Page 2 of 3

The burning question...

Posted: 05 Apr 2014, 20:28
by A Realist
CP Gull wrote: Today, summed it up for me ... even before he stepped up to take the penalty kick ... Dale Tonge who was largely at fault for conceding the penalty with his abject attempt at trying to block the cross ... stepped up to take the penalty. Seriously, what was that all about??? I would guess that if it was down to the fans he might quite easily have been 10th (or even 11th as personally I would have preferred Ricey over him) to take that penalty and yet up he stepped....where was the leadership from the Manager? Surely things as important as this should be decide BEFORE the game by THE MANAGER and NOT, as suggested by the Manager after the game in his interview with Radio Devon as just the bloke "who is most up for it". That is amateur in my opinion, and lacks professionalism.
I found that one of the most bizarre comments I've ever heard in all my days watching football. CH said that he has a pool of players who are considered penalty takers and on the day its the one who's feeling most confident who takes it. Firstly, who decides who is most confident at the time? What if two or three players are all feeling confident? Do we then witness a comical "in fight"? Can just imagine what the radio/TV coverage would be like when thats happening. Jeff Stelling: "There's a penalty at Plainmoor/random away ground to Torquay and we'll go straight there when their players have stopped arguing about who's going to take it :-/

Did the skipper even have a say in who was taking it? Is he one of said pool of penalty takers? As you rightly say CP Gull, it just stinks of total amateurism.

The burning question...

Posted: 05 Apr 2014, 20:44
by Gloomy Gull
CP Gull wrote:Gutted to feel the way I do, but am really starting to question whether Greavsie is really up to the job. I love the guy and as I have stated previously I will aways be grateful to him... more than any other individual (with the possible exception of the Bristow family) for getting us promoted back into the League, but whilst you cannot question his attitude, desire and devotion, which he so ably showed as a player, it is unfortunately the case that a lot of different characteristics are required when you are a Manager ... particularly at L2 level.

Team selection seems to be all over the place, which cannot be doing anything for morale, and yet there are still a few that seem to always feature such as Mansell, Bodin etc. His substitutions are generally bizarre and often later than they should be and all too often don't actually change things tactically, when the situation clearly demands it:

Today, summed it up for me ... even before he stepped up to take the penalty kick ... Dale Tonge who was largely at fault for conceding the penalty with his abject attempt at trying to block the cross ... stepped up to take the penalty. Seriously, what was that all about??? I would guess that if it was down to the fans he might quite easily have been 10th (or even 11th as personally I would have preferred Ricey over him) to take that penalty and yet up he stepped....where was the leadership from the Manager? Surely things as important as this should be decide BEFORE the game by THE MANAGER and NOT, as suggested by the Manager after the game in his interview with Radio Devon as just the bloke "who is most up for it". That is amateur in my opinion, and lacks professionalism.

The decision to replace, what were quite clearly our most effective players in the first half ... in both Cameron and Coulthirst, when we chasing a WIN was baffling (at least to me) in the extreme.

Finally, please show some of that (famous) passion that you clearly had as a player. To see you spend most of the second half, with legs crossed, propped up against a fence, chatting to Robbie Herrera( when your Assistant was a good 10 metres away) was disappointing to say the least. Where was the passion?

I really do fear for our future now as I am not confident in the Manager being either ruthless enough to make the big decisions that will need to be made in the future(regarding the retained list) and not only that but he clearly has a lot to learn in terms of selection and tactics. It is a joke when you hear him continuing to even entertaining the idea of us staying up but I guess he is only saying that because he feels he has to when most of us gave up all hope after the home defeat by Accrington over a month ago.
:goodpost:

I have been saying for weeks that Hargreaves was always the wrong choice (however cheap he was).

Many have been defending him with comments about the dross CH (is that shorthand for Completely Hopeless??!!) was left with . Hargreaves has had 16 games with us now and I have compared his results against Knill's last 16 games in charge.

Knill : W - 3, D - 4, L - 9 = Points 13
Hargreaves : W - 4, D - 1, L - 11 = Points 13

On the face of it there is nothing to chose between them, yet Knill is held up as the architect of our downfall.

To me, this crude analysis shows that, a man who for the majority of his tenure had the full backing and enthusiasm of the fans, plus the comfort of a 2.5 year contract is no better at managing a poor team than one under increasing concern about his future and significant pressure from the supporters.

Why bother changing? The new man has brought no improvement despite "only bringing in players to improve the existing team"

If Hargreaves can improve on Knill's results over his last 21 games, he will need to achieve more than 4 points ........is he capable of that?? In fact IS HE CAPABLE.

The burning question...

Posted: 05 Apr 2014, 20:44
by SuperNickyWroe
Fonda wrote: The club made what they thought would be a 'popular' choice. I said it at the time. I'm not sure anyone at the club was convinced that CH would be an improvement. The Pop side was calling for Knill's head (because apparently 3 or 4 months is enough time for any manager to prove themselves?) and they knew Hargreaves would be welcomed by the masses. I voiced my concern then that he might have been on a short-list of one. Seemingly proven managerial ability is secondary in importance to popularity. We've got what we deserve.
said (many times) that as soon as he got the job we'd be relegated.

oh to be popular. perhaps sills, todd, carlisle et al should have applied.

and to think when he was announced as manager, he was said to be the strongest candidate.

christ.

if it wasnt so ridiculous I'd be laughing.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 09:08
by hector
What the facts show though, is that those suddenly turning into Alan Knill revisionists have no basis for arguing that he should not have been sacked. Hargreaves may be doing an equally bad job but what that DOES NOT MEAN is we should have kept the bloke who was doing no better and put us in this mess in the first place.

What it means is that the club, like it did when appointing Knill and again appointing Hargreaves, should not have done the heart-ruling-the-head thing, doing the sort of things Newcastle fans do when calling for Keegan, they should not have fallen for that stupid notion that because he once played for us, he should manage us, that so many clubs do and then wonder why it hasn't worked out.

The mistake was not getting rid of Knill (although it was a mistake was not getting rid of him sooner). The mistake was NOT appointing a firefighter type manager. Appointing Hargreaves as Knill's successor was inevitably the mistake, not getting rid of Knill in the first place.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 09:15
by stefano
... and there was me deliberately avoiding this thread Hector as it was summarising our debate of the last 3 months and I thought if you can keep away so can I!

You know my view anyway ..... Res Ipsa Loquitur! ;-)

PS. Whole load of Exeter Chiefs stuff on e-bay. May be tempted to be more regular there next season. :)

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 09:22
by Fonda
hector wrote:What the facts show though, is that those suddenly turning into Alan Knill revisionists have no basis for arguing that he should not have been sacked. Hargreaves may be doing an equally bad job but what that DOES NOT MEAN is we should have kept the bloke who was doing no better and put us in this mess in the first place.

What it means is that the club, like it did when appointing Knill and again appointing Hargreaves, should not have done the heart-ruling-the-head thing, doing the sort of things Newcastle fans do when calling for Keegan, they should not have fallen for that stupid notion that because he once played for us, he should manage us, that so many clubs do and then wonder why it hasn't worked out.

The mistake was not getting rid of Knill (although it was a mistake was not getting rid of him sooner). The mistake was NOT appointing a firefighter type manager. Appointing Hargreaves as Knill's successor was inevitably the mistake, not getting rid of Knill in the first place.
When do you suppose they should have got rid of him? What do you think is an acceptable amount of time for a manager to build a new squad and get it performing to a decent level? A fortnight? A month?

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 09:32
by Gloomy Gull
Hector

I accept your point that DOES NOT MEAN is we should have kept the bloke who was doing no better and put us in this mess in the first place.
, because if Knill had been retained for the season (not advocating he should have been) we would almost certainly have been relegated - just like we are now.

Whilst that would no doubt have been wholly unpalatable to the fan base we would have had a clear out in the close season and the appointment of a new manager, following, I would love to believe, a robust interview process. Whoever that new man turned out to be would have given us renewed hope for the new season.

For me, the problem with the Hargreaves appointment and performance in all areas, to date, is that I and it would seem other posters and fans have NO confidence that Hargreaves will do any better next season so we are going into the new era with trepidation rather than expectation.

I became even more fearful when I heard Hargreaves comment that he would only take into the new season "those who want to be with me" ....I'm sure his "mates" will put themselves in that category. I would have had a little more confidence if he had said he would take "only those I consider will perform at a high level next season".

I have said for may months and on many different threads that I do not subscribe to the "poor old Chris look at the rubbish he was LEFT with" .....I say again - HE applied for the job knowing what was on offer, having watched and made comments on many games, no-one FORCED him to take the role.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 10:27
by diamondgirl
I know this will sound a bit strange, but the reality of L2 football is that 2 sides are relegated at the end of the season. L2 is nothing like the premiership, where there are a handful of teams who contest the league title every year. In L2, one season you are pushing for promotion/play offs next season you struggle for survival. It's the nature of the beast. In the basement level teams are, for obvious reasons, unable to bring in premiership standard players. Likewise we are not able to recruit premiership standard managers. I believe that, with one or two exceptions, most managers, in L2 are of equal ability, as are a majority of the players. If a team does have either of these (players/managers) who appear to be "A cut above" then they are very quickly "poached" by higher league clubs. It's the "Food chain" syndrome. Big fish, small fish.

What we really need, now, is to pull together, as a club. The inevitable is going to happen, I fear, and we will be playing our football at non league level next season. What we need to do is approach that season with a consistency. I think a lot of our problems have arisen because of the chopping and changing, both on and off the pitch. In the last season and a half we have had 3 (4 if you include Geoff Harrop) managers a change of chairman and countless players on loan.

Keep CH in the managers chair. Get our players in place, and stick with them. That way we will build a proper "Team" again both on and off the field and you never know, we might only be out of the FL for one season. :nod:

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 10:35
by Oil Beef Hooked
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I don't blame CH at all for the situation we're in.

Yes CH has made mistakes, made some bizarre team selections and brought some loanees to the club. But let's face it, we were already goners, down, relegated when AK was here. Christ, I even remember a few people suggesting on here that we were fu(ked after the first few games of the season. Plenty of people could see the writing on the wall long before AK was given the Spanish Archer.

What we did by getting rid of AK was give ourselves a fighting chance of avoiding relegation. However, I believe that AK's sacking was about 5 games too late. 5 games that could have made the difference. We brought in CH who was highly regarded at Bournemouth and had experience of being part of a Championship set up and who knew the club. If you remember, CH was also touted by Northampton at the same time and how many times did we read on here that Allen, Warnock et al wouldn't come here for various reasons, distance, money etc. Maybe CH was the best or the only applicant for the job in the first place.

CH has been here for 16 games, that's 16 games to not only try and get the points to climb the table, but to also re-inject confidence into a side that has been under performing week in week out all season. A side that mainly contains players that ML and AK brought in. A side that contains more AK players than his own. Remember at the start of the season AK wanted at least 10 games to assess the team and try to find out what the best 11 was. Well, most of those players are still in the starting 11 now. That shows the current depth of the squad we have and this isn't CH's fault. You can blame AK or the playing budget, but I think it's unfair to place this on CH's shoulders. Yes he's brought in a few firefighting loanees, but what's to say that they're not being paid by their parent club and we have them effectively wage free.

I'm going to reserve my judgement in CH as a manager until he has had a chance to build his own team. Not basing judgement on a team that he's inherited from AK that's low on confidence and sitting rock bottom, not only in the table but on confidence and ability.

His next task is probably going to be his most important and that's to sweep the broom at Plainmoor. What these 16 games had given him is the ability to see who is up for the fight and wants to play for the shirt. I can see there being a clear out at the end of the season and that includes some of the old guard, because if we want to get back into the football league we need to do it with players who are committed and who want to be here.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 10:53
by Burnhamgull
Crystal Palace were deep in the mire when Pulis arrived, now they're looking good for survival.
Bristol City were deep in the mire when Steve Cotterill arrived, now they're looking good for survival

Both managers have had to work with the squads they've inherited and have only added a couple of players to improve results.

Ian Atkins had to work with the squad he inherited.

I don't believe CH has the motivational or tactical attributes required to be a manager. People keep talking about giving him time to build his own squad but he should be able to still get results with what he has. His record in the first 16 games is hardly inspiring.

Hargreaves = Saunders

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 10:56
by Fonda
We were not 'already down' when CH arrived. It was January, the season was only half gone, and we were 1 point from safety. We've been in worse positions than that with a couple of games left in the past.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 11:06
by Burnhamgull
Fonda wrote:We were not 'already down' when CH arrived. It was January, the season was only half gone, and we were 1 point from safety. We've been in worse positions than that with a couple of games left in the past.
:goodpost:

Exactly!!!

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 11:08
by tommyg
Burnhamgull wrote:Crystal Palace were deep in the mire when Pulis arrived, now they're looking good for survival.
Bristol City were deep in the mire when Steve Cotterill arrived, now they're looking good for survival

Both managers have had to work with the squads they've inherited and have only added a couple of players to improve results.

Ian Atkins had to work with the squad he inherited.

I don't believe CH has the motivational or tactical attributes required to be a manager. People keep talking about giving him time to build his own squad but he should be able to still get results with what he has. His record in the first 16 games is hardly inspiring.

Hargreaves = Saunders
You can't just cherry-pick managers who have turned around a club's fortunes. What about Holloway and Solskjaer, both appointed the same week as Hargreaves? Millwall and Cardiff were just outside the relegation zones of their respective divisions but are now in the bottom three.

You cannot judge a manager after 16 games when he's only been allowed to make a couple of permanent signings. He's made mistakes and odd choices but this is his first job - a risk the board took which has backfired.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 11:17
by Oil Beef Hooked
Fonda wrote:We were not 'already down' when CH arrived. It was January, the season was only half gone, and we were 1 point from safety. We've been in worse positions than that with a couple of games left in the past.

Mathematically no, but just go through this very forum and the general feeling on here was that we were down. The signs were already there for all to see. My post says that by getting rid of AK we gave ourselves a fighting chance of avoiding relegation. A chance that we had to take, however, that has now backfired on us.

All I'm saying is that I don't blame CH for where we are. There are other extraneous factors that have caused our downfall this season, (weather, injuries etc etc) which have been debated to death on here over the last few months.

The burning question...

Posted: 06 Apr 2014, 11:20
by Fonda
So because the posters on this forum came to the conclusion we were down, that was it? It was time to throw in the towel? Football fans can be pessimistic, some can even be stupid.