[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]ersonally I'm not keen to force any new manager to have to work with our coaches.
Would like to see Matthew progress but if a manager prefers his own staff at first team level, isn't it better they work with who they know?
Interesting one. Football tradition says you are right, but in the "normal" world of management, it doesn't follow automatically. If a company has a rising young manager, who is not ready for the top job, a person brought in for that top job may be chosen for his ability and willingness to groom the younger one for future promotion. And if you dont do that, the younger one gets frustrated and leaves. So if Matthews is seen as good, and actively wants to develop to be a stand alone manager, it makes good sense to bring somebody in who's prepared to work with him. And somebody could be out there who doesnt know Matthews but when he meets him thinks, yeah good guy. Finally, I'm not sure we've been served well by the people managers brought with them (or tried to - Dowie's brother for example)
Like SHG I don't know enough about the youth team to speak definitively but it does appear that DM is an excellent coach.
So was Les Reed.
Personally I'm not keen to force any new manager to have to work with our coaches.
Would like to see Matthew progress but if a manager prefers his own staff at first team level, isn't it better they work with who they know?
My understanding was that some people wanted Matthew to be appointed as manager which I don't think is a good idea at this stage given the Les Reed experience.
That is all I was saying.
The players now may be more honest than the overpaid shameful shower who barely broke sweat for Reed but nevertheless I wouldn't want to take the risk personally.
Some good posts here and some interesting comparisons with the Foley/Nelson era teams. I'm frustrated as to why it seems to have taken the groundswell of opinion so long to get to this point. I'd still argue that the team Parky took over was more than good enough to stay up, it was just played badly. I wonder if we'd lost one goal against Brighton - as we did last season with a similarly limp performance - is so many alarm bells would be ringing.
Anyway, one thing I'd add about the calls for someone hard to scare a performance out of the players; is that you have to look at the squad and question whether that's the right approach. The old fashioned British sergant major manager was fine and dandy back in the day, but I'm not sure that you'd say that is the case now. Even at our level these are highly paid professionals and the days of managers effing and blinding a performance out of players is a thing of the past IMO. The young lads won't be used to it at all, the foreigners will think the manager is mental and the senior pros will probably think "I don't need this nonsense". I think our problems are more complex than "the players aren't scared enough to bother". Our most recent opponents might be a clue: struggling and playing industrial football they replaced a traditional English manager with a natty suited (apparently) nice guy foreigner with a grounding in the game here. Inject a bit of belief and they're passing us off the park in a few months. Same story with Di Matteo. I just don't know enough about why these - apparently good - players aren't performing to say if they need belief, a pat on the back or a kick up the harris.
Players would me more inclined to accept a good kick up the harris from a manager who had a history of being a winner and who they actually enjoyed playing for. I can't imagine that our forwards get any enjoyment playing up front for Charlton ATM, in fact I think it must be a nightmare for them. Not much difference for the defence either, but at least they are kept busy! Parky can keep them on side by continuing to be the nice guy, but I would imagine that if he turned nasty, he'd lose the players pretty damn quickly, with a few remarks such as " what the hell have you acheived since you took charge" coming from the disgruntled players.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]Players would me more inclined to accept a good kick up the harris from a manager who had a history of being a winner and who they actually enjoyed playing for. I can't imagine that our forwards get any enjoyment playing up front for Charlton ATM, in fact I think it must be a nightmare for them. Not much difference for the defence either, but at least they are kept busy!
Parky can keep them on side by continuing to be the nice guy, but I would imagine that if he turned nasty, he'd lose the players pretty damn quickly, with a few remarks such as " what the hell have you acheived since you took charge" coming from the disgruntled players.
This assumes that we know that Parky doesn't and hasn't shouted and screamed at them. How do we know that he hasn't and whether it has worked?
I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager. Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
Completely agree. Only worth changing if it improves us. If we see little change in results or things get worse, then what?
Easy to say we need a change but it's clear to see why Murray hasn't got rid of Parky just yet.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager. Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.[/quote]
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.[/quote]
Exactly. Success cannot be assured whoever Murray appoints. However a good start would be to appoint a manager who can get the team playing good football. Players perform better if they are enjoying their football, fans pay their money to be entertained and will respond if they are. The two go hand in hand. I don't think it's so much the poor results that are upsetting people, it's the poor quality of football, basic errors and lack of entertainment that is driving people away.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
And when you are in our current position, we are in no postion to be making that guess. Get behind the the side ect ect..I know i keep saying it, and quite frankly it is boring yes. But it's the only way we might make something of this season. I say our fans don't create the best atmosphere, but they can make it a very hostile one when things ain't going our way that's for sure.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
Exactly. Success cannot be assured whoever Murray appoints. However a good start would be to appoint a manager who can get the team playing good football. Players perform better if they are enjoying their football, fans pay their money to be entertained and will respond if they are. The two go hand in hand.
I don't think it's so much the poor results that are upsetting people, it's the poor quality of football, basic errors and lack of entertainment that is driving people away.
I think it is the poor results that are upsetting people.
Every team's fans want them to play like Brazil 70 but the reality is that if you support, for example, Stoke and Pullis is getting them winning playing percentage/direct football then you are happy. It may not be "good" football but many fans will forgive any thing if you are scoring more goals than the other side. You only have to look at Notts Co fans and Lee Hughes to see that. On the other hand some Arsenal fans have questioned Wenger in recent years for playing too much pretty football without winning trophies.
I agree that a coach is what we need hence the call for Matthew but what I primarily want is organisation and a system that means we win, not necessarily entertainment. I'd be entertained by seeing us score a lot of goals and let in very few.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]Exactly. Success cannot be assured whoever Murray appoints. However a good start would be to appoint a manager who can get the team playing good football. Players perform better if they are enjoying their football, fans pay their money to be entertained and will respond if they are. The two go hand in hand.
I don't think it's so much the poor results that are upsetting people, it's the poor quality of football, basic errors and lack of entertainment that is driving people away.
Get what you're saying but if anything, trying to play good football can lead to more basic errors. If players take too many risks passing in their own half or when they should simply clear the ball, that will lead to just as much frustration if we concede goals from it.
It's about finding the right balance. John Barnes would try to get us playing football but he's a very poor manager.
It's good point on the players enjoying their football. We often don't get that, they know they're under pressure and fans, the manager and board expect results.
[cite]Posted By: queensland_addick[/cite]I'm saying it's very hard for any unsuccessful manager (not just Parky) to assert his authority on the team
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
Exactly. Success cannot be assured whoever Murray appoints. However a good start would be to appoint a manager who can get the team playing good football. Players perform better if they are enjoying their football, fans pay their money to be entertained and will respond if they are. The two go hand in hand.
I don't think it's so much the poor results that are upsetting people, it's the poor quality of football, basic errors and lack of entertainment that is driving people away.
I think it is the poor results that are upsetting people.
Every team's fans want them to play like Brazil 70 but the reality is that if you support, for example, Stoke and Pullis is getting them winning playing percentage/direct football then you are happy. It may not be "good" football but many fans will forgive any thing if you are scoring more goals than the other side. You only have to look at Notts Co fans and Lee Hughes to see that. On the other hand some Arsenal fans have questioned Wenger in recent years for playing too much pretty football without winning trophies.
I agree that a coach is what we need hence the call for Matthew but what I primarily want is organisation and a system that means we win, not necessarily entertainment. I'd be entertained by seeing us score a lot of goals and let in very few.
I think if you play football in the correct way, are well orginised and have good players (which we do) the results will naturally follow. A lot of the frustration (mine anyway) comes from the fact that the players are not performing to their potential due to poor coaching/tactics and are not well organised . So yes I agree that ultimately it is the results that are upsetting people, but one of the reasons people are getting so irate is because they believe that we should be performing far better with the players that we have.
It is the appalling way we are playing as much as the results, if we had played teams off the park and lost it at least gives some hope. But if you are rolled over and play crap football there is nothing to cling onto. At the moment we are playing worse than I have ever seen us play, yet it is obvious we have players who are good enough at this level, so only one person can take the flak for that and he is a jolly nice chap.
Lennie Lawrence and Damian Matthew for me and would not cost the earth, if we could talk Lennie into doing a year or two. He was an astute buyer, had the team playing decent football and was always able to get the best out of the players he had.
a kid who play's for my sons team lives next door to Lennie.His Dad told me last week that Lennie feels he has 1 more job left in him.Why not give it a go with Damian Matthew, who used to run rings around me when I tried to mark him 25 years ago.
I dont know how to quote from a previous page, but Ben was playing devils advocate about us not knowing if Parky was a shouter or not.
I had a conversation with Nicky Baily about Parkinsons style, and he said that they never saw a dark side to Parkinson...he also said he would have preffered him to be a shouter, throwing teacups as he often didnt manage to get his point over forcefully enough in his opinion.
[cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]oh gawd not a ageing lennie,let us have our memories of him..........time to be a proper club and get a proper manager of this time
Wouldn't the point be to blend Ancient and Modern? Both are known by the club, RM knows them both and may feel comfortable with them which is important as he currently gets on so well with PP. If the two of them had similar ideas, it could be a very good pairing, and might also be an affordable alternative. Lennie, contract wise, would presumably bow out if and when Damian was ready to take the helm.
I'm sure we all want a proper manager, but we thought Pardew would be one didn't we? They don't seem to come complete with Sale of Goods Act labels attached, so all options deserve a close look.
[cite]Posted By: Telnotinoz[/cite]I dont know how to quote from a previous page, but Ben was playing devils advocate about us not knowing if Parky was a shouter or not.
I had a conversation with Nicky Baily about Parkinsons style, and he said that they never saw a dark side to Parkinson...he also said he would have preffered him to be a shouter, throwing teacups as he often didnt manage to get his point over forcefully enough in his opinion.
That's very interesting Tel and would go along way to explaining why we never seem to learn from our mistakes. As I stated earlier it would be very hard for him to suddenly turn into a shouter without feeling a backlash from the players.
A manager has to impose his authority and set out his stall from the outset.
The suggestion that Damian Matthew might be first team coach reminded me of this article written just after the 0 - 4 Brighton game.
I get it wrong often enough so I thought I'd bump this and in particular the last paragraph.
"As I said, I was too depressed to read much of CL over the weekend so apologies if this has all been covered before but if, and I still say this reluctantly, Parky leaves then I will wish him well and suggest that we whoever we appoint we make sure that Damian Matthew is part of the first team set up. He is an excellent coach, he may even be a good manager but he is an excellent coach. So pair him with Chris Powell or even Christian Dailly but just get him coaching the first team."
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The suggestion that Damian Matthew might be first team coach reminded me of this article written just after the 0 - 4 Brighton game.
I get it wrong often enough so I thought I'd bump this and in particular the last paragraph.
"As I said, I was too depressed to read much of CL over the weekend so apologies if this has all been covered before but if, and I still say this reluctantly, Parky leaves then I will wish him well and suggest that we whoever we appoint we make sure that Damian Matthew is part of the first team set up. He is the an excellent coach, he may even be a good manager but he is an excellent coach. So pair him with Chris Powell or even Christian Dailly but just get him coaching the first team."
I thought you bumped it to highlight the apalling grammar in there and it had been niggling away at you!
Comments
Like SHG I don't know enough about the youth team to speak definitively but it does appear that DM is an excellent coach.
So was Les Reed.
Would like to see Matthew progress but if a manager prefers his own staff at first team level, isn't it better they work with who they know?
Interesting one. Football tradition says you are right, but in the "normal" world of management, it doesn't follow automatically. If a company has a rising young manager, who is not ready for the top job, a person brought in for that top job may be chosen for his ability and willingness to groom the younger one for future promotion. And if you dont do that, the younger one gets frustrated and leaves. So if Matthews is seen as good, and actively wants to develop to be a stand alone manager, it makes good sense to bring somebody in who's prepared to work with him. And somebody could be out there who doesnt know Matthews but when he meets him thinks, yeah good guy. Finally, I'm not sure we've been served well by the people managers brought with them (or tried to - Dowie's brother for example)
My understanding was that some people wanted Matthew to be appointed as manager which I don't think is a good idea at this stage given the Les Reed experience.
That is all I was saying.
The players now may be more honest than the overpaid shameful shower who barely broke sweat for Reed but nevertheless I wouldn't want to take the risk personally.
Anyway, one thing I'd add about the calls for someone hard to scare a performance out of the players; is that you have to look at the squad and question whether that's the right approach. The old fashioned British sergant major manager was fine and dandy back in the day, but I'm not sure that you'd say that is the case now. Even at our level these are highly paid professionals and the days of managers effing and blinding a performance out of players is a thing of the past IMO. The young lads won't be used to it at all, the foreigners will think the manager is mental and the senior pros will probably think "I don't need this nonsense". I think our problems are more complex than "the players aren't scared enough to bother". Our most recent opponents might be a clue: struggling and playing industrial football they replaced a traditional English manager with a natty suited (apparently) nice guy foreigner with a grounding in the game here. Inject a bit of belief and they're passing us off the park in a few months. Same story with Di Matteo. I just don't know enough about why these - apparently good - players aren't performing to say if they need belief, a pat on the back or a kick up the harris.
Parky can keep them on side by continuing to be the nice guy, but I would imagine that if he turned nasty, he'd lose the players pretty damn quickly, with a few remarks such as " what the hell have you acheived since you took charge" coming from the disgruntled players.
This assumes that we know that Parky doesn't and hasn't shouted and screamed at them. How do we know that he hasn't and whether it has worked?
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.
Easy to say we need a change but it's clear to see why Murray hasn't got rid of Parky just yet.
In that respect Parky has been on a hiding to nothing from the outset. He was second in command of a disastrous Pardew management team, then failed miserably during his rein as caretaker manager.
Whether he is being too nice or too nasty it's not working either way.[/quote]
true but the point is that people are saying "we need a nasty manager" when we don't know if that has been tried or how players would react to that. It is just guess work.
What we need is a manager who gets the team winning. Old, young, internal, external, famous, unknown, new, experienced? We can all give examples of each of those working and each of those failing. Which is why I said I don't envy Richard Murray having to make the decision. Stick or twist, there is no easy option out there.[/quote]
Exactly. Success cannot be assured whoever Murray appoints. However a good start would be to appoint a manager who can get the team playing good football. Players perform better if they are enjoying their football, fans pay their money to be entertained and will respond if they are. The two go hand in hand.
I don't think it's so much the poor results that are upsetting people, it's the poor quality of football, basic errors and lack of entertainment that is driving people away.
And when you are in our current position, we are in no postion to be making that guess. Get behind the the side ect ect..I know i keep saying it, and quite frankly it is boring yes. But it's the only way we might make something of this season. I say our fans don't create the best atmosphere, but they can make it a very hostile one when things ain't going our way that's for sure.
I think it is the poor results that are upsetting people.
Every team's fans want them to play like Brazil 70 but the reality is that if you support, for example, Stoke and Pullis is getting them winning playing percentage/direct football then you are happy. It may not be "good" football but many fans will forgive any thing if you are scoring more goals than the other side. You only have to look at Notts Co fans and Lee Hughes to see that. On the other hand some Arsenal fans have questioned Wenger in recent years for playing too much pretty football without winning trophies.
I agree that a coach is what we need hence the call for Matthew but what I primarily want is organisation and a system that means we win, not necessarily entertainment. I'd be entertained by seeing us score a lot of goals and let in very few.
It's about finding the right balance. John Barnes would try to get us playing football but he's a very poor manager.
It's good point on the players enjoying their football. We often don't get that, they know they're under pressure and fans, the manager and board expect results.
I think if you play football in the correct way, are well orginised and have good players (which we do) the results will naturally follow. A lot of the frustration (mine anyway) comes from the fact that the players are not performing to their potential due to poor coaching/tactics and are not well organised . So yes I agree that ultimately it is the results that are upsetting people, but one of the reasons people are getting so irate is because they believe that we should be performing far better with the players that we have.
I've deleted what I wanted to write about the Chairman and board, as that's for another time...
Management wise I'd try for Gary Megson.
I had a conversation with Nicky Baily about Parkinsons style, and he said that they never saw a dark side to Parkinson...he also said he would have preffered him to be a shouter, throwing teacups as he often didnt manage to get his point over forcefully enough in his opinion.
Wouldn't the point be to blend Ancient and Modern? Both are known by the club, RM knows them both and may feel comfortable with them which is important as he currently gets on so well with PP. If the two of them had similar ideas, it could be a very good pairing, and might also be an affordable alternative. Lennie, contract wise, would presumably bow out if and when Damian was ready to take the helm.
I'm sure we all want a proper manager, but we thought Pardew would be one didn't we? They don't seem to come complete with Sale of Goods Act labels attached, so all options deserve a close look.
That's very interesting Tel and would go along way to explaining why we never seem to learn from our mistakes. As I stated earlier it would be very hard for him to suddenly turn into a shouter without feeling a backlash from the players.
A manager has to impose his authority and set out his stall from the outset.
I get it wrong often enough so I thought I'd bump this and in particular the last paragraph.
"As I said, I was too depressed to read much of CL over the weekend so apologies if this has all been covered before but if, and I still say this reluctantly, Parky leaves then I will wish him well and suggest that we whoever we appoint we make sure that Damian Matthew is part of the first team set up. He is an excellent coach, he may even be a good manager but he is an excellent coach. So pair him with Chris Powell or even Christian Dailly but just get him coaching the first team."
I thought you bumped it to highlight the apalling grammar in there and it had been niggling away at you!
Kind Regards
The Grammar Nazis
:-)
I'd forgotten about suggesting Powell as well TBH.
Swisdom, editing mistake rather than grammar so go forth and multiply : - )