Was sacking Farke the right decision?

[repman 635]

Yes, we were really bad under him in the PL. Doing it after a win seemed bizarre but the decision had already been made and the performance at Brentford wouldn't have changed any minds. We at best played it 50/50 (that's kind imo) against a side we'd come up with. 

[AJ 1,218]

Sacking him didn't make any difference, so not really. Recruitment was the biggest issue, just ONE of those signings is still in the squad right now which tells you everything you need to know.

[king canary 7,599]

I think it was right to simply because it felt like it had run it's course. To me it will never be acceptable to have a coach coming out and publically saying 'we have no chance of winning vs team X, Y and Z' as Farke did. To me the performances in the games vs Chelsea and Leeds weren't really about poor recruitment (although it didn't help) but they were a team playing with no confidence and no real plan in place. Those things sit with the coach. You can buy poorly but still at least make life difficult for your opposition but we weren't even doing that.

I think there is this idea that if we'd gone down with Farke again and he'd stayed that he would have been able to gee the squad back up again automatically and we'd romp the league playing peak Farkeball again despite not having Skipp or Buendia this time around. I'm really not convinced that would have happened but we can never know.

Also getting the follow up wrong doesn't then mean that the original decision was wrong. There was a similar argument post Worthy being sacked because Grant was so **** but that doesn't mean keeping Worthington would have been a good idea. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,691]

Depends. Did you want top flight survival? Then yes, sacking him was the right thing to do.

[ricardo 7,380]

Sacking Farke was a pointless reflex reaction that put us back in the "do what everyone else does" bracket. The idea that a different face might get better results is just the knee jerk reaction that keeps the managerial roundabout turning. I thought it was something we had decided to move on from but in the end we lacked the courage to carry it through.

[Canary dwarf 221]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

There was quite a detailed piece in the Athletic dissecting what went wrong that sounds very plausible.

Basically, Farke wanted three signings, a marquee CB and a Skipp and Buendia replacement. Rashica fulfilled the latter, and Andrich and St Juste were lined up as the CDM and CB respectively, but we refused to meet their demands (both went on to have great seasons at their respective clubs). The story goes that we could have afforded them, but it would have depleted our budget and would have made further signings difficult. Webber decided that just three signings would have left the squad too thin, particularly with Farke's tough training regime, so opted for more signings of less quality.

It's a shame really, because I think a starting 11 of;

Krul, Aarons, Hanley, St Juste, Giannoulis, Andrich, McLean, Rashica, Cantwell, Dowell, Pukki might've had a decent stab at staying up. We'd have been relying on key players staying injury free, but would have had the likes of Rupp, Placheta, Onel, Gibson, Sorenson and Rowe to come in and have a stab. I can't see anyway they would have done worse.

Anyway, allegedly after not getting what he wanted in the transfer window, Farke became dejected and negative and the story is that Webber felt there was no way we could stay up with a coach with that attitude. In reality, I think we all know, Farke was not happy with the hand Webber dealt him and rather than front up to the fact that Webber had ballsed up recruitment, he looked for someone else to blame and Farke became the fall guy for Webber's failings.

A very interesting read I didn't know any of this as I don't read the athletic , but it shows what a snake Webber is!😗

[Mengo 822]

29 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said:

A very interesting read I didn't know any of this as I don't read the athletic , but it shows what a snake Webber is!😗

Lower than a snake's belly 

 

[Tumbleweed 106]

At the time with what we knew was it right to sack Farke? My view is yes.

Was it right to replace him with Dean Smith? No. 

The last two EPL campaigns were abysmal, we became a national embarrassment which will take years to recover from in terms of perception. There were people calling for a change in rules, that NCFC was "gaming" the system, that we should be thrown out because we were not even trying to compete. Not Farke's fault alone but he was a part of it. We had become defeatist. The games vs Chelsea and Leeds were awful. In other respects my view aligns with KC above.

 

[HazzaJet 252]

I think it's very debatable. Although I'm convinced that he would get us straight back up, I think the main problem with him was he has a very attacking style of play, which doesn't suit us in the PL and a big change in the style of play suits neither the players (as they're not used to playing it) or the manager (as they're not used to using it). As a result of that I think it's better for us to get promoted by a manager who has a bit more defensive style of play (although not one who parks the bus)

Edited November 4, 2022 by HazzaJet

[paddycanary 538]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I think it was right to simply because it felt like it had run it's course. To me it will never be acceptable to have a coach coming out and publically saying 'we have no chance of winning vs team X, Y and Z' as Farke did. To me the performances in the games vs Chelsea and Leeds weren't really about poor recruitment (although it didn't help) but they were a team playing with no confidence and no real plan in place. Those things sit with the coach. You can buy poorly but still at least make life difficult for your opposition but we weren't even doing that.

I think there is this idea that if we'd gone down with Farke again and he'd stayed that he would have been able to gee the squad back up again automatically and we'd romp the league playing peak Farkeball again despite not having Skipp or Buendia this time around. I'm really not convinced that would have happened but we can never know.

Also getting the follow up wrong doesn't then mean that the original decision was wrong. There was a similar argument post Worthy being sacked because Grant was so **** but that doesn't mean keeping Worthington would have been a good idea. 

This is pretty much my view. Therefore, a great post!

[Crafty Canary 495]

Irrelevant question. He was fired and won’t be back. Stop living in the past and move forward.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,800]

No. I said it at the time and quite obviously anyone who thought that when it happened wouldn't have changed their mind based on what has happened since.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,081]

12 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

If sacking Farke was correct a year ago then the same must apply now with Smith despite the league position.

I think he paid the price for poor recruitment after promotion, none of the loans worked out and two of the big signings completely failed. 

Farke paid the price for being unable to turn water into wine

[The Great Mass Debater 1,081]

10 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Webber decided that just three signings would have left the squad too thin

This the same squad that Smith instantly said was bloated and needed thinning out?

[Cowboy 197]

No. He provided the magic in the club, and over-produced on the entertainment front and delivered the best realistic results given the resources available. What's left under Smith is perhaps a more realistic level for the club as it is funded, but lacks the magic and the entertainment and is turgid fare for the punters.

[First Wazzock 902]

I'm curious to know how much it cost to get rid of Farke and put this wonderful upgrade in place.

However much it was, it's been a complete waste of money a bit like the transfer dealings two summers ago.

Edited November 5, 2022 by First Wazzock

[canarybubbles 1,915]

1 minute ago, First Wazzock said:

I'm curious to know how much it cost to get rid of Farke and put this wonderful upgrade in place.

However much it was, it's been a complete waste of money a bit like last summers transfer dealings.

Does the level of compensation go down if a manager steps into a new job? I think I read this somewhere, but it seems unlikely to me. Does anyone know for sure?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

5 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Does the level of compensation go down if a manager steps into a new job? I think I read this somewhere, but it seems unlikely to me. Does anyone know for sure?

That's only if you put them on gardening leave and will depend on the contract.

If you put somebody on gardening leave you are relieving them of their duties but still paying them their weekly wage, until they get another job at which point you stop paying them. If the managers new job is lesser paid then at that point they either accept the pay cut or might go to their employer and say "I'll go here and get off your payroll, but want you to pay me this much of the difference as a lump sum" or something.

Should imagine agents of managers have wised up to this and starting insisting that there are clauses stopping this by now?

Will all depend on the contract. I thought I read that despite Farke's 4 year contract, the termination actually only required 1 years full pay as severance, but may be mistaken.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,530]

12 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

This the same squad that Smith instantly said was bloated and needed thinning out?

Amazing that this criticism actually agrees with what a lot of Webber's critics made over too much emphasis on quantity over quality, but I can see why that would be difficult to acknowledge as it runs dangerously close to suggesting Smith might be competent. 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Amazing that this criticism actually agrees with what a lot of Webber's critics made over too much emphasis on quantity over quality, but I can see why that would be difficult to acknowledge as it runs dangerously close to suggesting Smith might be competent. 

Did you work as a spin doctor for Tony Blair in a previous life?

[Worthy Nigelton 1,043]

21 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Depends. Did you want top flight survival? Then yes, sacking him was the right thing to do.

Yes because we survived when he left.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,691]

3 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Yes because we survived when he left.

My bad, he was doing great. Would have kept us up for surrrrre..

[Worthy Nigelton 1,043]

Just now, cambridgeshire canary said:

My bad, he was doing great. Would have kept us up for surrrrre..

Nobody would have with those players. I bet he'll keep BMG up.

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Amazing that this criticism actually agrees with what a lot of Webber's critics made over too much emphasis on quantity over quality, but I can see why that would be difficult to acknowledge as it runs dangerously close to suggesting Smith might be competent. 

 It was mentioned at the time by Webber that it would be quality over quantity and we then brought in far too many gambles who added next-to-nothing, for what many felt was an extremely important season.  We’d have been far better sticking with a handful of better players including Ajer who it seems we let go to Brentford for the sake of a couple of £m - not a huge amount in football terms  when you consider we the blew high-teens £m on Rashica-Tzolis.

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

6 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Nobody would have with those players. I bet he'll keep BMG up.

Odd comment/comparison - weren’t they mid table in the top flight last season? If so, to only just stay up would be far worse.  Surely the idea was that they’d improve?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,691]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Odd comment/comparison - weren’t they mid table in the top flight last season? If so, to only just stay up would be far worse.  Surely the idea was that they’d improve?

BMG finished 10th last season and 4th the season before. I feel keeping them up may be a tad easier than keeping us in the Prem..

Edited November 5, 2022 by cambridgeshire canary

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

5 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

BMG finished 10th last season and 4th the season before. I feel keeping them up may be a tad easier than keeping us in the Prem..

Well yes - I seem to get in trouble if I say the Bundesliga is ‘weak’ but for me it has a lot of ordinary sides, far more so than the PL. and I say that as someone who’s been a regular watcher over the years (up to last season when it moved to Sky).

[canarybubbles 1,915]

18 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well yes - I seem to get in trouble if I say the Bundesliga is ‘weak’ but for me it has a lot of ordinary sides, far more so than the PL. and I say that as someone who’s been a regular watcher over the years (up to last season when it moved to Sky).

I bow to your experience of watching regularly over the years, but can I ask you why, if the Bundesliga is so weak, they have four clubs in the last sixteen of the CL? OK, so you could have four very good clubs and the rest are dross, but the closeness of the league so far this season argues against that, as does the fact that the club at the top are not one of those four. And I find it hard to believe that Stuttgart, say, are any worse than Southampton.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,043]

31 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Odd comment/comparison - weren’t they mid table in the top flight last season? If so, to only just stay up would be far worse.  Surely the idea was that they’d improve?

The point is with good enough players he can keep a team up. Our players weren't good enough.

FYI they finished 10th last year, they're currently 7th.

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

1 minute ago, canarybubbles said:

I bow to your experience of watching regularly over the years, but can I ask you why, if the Bundesliga is so weak, they have four clubs in the last sixteen of the CL? OK, so you could have four very good clubs and the rest are dross, but the closeness of the league so far this season argues against that, as does the fact that the club at the top are not one of those four. And I find it hard to believe that Stuttgart, say, are any worse than Southampton.

That’s pretty much it - outside the top few it is pretty ordinary.  I think the top tier in the PL is larger though.