simpson instructed, you've got to ask questions of those instructions. If the reason for his poor performances is Neal's only mentality and desire, then again why has been picked so often?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 28, 2010 14:57:43 GMT 1
How about an eighth reason: Decent, or even good, players fail to perform to their own standards. Don't tell me that's always the manager's fault as well. To me it's very simple - everyone has a responsibility and one person can't be responsible for everything, even if they're made to carry the can ultimately. Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Yes but you are missing the point, Each Saturday a manager selects 11 players out of 25 to go an do a job anytime after the first whistle the manager can change up to 3 of the 11 if they are not doing the job correctly not necessarily wait for the 60th minute. After 45 minutes he can change the way the team goes about it. All considered a good manager has plenty of opportunities to correct his mistakes every Saturday. Agreed. I don't understand this point folk are on about the players. If they are not performing then the manager should drop them. Get someone into the team who can do a job. If that person is not in the club then the manager has to go out bring someone into the club to do the job. Simple as. Only the manager can do this and that is why it his responsiblity... Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Well if the manager continued to ask you to do that job again and again even if its clear you are incapable of doing so then it would be the managers fault. In asking you to do something you are cleary unable to do or uninterested in doing is bad management. You would get someone in who is able to do the job...
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Apr 28, 2010 15:06:50 GMT 1
This is an article from Mondays Times by Patrick Barclay suggesting that a manager is far more important than even the best player
Worth of a top manager can’t be discounted
Suppose Blackpool made only one signing this summer — Lionel Messi. Conceivably they would be promoted next season. But what if the club, at present managed by the more than competent Ian Holloway, engaged José Mourinho instead? Their promotion would surely be assured.
The twin hypotheses arose while I pondered a friend’s theory that an outstanding manager is more important in the modern game than an outstanding player. It is topical as we entertain reasonable doubt that Barcelona, who have at least two outstanding players in Messi and Xavi Hernández, can recover on Wednesday from a 3-1 lead established by Inter Milan, who are benefiting from the leadership, tactical expertise and presence of Mourinho.
To be proved wrong would be a joy. To believe that Eric Cantona, upon whose arrival at Old Trafford the goalscoring rate of Manchester United doubled, had more influence than Sir Alex Ferguson in making the club what they have become would also appeal to the romantic. But a great manager — Chapman, Stein, Busby, Shankly, Clough — tends to be the architect of history, while the better players have more the function of pillars.
That is why it is odd there is so little restriction on a manager’s movement: no window, for instance, outside which he cannot change clubs, and no system of transfer fees beyond generally token compensation. Perhaps, if a market existed, there would be more continuity and less of a kneejerk approach by clubs to the merest semblance of a crisis. And Porto, upon losing Mourinho in 2004, would have got a world record fee.
|
|