But he hasn't improved the collective and individuals. We still can't defend as a team, we still can't defend at set plays and we can't finish in front of goal.
That's a very dignified exit from Riga. Nicely said. He is respectful, intelligent, and thoughtful: these are important qualities.
We have played far better under Riga: getting forward, having a go. You don't need me to remind you about the last days with Chris Powell, playing only one up front at home. All that dreary, defensive stuff, without a single shot on goal.
I have no interest in Peeters or Luzon. Sideways balls, crab-like, so dull as to make the planets weep.
The players themselves have failed: they are ultimately guilty. They themselves have relegated us. Jackson is quite right when he said after the Bolton game: "It's our fault - we haven't played well enough."
We played with verve and zip in the first half yesterday: quick, attacking moves. Accurate balls over the top to a willing runner. <<b>Why in heaven's name didn't we do this all season? Then - the shot is skied, shanked, muffed - or bottled.
Bradley Wright-Phillips was superb when we were last in the third division: ruthless. He used to swivel on the edge of box, and Bang! - hit low and fierce. And Yann Kermorgant leaping high and winning headers - and scoring directly from all the free-kicks that Gudmundsson can only hammer in to the wall.
Riga is right: our players simply aren't good enough.
most of the season, no Fanni, no Tex, Diarra, Kashi and Vet injured, Harriot loaned out, Lookman not discovered which, at 17 is not that surprising. That is over half the team.
I honestly think we played better at home against Sheffield Wednesday this season than in any of Riga's matches under both spells. Best performance under Riga that I can think of was Watford home in his first spell, after Watford's season was over. That in a nutshell should explain why talking about performances in individual matches is not a good guide of whether a manager is any good or not. And if you're talking about a 'great performance' in a match where we deservedly lost 3-0 at home, then there's no barrel left - you're scraping the ground. 3-0 defeats were no stranger to Riga during either of his spells at the club.
By the way, both Luzon and Peeters had individual matches where the performance level was better than Sheff Wed home this season.
He might be the best manager available under the network, but there's a reason why 4 of his last 6 jobs were under RD, and one of the others was under Oyston. He's just as much a part of the problem.
20 matches in charge this time, 20 points. Rotherham in 21st finished with 49 points.
He might be a nice bloke, but bye Riga. Don't come back, thanks.
I don't know that anyone said we played brilliantly throughout. I said we played very well in the first half, should have had a pen, forced 2-3 class saves from a keeper going to the Euros, switched off/got caught flat footed once and were 1-0 down at halftime.
I am very much of the belief that results are misleading in football. I think our performances improved under him immensely, even if he did have better players. The run in we had, thanks to blowing so many winnable matches over the Christmas period, was incredibly tricky, four teams in the top six in the last six matches.
No one is saying he's a world beater but I don't know how else to say he clearly improved both the collective and individuals. I think it's unfair to not at least acknowledge that.
He was reappointed on 14th January. He had 20 league matches, so almost every team in the division. He picked up 20 points. That form over a full season would have seen us finish, erm, 22nd and relegated.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
I honestly think we played better at home against Sheffield Wednesday this season than in any of Riga's matches under both spells. Best performance under Riga that I can think of was Watford home in his first spell, after Watford's season was over. That in a nutshell should explain why talking about performances in individual matches is not a good guide of whether a manager is any good or not. And if you're talking about a 'great performance' in a match where we deservedly lost 3-0 at home, then there's no barrel left - you're scraping the ground. 3-0 defeats were no stranger to Riga during either of his spells at the club.
By the way, both Luzon and Peeters had individual matches where the performance level was better than Sheff Wed home this season.
He might be the best manager available under the network, but there's a reason why 4 of his last 6 jobs were under RD, and one of the others was under Oyston. He's just as much a part of the problem.
20 matches in charge this time, 20 points. Rotherham in 21st finished with 49 points.
He might be a nice bloke, but bye Riga. Don't come back, thanks.
I don't know that anyone said we played brilliantly throughout. I said we played very well in the first half, should have had a pen, forced 2-3 class saves from a keeper going to the Euros, switched off/got caught flat footed once and were 1-0 down at halftime.
I am very much of the belief that results are misleading in football. I think our performances improved under him immensely, even if he did have better players. The run in we had, thanks to blowing so many winnable matches over the Christmas period, was incredibly tricky, four teams in the top six in the last six matches.
No one is saying he's a world beater but I don't know how else to say he clearly improved both the collective and individuals. I think it's unfair to not at least acknowledge that.
He was reappointed on 14th January. He had 20 league matches, so almost every team in the division. He picked up 20 points. That form over a full season would have seen us finish, erm, 22nd and relegated.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
Absolutely - results are everything otherwise we might as well just play friendlies all season. He's gone - I'm glad - but still the real disease at the heart of CAFC needs to be cured and that day cannot come soon enough...
I honestly think we played better at home against Sheffield Wednesday this season than in any of Riga's matches under both spells. Best performance under Riga that I can think of was Watford home in his first spell, after Watford's season was over. That in a nutshell should explain why talking about performances in individual matches is not a good guide of whether a manager is any good or not. And if you're talking about a 'great performance' in a match where we deservedly lost 3-0 at home, then there's no barrel left - you're scraping the ground. 3-0 defeats were no stranger to Riga during either of his spells at the club.
By the way, both Luzon and Peeters had individual matches where the performance level was better than Sheff Wed home this season.
He might be the best manager available under the network, but there's a reason why 4 of his last 6 jobs were under RD, and one of the others was under Oyston. He's just as much a part of the problem.
20 matches in charge this time, 20 points. Rotherham in 21st finished with 49 points.
He might be a nice bloke, but bye Riga. Don't come back, thanks.
I don't know that anyone said we played brilliantly throughout. I said we played very well in the first half, should have had a pen, forced 2-3 class saves from a keeper going to the Euros, switched off/got caught flat footed once and were 1-0 down at halftime.
I am very much of the belief that results are misleading in football. I think our performances improved under him immensely, even if he did have better players. The run in we had, thanks to blowing so many winnable matches over the Christmas period, was incredibly tricky, four teams in the top six in the last six matches.
No one is saying he's a world beater but I don't know how else to say he clearly improved both the collective and individuals. I think it's unfair to not at least acknowledge that.
He was reappointed on 14th January. He had 20 league matches, so almost every team in the division. He picked up 20 points. That form over a full season would have seen us finish, erm, 22nd and relegated.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
Unfortunately I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. You have to factor in the morale of the team when he took over, it was obviously going to take time to turn that around. The last few games we had nothing to play for as we were already relegated. That would obviously have an effect on performances and thus points gained.
Whilst I get that Riga had his faults, I do think that if he'd been given a full season, we would not have been relegated. It remains to be seen who comes in next but I still think that under this regime, we could do a lot worse than Riga.
I honestly think we played better at home against Sheffield Wednesday this season than in any of Riga's matches under both spells. Best performance under Riga that I can think of was Watford home in his first spell, after Watford's season was over. That in a nutshell should explain why talking about performances in individual matches is not a good guide of whether a manager is any good or not. And if you're talking about a 'great performance' in a match where we deservedly lost 3-0 at home, then there's no barrel left - you're scraping the ground. 3-0 defeats were no stranger to Riga during either of his spells at the club.
By the way, both Luzon and Peeters had individual matches where the performance level was better than Sheff Wed home this season.
He might be the best manager available under the network, but there's a reason why 4 of his last 6 jobs were under RD, and one of the others was under Oyston. He's just as much a part of the problem.
20 matches in charge this time, 20 points. Rotherham in 21st finished with 49 points.
He might be a nice bloke, but bye Riga. Don't come back, thanks.
I don't know that anyone said we played brilliantly throughout. I said we played very well in the first half, should have had a pen, forced 2-3 class saves from a keeper going to the Euros, switched off/got caught flat footed once and were 1-0 down at halftime.
I am very much of the belief that results are misleading in football. I think our performances improved under him immensely, even if he did have better players. The run in we had, thanks to blowing so many winnable matches over the Christmas period, was incredibly tricky, four teams in the top six in the last six matches.
No one is saying he's a world beater but I don't know how else to say he clearly improved both the collective and individuals. I think it's unfair to not at least acknowledge that.
He was reappointed on 14th January. He had 20 league matches, so almost every team in the division. He picked up 20 points. That form over a full season would have seen us finish, erm, 22nd and relegated.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
He failed in keeping us up, I haven't denied that.
He also took over the team in a week where we'd lost to Colchester, Hudds, and Hull 13-1 on aggregate, coming out of a Christmas period where we seemed to make a forced substitution every match due to injury. The physical and mental nadir of the team he inherited is something that I don't think we fully understand.
I think we have a lot of players who were not fit enough for a full Championship season, either due to poor pre-season preparation under Luzon, or not being signed in time to have a pre-season. Add to the fact that while we signed good players, Fanni, Motta, and Sanogoals were clearly not match fit, compounding the problem. In the first 2-3 weeks, I believe Riga had the team doing two-a-day training sessions, which I suspect played a part the leggy performances like Bristol and Cardiff.
Riga is by no means without his faults. He set up his teams too conservatively at times, and throughout he struggled to change games with substitutions--often making them too late. But to say "he didn't keep us up therefore he's no good" is, in my mind, incredibly short-sighted.
I honestly think we played better at home against Sheffield Wednesday this season than in any of Riga's matches under both spells. Best performance under Riga that I can think of was Watford home in his first spell, after Watford's season was over. That in a nutshell should explain why talking about performances in individual matches is not a good guide of whether a manager is any good or not. And if you're talking about a 'great performance' in a match where we deservedly lost 3-0 at home, then there's no barrel left - you're scraping the ground. 3-0 defeats were no stranger to Riga during either of his spells at the club.
By the way, both Luzon and Peeters had individual matches where the performance level was better than Sheff Wed home this season.
He might be the best manager available under the network, but there's a reason why 4 of his last 6 jobs were under RD, and one of the others was under Oyston. He's just as much a part of the problem.
20 matches in charge this time, 20 points. Rotherham in 21st finished with 49 points.
He might be a nice bloke, but bye Riga. Don't come back, thanks.
I don't know that anyone said we played brilliantly throughout. I said we played very well in the first half, should have had a pen, forced 2-3 class saves from a keeper going to the Euros, switched off/got caught flat footed once and were 1-0 down at halftime.
I am very much of the belief that results are misleading in football. I think our performances improved under him immensely, even if he did have better players. The run in we had, thanks to blowing so many winnable matches over the Christmas period, was incredibly tricky, four teams in the top six in the last six matches.
No one is saying he's a world beater but I don't know how else to say he clearly improved both the collective and individuals. I think it's unfair to not at least acknowledge that.
He was reappointed on 14th January. He had 20 league matches, so almost every team in the division. He picked up 20 points. That form over a full season would have seen us finish, erm, 22nd and relegated.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
Unfortunately I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. You have to factor in the morale of the team when he took over, it was obviously going to take time to turn that around. The last few games we had nothing to play for as we were already relegated. That would obviously have an effect on performances and thus points gained.
Whilst I get that Riga had his faults, I do think that if he'd been given a full season, we would not have been relegated. It remains to be seen who comes in next but I still think that under this regime, we could do a lot worse than Riga.
Yes we were already relegated following a draw against Bolton.
Riga got to play 6 of the bottom 8 teams in the division (he didn't get to play Huddersfield or ourselves), all of them before we were relegated. We got 5 points from those matches.
The bloke is a failure.
It's not that he failed to keep us up. It's that he failed to achieve anything better than relegation form.
Riga has ben the best of a very poor bunch of Managers, and is extremely personable. That doesn 't make him a good Manager, unless mediocrity is the new normal.
If you add his two spells together you get a clearer and more reasonable idea of his managerial abilities. But even then, you don't, because in each case he was brought in in emergency situations, with all the added pressures and difficulties that entails. He had to try to rebuild a team and its morale and confidence, within weeks. Sometimes in emergency situations you manage to save the patient if everything goes well, sometimes it just isn't possible. He did all he could. Dealing with team matters would have be hard enough. But we have no idea what other pressures were being exerted upon him from above. Was he mislead or lied to in order to persuade him to return? That would make a man like Riga extremely angry. View his interview, I think he gives some clues. Riga was a leader who most around the club respected and looked up to, including Miere, ironically. Who's left now? Mick Everett, Chris Parkes? Young Simon Clark? We really are up shit creek without a paddle now, with Nobby Vinagar to look forward to and most of our decent players about to walk out the door.
Riga inherited a train wreck, he brought some decent new players in but the damage was done by a chronic under investment last summer which left a squad far too small for this league.
We then compounded our first mistake with another clanger - appointing clueless Karel who may be the worst manager in our history.
By the time Riga came the die was cast, too much damage had been done for him or anyone else to possibly recover.
The last dozen games we have seen the best football from CAFC and easily good enough to stay in the Championship - in fact, SKY commented that CAFC would be in top half of table as such.
Mick McCarthy said he simply could not comprehend why CAFC were bottom 3 as we have some really good players.
The arrival of Teixeira and Fanni and the return to fitness of Diarra made the difference - who was behind bringing in Tex & Fanni?
Pride comes before a fall, Katrien & Roland - too late now, we've fallen.
Riga is a very good coach and I am regetting renewing at this moment.
In the first half we played top half football easily, and that 11 might even be chasing the playoffs were the likes of Igor and Kashi more fit and in form. We switched off three times at the back and conceded three goals.
Do we really need to have the season ticket renewal argument on every thread?
Doesn't matter as I've renewed anyway - just would have liked Riga to have stayed because I had a feeling that several key players might stay on with Riga as boss, thus enhancing our chances of an immediate return to the Championship.
This is a forum and we are entitled to our views. I respect the right of every contributor to this forum, whether I agree fully, partially or not at all is, again, my personal choice and opinion.
The slow uptake in season tickets might be a concern to potential investors, especially where the source of finance is limited or on a shoestring budget - let's not forget Chris Powell's comment about being promised increased funding prior to the RD takeover - and that funding never appearing. It's easy to promise the earth when promoting a takeover but the reality is there are few Randy Lerners in circulation who are prepared to see their personal fortune go down the pan and financial institutions will want substantial collateral or personal guarantees/charges on the new Director's personal wealth.
As such, I have purchased 2 ST's right on the halfway line in the East Stand - this has knocked me back considerably more than 300 quid but I felt it the right thing to do, fully expecting new owners soon, anyway.
Take your view about understanding other peoples views here although I do not agree with your action at all. Have you taken the seats of supporters who have not bought a seat, or are at least holding off buying one, or are you not bothered if you have or have not?
Comments
If they dare appoint Nebojša Vignjević I will be fuming.
But he hasn't improved the collective and individuals. We still can't defend as a team, we still can't defend at set plays and we can't finish in front of goal.
That's failure. I think it's strange to not at least acknowledge that.
Whilst I get that Riga had his faults, I do think that if he'd been given a full season, we would not have been relegated. It remains to be seen who comes in next but I still think that under this regime, we could do a lot worse than Riga.
He also took over the team in a week where we'd lost to Colchester, Hudds, and Hull 13-1 on aggregate, coming out of a Christmas period where we seemed to make a forced substitution every match due to injury. The physical and mental nadir of the team he inherited is something that I don't think we fully understand.
I think we have a lot of players who were not fit enough for a full Championship season, either due to poor pre-season preparation under Luzon, or not being signed in time to have a pre-season. Add to the fact that while we signed good players, Fanni, Motta, and Sanogoals were clearly not match fit, compounding the problem. In the first 2-3 weeks, I believe Riga had the team doing two-a-day training sessions, which I suspect played a part the leggy performances like Bristol and Cardiff.
Riga is by no means without his faults. He set up his teams too conservatively at times, and throughout he struggled to change games with substitutions--often making them too late. But to say "he didn't keep us up therefore he's no good" is, in my mind, incredibly short-sighted.
Riga got to play 6 of the bottom 8 teams in the division (he didn't get to play Huddersfield or ourselves), all of them before we were relegated. We got 5 points from those matches.
The bloke is a failure.
It's not that he failed to keep us up. It's that he failed to achieve anything better than relegation form.
Riga was a leader who most around the club respected and looked up to, including Miere, ironically.
Who's left now? Mick Everett, Chris Parkes? Young Simon Clark?
We really are up shit creek without a paddle now, with Nobby Vinagar to look forward to and most of our decent players about to walk out the door.
We then compounded our first mistake with another clanger - appointing clueless Karel who may be the worst manager in our history.
By the time Riga came the die was cast, too much damage had been done for him or anyone else to possibly recover.