[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]my one big problem is when we start talking about attracting players........his recoed id not great in this respect. Loanees his recoed is pretty good (Ward, Murty, McEverly and, to a certain degree, Butterfield) but on the players he has brought in permanently (Burton & Spring)then the Jury's answer has got to be GUILTY.
I'm not so sure about that. Burton was originally brought in to give us another striker that could win headers, hold up the ball etc, not to score 15 goals and keep us up.
Spring I've always been a bit confused about, but I think he just tried to freshen things up. He's realised now Spring isn't anywhere near as good as our main five midfielders.
Two very cheap permanent signings isn't enough to judge him on. Didn't he bring players like Turner in to Hull and Iwelumo to Colchester, among others?
As I've said before, making signings in the summer, planning for promotion, is very different to making a few quick cheap signings in January when you're fighting relegation and desperate.
This has been a great post. What is clear is that fan base is completely divided on this one. Some people myself included just want to close this sad chapter in the clubs history and see the back of Parkinson, whereas as others believe that there may be a glimmer of light at the end of a very long and distant tunnel. If the fans are this divided I am sure that the board are equally unsure.
I really wouldn’t like to be in Richard Murray’s shoes making this decision. Having got it so badly wrong over the last two years he dare not make another blunder
This thread has been mature, reasoned and rational. The debate has been intelligent and insightful. Everybody has been meticulously polite and respectful. We've even been influenced and swayed by views contrary to our own.
But have you forgotten where we are? This is the internet , where such behavour is not tolerated!
What happened to invective, bullying, belittling other people's opinions, the belief that he who shouts loudest wins , not to mention ridiculous and unsustainable assertions followed by the word ''FACT'' ?
[quote][cite]Posted By: Billericay Dickie[/cite]I really wouldn’t like to be in Richard Murray’s shoes making this decision. Having got it so badly wrong over the last two years he dare not make another blunder[/quote]
It would be hard for Richard Murray to make a blunder. Think of it this way ....... whatever his credentials at League 1 level, is Phil Parkinson likely to lead us back to the top flight in, say, a four or five year period? At best he might get us out of League 1 and then look for 'stability' in the Championship for a couple of years. Nothing in his track record suggests that he can take us beyond that (in fact, it's the opposite), and even mid-table Championship aspirations may be asking too much.
Replacing him with someone who offers the potential to reach the top flight, but who happens not to deliver for whatever reason would not be a blunder when you consider where we are at the moment. The only real blunder would be if we go down into League 2 - and Richard Murray's selection process will hardly address such a negative scenario.
If we retain Phil Parkinson, it has to be for the right reasons ....... not because he is the cheap option (think longer-term when you buy 'cheap'), not because 'he is his own man', not because he happens to have got some things right in his tenure (see earlier posts in this thread for examples .... although each one of these could be countered with more substantial examples of mistakes), but because he is the right man to work in combination with the Chairman, the CEO and the back-up/scouting staff to get us back to the top level.
Ask yourself this ......... can you see Phil Parkinson leading us into the Premier League in four or five years time?
I can't see into the future and neither can Richard Murray. Five years is a long time in football.
Personally I'm torn as I stand by what I said when he was appointed. He is honest, down to earth, hard working and his own man. I also said he should be given some games and judged on the results. On that measure he has clearly failed despite the many extenuating circumstances listed above.
So if he goes, and I think he may well, then I will say good luck to him.
I still think he has the potential to do a good job so I hope he gets that chance if not here then elsewhere.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]I think we're all agreed that there is no easy answer to this conundrum, but maybe a couple of points to consider ...
This is where I separate in the debate.
I do not think it is a difficult decision at all.
Parky's record is abysmal.
He gives me no confidence that he is up to the task and can move this club forward.
So the only conclusion, in my mind, is Parky Out!
Distance may indeed have altered my perspective. But is that good or bad? Probably depends on if you agree with me, or not.
But my perspective is not clouded by Parky being a nice bloke, his ability to say the right things, or a few late improved performances (without real results) during the pressureless run after relegation was a certainty.
I do not mean to dismiss anyone's reasons for keeping him. I just don't believe they add up, when stacked against the facts of record.
If this club is to get back on track and move forward, it needs a new manager.
More of the same will not cut it. And, quite frankly, I am amazed that some people are actually willing to continue the current regime against all evidence which can be found in the table and at the end of your noses.
I too have found myself moving strangely towards a resignation that Parky will be our manager next season - however, I think that this is just a case of accepting the reality of the situation.
As stated by SHG and others - if we get money from a takeover, then let's get someone else in. If we don't, then we really don't have a choice, and he would have the advantage over any other budget buy manager in that he knows the set up and at least appears to have the players behind him.
It's all about the cash and I cannot see the sense in risking what little we do have for a manager who carries no gaurantee of better results....
I think we know the reality - this isn't fantasy football. We are skint and Parky will most likely be here next season - poor record or not.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]Ask yourself this ......... can you see Phil Parkinson leading us into the Premier League in four or five years time?
Now how hard a decision is it?
It will sound ridiculous, but yes he could do, impossible to say. Build a team to get back up and the club has momentum. Look at Swansea, they haven't done well because they got promoted then spent millions, they've had a good League One side who have improved and developed into a decent Championship one. I doubt people would have predicted that Ferguson would have done as well as he has at Man Utd, back in his first few years, wasn't he once very close to the sack?
As Henry said five years is a long time in football. Will Roy Keane and Paul Ince be top managers one day? When they were taking their clubs up, at the time plenty of people would say yes. After their last few months at their clubs, other people would say no. Same with Boothroyd at Watford, one day he was seen as a potential top manager, a few seasons later he's not seen as anything special.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
Ask yourself this ......... can you see Phil Parkinson leading us into the Premier League in four or five years time?
Now how hard a decision is it?
That's an assumption its impossible to answer though. People would have laughed if you said Wigan, Hull and Stoke would be in the Premiership 5 years ago.
I'm sure 4-5 years ago you could never have seen Tony Pulis, Phil Brown or Gary Megson managing in the premiership. As little 3 years ago, Mick McCarthy was a ridiculed joke figure after his disasterous Sunderland reign. Paul Hart, the man David James and other senior players are saying is the reason Pompey are likely to stay up, was a youth team manager who's first managerial spell at Rushden saw him sacked within three months.
Flipping the question, who Dave will we attract as a Division 3 manager on a £200k-£250k salary, being told there is no money and that you will be selling one or two of your best players, that will have the proven track record to get us promoted twice within 4-5 years ?
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Parkinson knew the set up when he first took over, fat lot of good that did.
He's since made changes to it though. Said before I don't think he can go into a club and get an instant reaction, not that kind of manager. Can he build a squad over time and improve a club? Not been here long enough to judge that.
The assumption by many of the posts on this thread is that getting a new manager is going to be very expensive and something we cannot do unless there is a takeover. I disagree with that. Despite what has happened over the last 3 or 4 years I believe the Charlton manager job is one of the top 30 football manager jobs in England. There are many many very experienced ex football managers in this country who once enjoyed a good reputation and achieved a good level of success but who have not worked as managers for 1, 2, 3, 4 years. Once you have had a blip on your cv it is not easy to get back into the game. When the Charlton job becomes vacant it receives over 40 realistic applications I believe. Some of these out of work managers are desperate for the opportunity to re-establish their reputations and would jump at the chance to do that with Charlton and the salary on offer would not be an issue. Some would do it for free or with 70% of the salary only paid on promotion at the end of the season. Also, I think there are many talented and experienced Dutch and French coaches who would relish the opportunity to prove themselves in the UK but have no chance of getting a Premiership job who would take on the Charlton job at a fraction of what we paid Pardew and even Parkinson.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]The assumption by many of the posts on this thread is that getting a new manager is going to be very expensive and something we cannot do unless there is a takeover. I disagree with that. Despite what has happened over the last 3 or 4 years I believe the Charlton manager job is one of the top 30 football manager jobs in England. There are many many very experienced ex football managers in this country who once enjoyed a good reputation and achieved a good level of success but who have not worked as managers for 1, 2, 3, 4 years. Once you have had a blip on your cv it is not easy to get back into the game. When the Charlton job becomes vacant it receives over 40 realistic applications I believe. Some of these out of work managers are desperate for the opportunity to re-establish their reputations and would jump at the chance to do that with Charlton and the salary on offer would not be an issue. Some would do it for free or with 70% of the salary only paid on promotion at the end of the season. Also, I think there are many talented and experienced Dutch and French coaches who would relish the opportunity to prove themselves in the UK but have no chance of getting a Premiership job who would take on the Charlton job at a fraction of what we paid Pardew and even Parkinson.
I have been engaged in this debate which has been going on simultaneously on the Pink Oboe list.
This is my post from there:
This is a real dilemma for me. I find myself with a foot in both camps (typical pinko I hear you say). I don't see it quite in the black and white that AA sees it. There is no doubt, in a results business, he should go, indeed should have gone. It's also quite right to say that such improvement in play has come pretty much at the end when relegation was a virtual certainly.
I think what is swaying me in a different direction just, is the improvement in passing and movement especially in midfield. If you haven't been to games recently (AA and Prague Addick in particular) you wont have seen this and have to base judgement through the eyes of press and posters on various fora. The football just has been, for the most part, how I like to see it. Holding the ball, moving it around the pitch, turning defence into attack quickly, attacking with pace. Plus pressing the opposition as high up thepitch as possible. There are still areas that need improving, crosses/final balls and defending at corners in particular. It is quite simply what we have been missing not just for the last two seasons, but beyond that to the first half of the last season of Curbs. Maybe another manager could have made things better quicker, frankly who knows? The last two seasons of Pardews management had very few performances of note even with arguably a much better squad.
So I have nudged over to the Parky to stay camp just, not on the basis of results but on the quality of the play particularly in midfield where we have been so poor in recent times.
It's a balance of risk scenario. 10 games ago, the play had not improved other than a miniscule amount hence the feeling then was he had to go because the risks of him staying greatly out-weighed those of him going. Now I think the risks have narrowed and so I'd keep him unless we are talking about somebody with proven pedigree (unlikely unless there is a takeover).
In addition to this I echo what AFKA has said about some of Parkys achievements like using Racon, turning around Sam, re-establishing Bailey in a slightly different role plus a few others.
As many of you know I live in Norwich and many of my friends are Canary fans. Those who can bear to speak to me have all said how well we played versus their no hopers and they found it pretty hard to compare the performance on Saturday to the one at Carrow Road in the cup which then was between two pretty hopeless and talent starved teams.
I leave one final thought:
To those who say that Parky has had enough time, I'd say, what happens when a tanker's heading for the rocks and the helmsman who steered it there is relieved of his duties? Does the boat stop in it's tracks and start moving away, or does it carrying on moving forward inexorably toward the rocks despite the efforts of a replacement steerer?
Are we too hard on Parky when maybe the goodship Charlton had been driven hard towards the rocks by Pardew whilst the Captain and the rest of the crew slept?
Is the fact that Parky was unable to turn things around before the bows hit ground, his fault or that of the departed one?
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
Ask yourself this ......... can you see Phil Parkinson leading us into the Premier League in four or five years time?
Now how hard a decision is it?
That's an assumption its impossible to answer though. People would have laughed if you said Wigan, Hull and Stoke would be in the Premiership 5 years ago.
I'm sure 4-5 years ago you could never have seen Tony Pulis, Phil Brown or Gary Megson managing in the premiership. As little 3 years ago, Mick McCarthy was a ridiculed joke figure after his disasterous Sunderland reign. Paul Hart, the man David James and other senior players are saying is the reason Pompey are likely to stay up, was a youth team manager who's first managerial spell at Rushden saw him sacked within three months.
Flipping the question, who Dave will we attract as a Division 3 manager on a £200k-£250k salary, being told there is no money and that you will be selling one or two of your best players, that will have the proven track record to get us promoted twice within 4-5 years ?
For every example of clubs and managers who may have made the grade (however briefly) I'll find you a greater number of examples of those who havent. People would have laughed if you said Rotherham, Luton and Stockport would be in the Premiership 5 years ago ........... and they would have been right.
Flipping the question misses the point. Phil Parkinson should not be retained simply because the Club fails to identify anyone better. The very skill that any Manager needs to bring is the same one that the Board needs to exercise ...... the skill of identifying someone with the potential to progress over the next few years. That's where the Chairman's judgement has to come in.
For the record, it's clear that we have to look to the lower leagues (including Scotland and maybe elsewhere) and use our 'big club' status to try to attract someone with a decent record and with ambition. We have to find the next Darren Ferguson or Nigel Clough ........... managers with enough evidence of their capability and with clear aspirations to progress to the top level. I could see both of those in the Premier League in a few years time and, while neither of them is appropriate for us at this time, a review of other clubs doing well over the last couple of seasons and with ambitious managers with decent principles will throw up the names that you seek.
As I've said elsewhere though, selection of the right man (oops, person?) for the Manager's job is dependent on the overall combination of characters that make up a successful football club. Chairman, CEO and back-up/scouting staff all need to operate as one. I'm still not sure that the Club has entirely worked out each of those roles and how they all fit together.
Down-to-earth good sense from Dave Rudd, as ever. From Bing , too, although I think I'd take major issue with him over this:
''what is swaying me in a different direction just, is the improvement in passing and movement especially in midfield''.
Not sure why on earth you credit Parkinson for that, Bing. Racon and ZZ came back from injury and Shelvey began to fulfil his abundant promise. So of course there was an improvement... you could argue that under a more competent manager there should/would have been an even greater improvement in the team's performances and results.
I know the first rule of management is take credit for everything that goes right and blame someone else for all that goes wrong, but to give Parky the job because the physio got a couple of players back on the pitch before the end of the season is really pushing it !
Well Nigel I think your being a little mean spirited if you don't mind me saying so. Pardew had copious opportunities to play Racon and failed to play him. After Reid went and we were crying out for some quality in midfield he shipped him out to Brighton. Parky has made Racon a mainstay in his team. ZZ was back from injury but it was Parkys decision to play him in a 5 man midfield with the emerging Shelvey in a advanced role just behind the striker. I guess what I'm saying is that any fool can throw food into a bowl and cook it up , only a chef can get the balance of tastes just right.
''Pardew had copious opportunities to play Racon and failed to play him.''
Racon was a central part of Pardew's plans for this season. He started him in his best XI for the first match of the season and retained him after the arrival of Bailey for the second match (he dropped Shelvey to acommodate Bailey). Then Racon got injured. So I don't think the idea that master chef Parkinson rescued Racon from a Pardew-imposed miserable demi-monde exile in the ressies/or on loan really holds water...
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]Well Nigel I think your being a little mean spirited if you don't mind me saying so. Pardew had copious opportunities to play Racon and failed to play him. After Reid went and we were crying out for some quality in midfield he shipped him out to Brighton. Parky has made Racon a mainstay in his team. ZZ was back from injury but it was Parkys decision to play him in a 5 man midfield with the emerging Shelvey in a advanced role just behind the striker. I guess what I'm saying is that any fool can throw food into a bowl and cook it up , only a chef can get the balance of tastes just right.
Equally, anyone with half an idea of the 'strength' of our forward line would realise that our best option would be to play 5 in midfield. I'm sorry but that to me was just obvious rather than a sign of tactical nous. I believe it was also Parky who said that JJ and ZZ could NOT play in the same line up?
Well I've got to compliment everybody in this thread and concede that I too have swung this way and that while catching up with the last 100 or so.
In the past 17 years since Richard Murray, whenever a big issue came up, whether it was about players being sold ( Robert Lee, Lee Bowyer, Danny Mills, Scott Parker) or the future of Curbs at various times, Richard Murray found a way to get the thinking out into the fans domain. This is what I am missing now, clear messages from inside the Club. Somebody posted that the players seem to back Parky. This is really interesting but I need to know more. Why do they back him? What does he do well that Pardew didn't? This could really help us. But we also need this from the Board. Especially if the decision is to keep him. The mixed messages from the Board in November were a disaster. Personally I will only be able to accept Parky staying on if I know Richard Murray personally thinks this is the right decision, and that I have some idea why RM thinks that.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]''Pardew had copious opportunities to play Racon and failed to play him.''
Racon was a central part of Pardew's plans for this season. He started him in his best XI for the first match of the season and retained him after the arrival of Bailey for the second match (he dropped Shelvey to acommodate Bailey). Then Racon got injured. So I don't think the idea that Parkinson rescued Racon from a Pardew-imposed miserable demi-monde exile in the ressies/or on loan really holds water...
Well you are talking about the manager who never ever played a settled team Nigel. Yes he said he was going to make Racon a central part of his plans this season and yes he played him and then he got injured. I'd rather judge him though on what he did when he had the chance, not what he said he'd do. He said when he signed Racon that he was a real quality player. He said that he signed him following the signing of Moo2 whom he claimed was a better right back than Luke Young and was hoping for great things. He then failed to play either of them regularly, bringing in loan players instead. Do you really believe that he would have stuck with Racon? Parky not only stuck with him, he has kept a settled side in recent games, something that Pardew never did.
[cite]Posted By: Les Addicks[/cite]Equally, anyone with half an idea of the 'strength' of our forward line would realise that our best option would be to play 5 in midfield. I'm sorry but that to me was just obvious rather than a sign of tactical nous. I believe it was also Parky who said that JJ and ZZ could NOT play in the same line up?
I know he was quoted as saying that, I don't know whether that was taken out of context. What he did though was work out how to get the best out of the midfield including ZZ. I know it's easy to say that any fool could come up with five in midfield. Would you, for example have put Bailey out wide left?. Would you have played JJ high up the pitch? Would you have turned Lloyd Sam around and made him as effective as he has been in the past few weeks?
'' you are talking about the manager who never ever played a settled team...''
Bing, that was certanly true over the 2007/8 season. But as a description of what Pardew did this season, it's a bit of a myth.
This season he played Weaver (18/18). He consistently played a back four that included Youga (14/18, suspended for two), Hudson (17/18, one suspended) and Fortune/Primus (16/18, Cranie came in two games when Primus wasn't fit). He had a problem with the other full-back, trying Moots, Semedo and Cranie.
In mid-field he consistently started Bailey (17/17), Bouazza (15/18), Holland (13/18) and Sam (12/18). He played Racon and ZZ every time they were fit (2 and 1 respectively). He consistently played Varney and Gray, wth just two appearances for Todorov and one for McLeod.
It was Parky who couldn't find a settled team...if you tot it up, I think you will find in Janauary he played something like 24 different players in four or five games!
I'm not defending Pardew - I came to loathe him and what he did to our club as much as you clearly do. But with the greatest respect, there are enough reasons to dislike him without rewriting history.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]what a cracking thread this really is.
Again it's showing just how hard this decision is. Easy to say he should go, based on results yes it's not good enough. Sack him though and there's even more huge decisions to make.
There are meant to be all these candidates out there, but it's clear there is no one obvious and that's what makes it so hard.
Comments
I'm not so sure about that. Burton was originally brought in to give us another striker that could win headers, hold up the ball etc, not to score 15 goals and keep us up.
Spring I've always been a bit confused about, but I think he just tried to freshen things up. He's realised now Spring isn't anywhere near as good as our main five midfielders.
Two very cheap permanent signings isn't enough to judge him on. Didn't he bring players like Turner in to Hull and Iwelumo to Colchester, among others?
As I've said before, making signings in the summer, planning for promotion, is very different to making a few quick cheap signings in January when you're fighting relegation and desperate.
I really wouldn’t like to be in Richard Murray’s shoes making this decision. Having got it so badly wrong over the last two years he dare not make another blunder
This thread has been mature, reasoned and rational. The debate has been intelligent and insightful. Everybody has been meticulously polite and respectful. We've even been influenced and swayed by views contrary to our own.
But have you forgotten where we are? This is the internet , where such behavour is not tolerated!
What happened to invective, bullying, belittling other people's opinions, the belief that he who shouts loudest wins , not to mention ridiculous and unsustainable assertions followed by the word ''FACT'' ?
You should all be ashamed of yourselves ...;,)
It would be hard for Richard Murray to make a blunder. Think of it this way ....... whatever his credentials at League 1 level, is Phil Parkinson likely to lead us back to the top flight in, say, a four or five year period? At best he might get us out of League 1 and then look for 'stability' in the Championship for a couple of years. Nothing in his track record suggests that he can take us beyond that (in fact, it's the opposite), and even mid-table Championship aspirations may be asking too much.
Replacing him with someone who offers the potential to reach the top flight, but who happens not to deliver for whatever reason would not be a blunder when you consider where we are at the moment. The only real blunder would be if we go down into League 2 - and Richard Murray's selection process will hardly address such a negative scenario.
If we retain Phil Parkinson, it has to be for the right reasons ....... not because he is the cheap option (think longer-term when you buy 'cheap'), not because 'he is his own man', not because he happens to have got some things right in his tenure (see earlier posts in this thread for examples .... although each one of these could be countered with more substantial examples of mistakes), but because he is the right man to work in combination with the Chairman, the CEO and the back-up/scouting staff to get us back to the top level.
Ask yourself this ......... can you see Phil Parkinson leading us into the Premier League in four or five years time?
Now how hard a decision is it?
Personally I'm torn as I stand by what I said when he was appointed. He is honest, down to earth, hard working and his own man. I also said he should be given some games and judged on the results. On that measure he has clearly failed despite the many extenuating circumstances listed above.
So if he goes, and I think he may well, then I will say good luck to him.
I still think he has the potential to do a good job so I hope he gets that chance if not here then elsewhere.
This is where I separate in the debate.
I do not think it is a difficult decision at all.
Parky's record is abysmal.
He gives me no confidence that he is up to the task and can move this club forward.
So the only conclusion, in my mind, is Parky Out!
Distance may indeed have altered my perspective. But is that good or bad? Probably depends on if you agree with me, or not.
But my perspective is not clouded by Parky being a nice bloke, his ability to say the right things, or a few late improved performances (without real results) during the pressureless run after relegation was a certainty.
I do not mean to dismiss anyone's reasons for keeping him. I just don't believe they add up, when stacked against the facts of record.
If this club is to get back on track and move forward, it needs a new manager.
More of the same will not cut it. And, quite frankly, I am amazed that some people are actually willing to continue the current regime against all evidence which can be found in the table and at the end of your noses.
Sitting on the fence will only hurt your bum!
As stated by SHG and others - if we get money from a takeover, then let's get someone else in. If we don't, then we really don't have a choice, and he would have the advantage over any other budget buy manager in that he knows the set up and at least appears to have the players behind him.
It's all about the cash and I cannot see the sense in risking what little we do have for a manager who carries no gaurantee of better results....
I think we know the reality - this isn't fantasy football. We are skint and Parky will most likely be here next season - poor record or not.
Elsewhere is the much preferred option!
I would wish him well. But I wish him away!
It will sound ridiculous, but yes he could do, impossible to say. Build a team to get back up and the club has momentum. Look at Swansea, they haven't done well because they got promoted then spent millions, they've had a good League One side who have improved and developed into a decent Championship one. I doubt people would have predicted that Ferguson would have done as well as he has at Man Utd, back in his first few years, wasn't he once very close to the sack?
As Henry said five years is a long time in football. Will Roy Keane and Paul Ince be top managers one day? When they were taking their clubs up, at the time plenty of people would say yes. After their last few months at their clubs, other people would say no. Same with Boothroyd at Watford, one day he was seen as a potential top manager, a few seasons later he's not seen as anything special.
That's an assumption its impossible to answer though. People would have laughed if you said Wigan, Hull and Stoke would be in the Premiership 5 years ago.
I'm sure 4-5 years ago you could never have seen Tony Pulis, Phil Brown or Gary Megson managing in the premiership. As little 3 years ago, Mick McCarthy was a ridiculed joke figure after his disasterous Sunderland reign. Paul Hart, the man David James and other senior players are saying is the reason Pompey are likely to stay up, was a youth team manager who's first managerial spell at Rushden saw him sacked within three months.
Flipping the question, who Dave will we attract as a Division 3 manager on a £200k-£250k salary, being told there is no money and that you will be selling one or two of your best players, that will have the proven track record to get us promoted twice within 4-5 years ?
He's since made changes to it though. Said before I don't think he can go into a club and get an instant reaction, not that kind of manager. Can he build a squad over time and improve a club? Not been here long enough to judge that.
Wasn't Megson in the premiership 5-6 years ago managing West Brom?
Yep, and getting slated by fans because he "wasn't good enough" :-)
interesting point !
This is my post from there:
This is a real dilemma for me. I find myself with a foot in both camps (typical pinko I hear you say). I don't see it quite in the black and white that AA sees it. There is no doubt, in a results business, he should go, indeed should have gone. It's also quite right to say that such improvement in play has come pretty much at the end when relegation was a virtual certainly.
I think what is swaying me in a different direction just, is the improvement in passing and movement especially in midfield. If you haven't been to games recently (AA and Prague Addick in particular) you wont have seen this and have to base judgement through the eyes of press and posters on various fora. The football just has been, for the most part, how I like to see it. Holding the ball, moving it around the pitch, turning defence into attack quickly, attacking with pace. Plus pressing the opposition as high up thepitch as possible. There are still areas that need improving, crosses/final balls and defending at corners in particular. It is quite simply what we have been missing not just for the last two seasons, but beyond that to the first half of the last season of Curbs. Maybe another manager could have made things better quicker, frankly who knows? The last two seasons of Pardews management had very few performances of note even with arguably a much better squad.
So I have nudged over to the Parky to stay camp just, not on the basis of results but on the quality of the play particularly in midfield where we have been so poor in recent times.
It's a balance of risk scenario. 10 games ago, the play had not improved other than a miniscule amount hence the feeling then was he had to go because the risks of him staying greatly out-weighed those of him going. Now I think the risks have narrowed and so I'd keep him unless we are talking about somebody with proven pedigree (unlikely unless there is a takeover).
As many of you know I live in Norwich and many of my friends are Canary fans. Those who can bear to speak to me have all said how well we played versus their no hopers and they found it pretty hard to compare the performance on Saturday to the one at Carrow Road in the cup which then was between two pretty hopeless and talent starved teams.
I leave one final thought:
To those who say that Parky has had enough time, I'd say, what happens when a tanker's heading for the rocks and the helmsman who steered it there is relieved of his duties? Does the boat stop in it's tracks and start moving away, or does it carrying on moving forward inexorably toward the rocks despite the efforts of a replacement steerer?
Are we too hard on Parky when maybe the goodship Charlton had been driven hard towards the rocks by Pardew whilst the Captain and the rest of the crew slept?
Is the fact that Parky was unable to turn things around before the bows hit ground, his fault or that of the departed one?
For every example of clubs and managers who may have made the grade (however briefly) I'll find you a greater number of examples of those who havent. People would have laughed if you said Rotherham, Luton and Stockport would be in the Premiership 5 years ago ........... and they would have been right.
Flipping the question misses the point. Phil Parkinson should not be retained simply because the Club fails to identify anyone better. The very skill that any Manager needs to bring is the same one that the Board needs to exercise ...... the skill of identifying someone with the potential to progress over the next few years. That's where the Chairman's judgement has to come in.
For the record, it's clear that we have to look to the lower leagues (including Scotland and maybe elsewhere) and use our 'big club' status to try to attract someone with a decent record and with ambition. We have to find the next Darren Ferguson or Nigel Clough ........... managers with enough evidence of their capability and with clear aspirations to progress to the top level. I could see both of those in the Premier League in a few years time and, while neither of them is appropriate for us at this time, a review of other clubs doing well over the last couple of seasons and with ambitious managers with decent principles will throw up the names that you seek.
As I've said elsewhere though, selection of the right man (oops, person?) for the Manager's job is dependent on the overall combination of characters that make up a successful football club. Chairman, CEO and back-up/scouting staff all need to operate as one. I'm still not sure that the Club has entirely worked out each of those roles and how they all fit together.
''what is swaying me in a different direction just, is the improvement in passing and movement especially in midfield''.
Not sure why on earth you credit Parkinson for that, Bing. Racon and ZZ came back from injury and Shelvey began to fulfil his abundant promise. So of course there was an improvement... you could argue that under a more competent manager there should/would have been an even greater improvement in the team's performances and results.
I know the first rule of management is take credit for everything that goes right and blame someone else for all that goes wrong, but to give Parky the job because the physio got a couple of players back on the pitch before the end of the season is really pushing it !
Racon was a central part of Pardew's plans for this season. He started him in his best XI for the first match of the season and retained him after the arrival of Bailey for the second match (he dropped Shelvey to acommodate Bailey). Then Racon got injured. So I don't think the idea that master chef Parkinson rescued Racon from a Pardew-imposed miserable demi-monde exile in the ressies/or on loan really holds water...
Equally, anyone with half an idea of the 'strength' of our forward line would realise that our best option would be to play 5 in midfield. I'm sorry but that to me was just obvious rather than a sign of tactical nous. I believe it was also Parky who said that JJ and ZZ could NOT play in the same line up?
In the past 17 years since Richard Murray, whenever a big issue came up, whether it was about players being sold ( Robert Lee, Lee Bowyer, Danny Mills, Scott Parker) or the future of Curbs at various times, Richard Murray found a way to get the thinking out into the fans domain. This is what I am missing now, clear messages from inside the Club. Somebody posted that the players seem to back Parky. This is really interesting but I need to know more. Why do they back him? What does he do well that Pardew didn't? This could really help us. But we also need this from the Board. Especially if the decision is to keep him. The mixed messages from the Board in November were a disaster. Personally I will only be able to accept Parky staying on if I know Richard Murray personally thinks this is the right decision, and that I have some idea why RM thinks that.
Well you are talking about the manager who never ever played a settled team Nigel. Yes he said he was going to make Racon a central part of his plans this season and yes he played him and then he got injured. I'd rather judge him though on what he did when he had the chance, not what he said he'd do. He said when he signed Racon that he was a real quality player. He said that he signed him following the signing of Moo2 whom he claimed was a better right back than Luke Young and was hoping for great things. He then failed to play either of them regularly, bringing in loan players instead. Do you really believe that he would have stuck with Racon? Parky not only stuck with him, he has kept a settled side in recent games, something that Pardew never did.
I know he was quoted as saying that, I don't know whether that was taken out of context. What he did though was work out how to get the best out of the midfield including ZZ. I know it's easy to say that any fool could come up with five in midfield. Would you, for example have put Bailey out wide left?. Would you have played JJ high up the pitch? Would you have turned Lloyd Sam around and made him as effective as he has been in the past few weeks?
Bing, that was certanly true over the 2007/8 season. But as a description of what Pardew did this season, it's a bit of a myth.
This season he played Weaver (18/18). He consistently played a back four that included Youga (14/18, suspended for two), Hudson (17/18, one suspended) and Fortune/Primus (16/18, Cranie came in two games when Primus wasn't fit). He had a problem with the other full-back, trying Moots, Semedo and Cranie.
In mid-field he consistently started Bailey (17/17), Bouazza (15/18), Holland (13/18) and Sam (12/18). He played Racon and ZZ every time they were fit (2 and 1 respectively). He consistently played Varney and Gray, wth just two appearances for Todorov and one for McLeod.
It was Parky who couldn't find a settled team...if you tot it up, I think you will find in Janauary he played something like 24 different players in four or five games!
I'm not defending Pardew - I came to loathe him and what he did to our club as much as you clearly do. But with the greatest respect, there are enough reasons to dislike him without rewriting history.
Again it's showing just how hard this decision is. Easy to say he should go, based on results yes it's not good enough. Sack him though and there's even more huge decisions to make.
There are meant to be all these candidates out there, but it's clear there is no one obvious and that's what makes it so hard.