Bryan Gunn, Costa del Colney and the spineless way out

[pennywise 0]

well costa del colditz was a roaring success under roeder wasn`t it ?  anyway how could you possibly know what its going to be like at colney ? how do you know whats in gunnys plans for how he wants to run things, mr chops i always enjoy your posts , your panto was genius but this is just wizard style sensationalist nonsense and you`d  be the first one on wizards back if he posted it [:D]

[Belinda Carlisle 0]

[quote user="Badger"]I don''t suppose that anyone might have considered for a second that a group of people, with a significant proportion of their savings tied up in the club might have looked at the alternatives and thought this was the best bet?[/quote]Yes.  That''s the frightening thing.  Hamilton - Grant - Roeder - ...

[pak mei 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]When Peter Grant was sacked, we rightly were angry about the perceived easy life of our footballing professionals.  "Costa del Colney", as it was tagged, was a place where footballers could pick up thousands of pounds a week for doing very little work in return.  They had it easy.  The establishment, under Worthy, then Grant, was cosy and unchallenging.  Change was needed.We got change in the form of Roeder.  He kicked out the lazy ones and kept us up.  To be fair, he made some poor decisions along the way but he kept us up and improved the squad.  Bye Murray, Strihavka, Brellier. Hello Bell, Hoolahan, Clingan.But then Roeder was rude to a few people and revealed himself to be an arrogant fool who had lost the confidence of the players.  After the shambles of the ''59ers tribute match, which looked more like a bunch of strangers in retro kit struggling to identify each other, Roeder was fired.And now the Board had a big decision to make.  Experience?  Proven ability to deliver results?  Nope.  Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley, they turn to the temporary custodian of the manager''s position, and once legendary goalkeeper, Bryan Gunn.  Recalling Crook and Deehan in the bargain.What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble."Prudence with ambition," Doncaster repeatedly said.  What is prudent or ambitious about gambling our championship survival on an untried, untested manager?What is prudent or ambitious about the knee-jerk reaction which says that "Roeder annoyed people so let''s get someone in who everyone likes?"What is prudent or ambitious about appointing a management team which consists of some Australian coaching, a failed ex-Norwich City manager and a man whose career path is "Sheriff of Norwich.... head of Player Recruitment.... er.... Norwich City manager"?Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney. "We need someone who understands the club," they say.  "We need a local."  Is this the League of Gentlemen?  Apart from Dario Gradi, only local to Crewe because he''s been there since 10AD, who else can you name from the "local club for local people" school of footballing philosophy?This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.  Christ, I want to vomit at this pathetic abdication of responsibilities by the board supposedly in place to promote the best interests of this football club.  Of course I will back this management team, and I hope they stuff every single word I''ve typed here back down my throat as we win half of our remaining games, finish 14th and prepare for a decent 2009-10 in the Championship.  But I''d be lying if I said I wasn''t extremely worried about the likelihood of League One next season, and I maintain that this is no time for a novice.  Once more, this spineless excuse for a Board of Directors have once more let this fine club down and they must be held accountable.  Shame on you, Munby.  Shame on you, Doncaster.  Alas, Smith and Jones.  Once more you have failed every single one of us, the "fans who own the club," as you so blithely put it.Good luck Bryan, but don''t say you weren''t warned.  This will not be easy.[/quote]Totally disagree with that, history will prove you wrong I think roeder unfortunatel assembled a group of poeple that didn.t respond to his management style, If you look at the likes of hoolahan, lupoli etc they''re quite obviously the arm round the shoulder type not the iron rod type.Previous boards have taken tha easy way out and appointed from within the most obvious being Mike Walker, I remember when they announced him as manager we were gutted and hardly knew who he was, history prved us wrong.I would have had some resevations and would have agreed with some of your thoughts had gunny been given the gig full time and also as an individual but I think the important thing here is not Bryan Gunn It''s the management team of Gunn, Deehan, and Crook, hopefully Butterworth to follow, there''s enough experience there to keep this team up this year coupled with a new refreshing man management style.Next year is a different matter but thats a conversation for another time,

[Saint Canary 0]

I think an important point that people are missing here is that the players clearly want to play for Gunn and it appears that they have confidence in him and this can count for a lot.  If Gunn can give the players the confidence to play to the best of their abilities then I don''t see a problem with it.  I do however still have my doubts over the boards motives in appointing Gunn.Being realistic the only alternative options, due to finance, were managers who are currently unemployed.  All of the managers who were a realistic shout have recent failures on their CV and also represented a risk.  If you are going to take a risk you may as well take it on Gunn becuase at least he is not just coming (like Roeder) to get their career back on track.

[Marty 0]

Some points are made well but you haven''t asnwered the question another poster has already put to you, who would you have selected out of the realistic possible candidates.

Until you do this you are just another person moaning without any constructive input or suggestions.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

totally agree with that chops. i think this legends thing is a complete cop off and will go completely tits up. if gunn had lost against barnsley he would have never got the job! and if he had everyone on this board would have been going mental about it. typical , a  good win against a crap side and every one has there head in the clouds.

 

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Belinda Honeychild"][quote user="Badger"]I don''t suppose that anyone might have considered for a second that a group of people, with a significant proportion of their savings tied up in the club might have looked at the alternatives and thought this was the best bet?[/quote]Yes.  That''s the frightening thing.  Hamilton - Grant - Roeder - ...[/quote]None of which worked out. You missed out Worthington, who did (although I was against the appoinment at the time). You are questionning their decisions and there is evidence to support your case (although a comparison of other clubs success rates with managerial appointments might be interesting). This is however, quite different from questionning the motives for their appointments. They did what they thought best; it might prove successful, it might not but they have to back their own judgement. Bringing in people from outside the club (Grant, Roeder, Rioch) has failed 100%. Promoting internally has had some success (but failure too.) In the circumstances, appointing internally may well be the sensible thing to do and not the a) "spineless" or b) "very scary" gamble that it is potrayed as.

[Stone Cold 0]

What amaze''s me is the amount of people pointing out Gunn''s lack of experience but people on here were seriously wanting Dion Dublin , Malky , Iwan , Ian Crook and even Huckerby ( Although that was more of a joke I''d like to think ) how much managerial experience have those candidates got ? But if appointed would people have been hailing them as the saviours...

[Taxing 0]

Interesting points Mr Chops and put very assertively ..... as though indisputable. Dare I say that I don''t agree with very much of what you state with such authority ? Right now I don''t have time to respond in any detail and to do so would be a fatuous exercise anyway. However, I laughed out loud at your suggestion that beating Barnsley was a given whoever was in charge.......... even Forest Gump. I wonder if you felt such confidence before the game or immediately after the shambles that was bottom of the table Charlton beating us at home the previous Tuesday evening. As for the implication that Roeder was our saviour last season well, of course, he was indeed the man brought in to reverse the downward trend, paid handsomely for the purpose, and he managed to do so for just about long enough for us to accumulate enough points to avoid the drop..... just. It was a close run thing and safety was achieved in the penultimate game of the season. My view, and it is only my opinion, is that Peter Grant was such an incompetent manager and made such glaringly obvious mistakes that, frankly, most anybody taking over from him would see clearly what needed to be done to reverse the decline. I would stop well short of Forest Gump but I assume you suggested that fictional character as exaggeration to prove your point. What is indisputable is that, having been the man at the helm when we so narrowly avoided the drop last season Mr Roeder then succeeded in navigating us to the brink again and there can be no argument surely that he had to go and change implemented before it was too late. In my opinion, Roeder would have taken us down to League One and the Club could not stand by and allow this to happen. Therefore, I applaud the Board for removing Roeder and for appointing a replacement management team so quickly. We can all argue ad nauseam as to whether or not Gunn et al was the right choice to make or, indeed, who mght have been better but that would get us nowhere because NONE of us knows. I can only judge the Board on their actions obver the last few days and I support what they have done. Time will tell whether Gunn and his team will succeed in steering us away from what was starting to look inevitable. Personally, I think they will and I hope that you will want to see me proved right !

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Stone Cold"]What amaze''s me is the amount of people pointing out Gunn''s lack of experience but people on here were seriously wanting Dion Dublin , Malky , Iwan , Ian Crook and even Huckerby ( Although that was more of a joke I''d like to think ) how much managerial experience have those candidates got ? But if appointed would people have been hailing them as the saviours...[/quote]The truth is that whoever the board appointed would have been criticised. No experience or proven failure.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]

Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.  Christ, I want to vomit at this pathetic abdication of responsibilities by the board supposedly in place to promote the best interests of this football club. 

Of course I will back this management team, and I hope they stuff every single word I''ve typed here back down my throat as we win half of our remaining games, finish 14th and prepare for a decent 2009-10 in the Championship.  But I''d be lying if I said I wasn''t extremely worried about the likelihood of League One next season, and I maintain that this is no time for a novice.  Once more, this spineless excuse for a Board of Directors have once more let this fine club down and they must be held accountable.  Shame on you, Munby.  Shame on you, Doncaster.  Alas, Smith and Jones.  Once more you have failed every single one of us, the "fans who own the club," as you so blithely put it.

Good luck Bryan, but don''t say you weren''t warned.  This will not be easy.

[/quote]

Top post young Padawan![;)]

[Boot 0]

The last time we appointed a manager with very little experience who no-one had heard of was Mike Walker first time round, his coach David Williams was also very inexperienced.  I remember being distinctly underwhelmed at the time, but we all know what followed.

I am delighted we didn''t go for Boothroyd, the thought of having to sit through THAT sort of football week in week out was making my blood run cold

[Plastic Scouser 0]

Surely the true sign of a good manager is their ability to get the best from their team.   Roeder (who according to Chops) was a "bit rude" clearly hadn''t got that skill.   Gunn on the other hand appears to have the people skills that should make him a decent man manager.Don''t write him off before he''s had a chance.  Typical City fan trait that!!!

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

How does it feel to be in the same camp as the Wizard, Choppsy?

[TheCardinal 0]

Mister Chops,

You make some excellent points and make them well. Sadly, though, I think you base some of your opinions on assumptions.

[quote]Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley[/quote]

I, for one, don''t agree with this at all. Yes, as always, managerial changes do tend to bring with it a change in form. Look at Spurs, and Forest. Still, we can''t cheapen the achievement of last Saturday as down to that momentum. The performance was excellent - as good as we''ve seen - the players confidence was high when before it was rock bottom and we looked a more cohesive, capable unit. I don''t think we can claim that all on the momentum.

[quote]What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.[/quote]

Taking on any manager involves a gamble. Aidy Boothroyd was my choice, but I conceed he would have been a gamble because his team was built around height and strength. Would he have been able to manage a team completely opposite to this? Not sure. Paul Ince is as arrogant as they come; and at a time where we needed someone to nurture confidence, he''d have been a gamble as well. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

[quote]Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney.[/quote]

Again, assumption. "Costa del Colney" is, I sincerely hope, gone never to be returned. Under Grant, we were clearly not fit enough to compete and I hope Gunny knows that.

[quote]This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.[/quote]

Again, assumption. We simply don''t know what kind of manager Bryan will be. And for what it''s worth, I''d rather have him surrounded by people with various levels of experience than have no experience around him at all.

[quote]Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.[/quote]

Again, assumption.

I, too, am underwhelmed by the choice made by the board. If we were comfortably mid-table, with a bit of cash behind us, I might understand this. But we''re a team dangerously close to oblivion - relegation to league one would be a catastrophe and we''ve gone for an option with no experience of this situation whatsoever. We need badly to turn our fortunes around. Not to take a gamble on an inexperienced manager.

But equally, it''s happened now and I think it''s foolish to criticise the manager for practices he may not even adopt. We need to give him a chance on every level.

So, as you say Mr Chops, best of luck Bryan Gunn. Let''s hope you can keep us in this league. Because if not, I fear for the very safety of our football club.

[blahblahblah 2]

All I''ll say to this is just because you get on with the boss doesn''t mean you''ll slack off.  Players that want to slack off will do so whether they like the boss or not, in fact I''d argue that they''d be more likely to do so if they can''t stand the boss.

It worries me what happens in tight relegation battle matches, such as those against Southampton and Donny, if they don''t roll over the way Barnsley did, will our players dig deeper to get the results ?  The hope is that they will for Gunny, in the same way that they couldn''t be bothered to for Roeder.  Until we play these games though, we won''t know.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

All I''ll say to this is just because you get on with the boss doesn''t mean you''ll slack off.  Players that want to slack off will do so whether they like the boss or not, in fact I''d argue that they''d be more likely to do so if they can''t stand the boss.

It worries me what happens in tight relegation battle matches, such as those against Southampton and Donny, if they don''t roll over the way Barnsley did, will our players dig deeper to get the results ?  The hope is that they will for Gunny, in the same way that they couldn''t be bothered to for Roeder.  Until we play these games though, we won''t know.

[/quote]

It worries me too Blah, can Gunn adapt tactically, and quickly enough? I have grave doubts that he can.

[macdougalls perm 0]

OP makes some good points and some big assumptions in my opinion.

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="astrodyne"]I think its a huge gamble - and given the Boards history of gambles - a very scary big gamble in terms of staying in the division. However I think its also a big gamble in terms of the Boards position. They may have thought about this, or maybe they haven''t, but if things go badly wrong, Gunny and Crook are bigger legends at City then the Board will ever be. I don''t think they will ever become the scapegoats like Roeder and Worthington became. Which could leave the board in a very precarious position. Exciting times......? [/quote]So presumably it is both a "very scary big gamble" and "spineless." I don''t suppose that anyone might have considered for a second that a group of people, with a significant proportion of their savings tied up in the club might have looked at the alternatives and thought this was the best bet? The idea that they will have taken a decision for any other reason defies logic. You might not agree with the decision but chances are I might not have disagreed with yours. Bottom line is that the board have the most to lose and have to go with their own judgement. PS - looking back at some of the message board "experts" recommendations for alternative managers in the Worthington debate makes interesting reading![/quote]Errr...where did I say in my post that it was spineless?My point is simply that the board have also gambled with their position as I percieve Gunn and Crook to be above critisicm from the majority of fans. Whether that perception is correct or not remains to be seen, however I think its a little bit more concrete than your assumptions as to why the board have appointed them.

[Binky 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]1. What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.2. This is a sad day for the football club.  3. Of course I will back this management team, and I hope they stuff every single word I''ve typed here back down my throat [/quote]1. yes it''s a gamble Mr C - all such appointments are (as we have learned to our cost) - but if you are saying it''s a high risk appointment - doesn''t that contradict your point that the Board is being spineless? 2. a sad day? - "What a ridiculous statement" (to steal your words from another thread). Personally I have not felt happier in a long time - but if you are just making a future prediction, are we not being a tad premature? Whay evidence have you that any of the other candidates would definitely have done better for us at this juncture? Who''s to say that a new broom would not have done another Roeder on us? In that respect Gunn is a known quanitity and therefoee a lower risk IMO.3. back the management? - no need at this stage Mr C, honestly! Just back the team for now. Let Gunn & Co prove themselves. I am sure they will.

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

This is a top post, Marshmallow.

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"]

Mister Chops,

You make some excellent points and make them well. Sadly, though, I think you base some of your opinions on assumptions.

[quote]Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley[/quote]

I, for one, don''t agree with this at all. Yes, as always, managerial changes do tend to bring with it a change in form. Look at Spurs, and Forest. Still, we can''t cheapen the achievement of last Saturday as down to that momentum. The performance was excellent - as good as we''ve seen - the players confidence was high when before it was rock bottom and we looked a more cohesive, capable unit. I don''t think we can claim that all on the momentum.

[quote]What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.[/quote]

Taking on any manager involves a gamble. Aidy Boothroyd was my choice, but I conceed he would have been a gamble because his team was built around height and strength. Would he have been able to manage a team completely opposite to this? Not sure. Paul Ince is as arrogant as they come; and at a time where we needed someone to nurture confidence, he''d have been a gamble as well. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

[quote]Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney.[/quote]

Again, assumption. "Costa del Colney" is, I sincerely hope, gone never to be returned. Under Grant, we were clearly not fit enough to compete and I hope Gunny knows that.

[quote]This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.[/quote]

Again, assumption. We simply don''t know what kind of manager Bryan will be. And for what it''s worth, I''d rather have him surrounded by people with various levels of experience than have no experience around him at all.

[quote]Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.[/quote]

Again, assumption.

I, too, am underwhelmed by the choice made by the board. If we were comfortably mid-table, with a bit of cash behind us, I might understand this. But we''re a team dangerously close to oblivion - relegation to league one would be a catastrophe and we''ve gone for an option with no experience of this situation whatsoever. We need badly to turn our fortunes around. Not to take a gamble on an inexperienced manager.

But equally, it''s happened now and I think it''s foolish to criticise the manager for practices he may not even adopt. We need to give him a chance on every level.

So, as you say Mr Chops, best of luck Bryan Gunn. Let''s hope you can keep us in this league. Because if not, I fear for the very safety of our football club.

[/quote]

[Binky 0]

Adam Aiken''s Fanseye column today puts the "hooray for Gunny" and "experience isn''t everything" arguments well:http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/commentary/FansEye.aspx

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]When Peter Grant was sacked, we rightly were angry about the perceived easy life of our footballing professionals.  "Costa del Colney", as it was tagged, was a place where footballers could pick up thousands of pounds a week for doing very little work in return.  They had it easy.  The establishment, under Worthy, then Grant, was cosy and unchallenging.  Change was needed.

We got change in the form of Roeder.  He kicked out the lazy ones and kept us up.  To be fair, he made some poor decisions along the way but he kept us up and improved the squad.  Bye Murray, Strihavka, Brellier. Hello Bell, Hoolahan, Clingan.

But then Roeder was rude to a few people and revealed himself to be an arrogant fool who had lost the confidence of the players.  After the shambles of the ''59ers tribute match, which looked more like a bunch of strangers in retro kit struggling to identify each other, Roeder was fired.

And now the Board had a big decision to make.  Experience?  Proven ability to deliver results?  Nope.  Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley, they turn to the temporary custodian of the manager''s position, and once legendary goalkeeper, Bryan Gunn.  Recalling Crook and Deehan in the bargain.

What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.

"Prudence with ambition," Doncaster repeatedly said.  What is prudent or ambitious about gambling our championship survival on an untried, untested manager?

What is prudent or ambitious about the knee-jerk reaction which says that "Roeder annoyed people so let''s get someone in who everyone likes?"

What is prudent or ambitious about appointing a management team which consists of some Australian coaching, a failed ex-Norwich City manager and a man whose career path is "Sheriff of Norwich.... head of Player Recruitment.... er.... Norwich City manager"?

Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney.

"We need someone who understands the club," they say.  "We need a local."  Is this the League of Gentlemen?  Apart from Dario Gradi, only local to Crewe because he''s been there since 10AD, who else can you name from the "local club for local people" school of footballing philosophy?

This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.

Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.  Christ, I want to vomit at this pathetic abdication of responsibilities by the board supposedly in place to promote the best interests of this football club. 

Of course I will back this management team, and I hope they stuff every single word I''ve typed here back down my throat as we win half of our remaining games, finish 14th and prepare for a decent 2009-10 in the Championship.  But I''d be lying if I said I wasn''t extremely worried about the likelihood of League One next season, and I maintain that this is no time for a novice.  Once more, this spineless excuse for a Board of Directors have once more let this fine club down and they must be held accountable.  Shame on you, Munby.  Shame on you, Doncaster.  Alas, Smith and Jones.  Once more you have failed every single one of us, the "fans who own the club," as you so blithely put it.

Good luck Bryan, but don''t say you weren''t warned.  This will not be easy.

[/quote]

An excellent post.  

Dont forget we''re little ''ol Naarrrwwiccchh, we musn''t compete with the big boys of this league, you know, Preston North End and Burnley.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

------------

Since everyone else is having a say, I posted a version of this yesterday on

the club message board…

1. If we had appointed as manager someone who’d

played several hundred games in goal for, say Nottingham Forest,

and who had never shown any great interest in managing and who had never

coached or managed, apart from one game as a caretaker, then we would be

outside Carrow Road

with pitchforks. Forget the yellow and green blood nonsense, that it

effectively what we have done.

2. The assistant to this totally unexperienced manager

is someone with a nondescript coaching record who’s never coached in England

and was until we came along apparently not even working as a coach  but as a “high performance manager” (whatever

the h*ll that is) for the team that is bottom of the league in Australia. His

one selling point seems to be that he was a creative player and so he will get

the team playing better football. If there was any proven correlation to back

that up that might be fine, but there is none. If anything the correlation

works the other work. George Graham was an elegant midfielder who produced “1-0

to the Arsenal”. We played our purest football under Dave Stringer – a

journeyman defender (and, incidentally, someone who’d paid his dues as a youth

team and reserve team coach before becoming manager). In any event what we need

now is hardly someone to get us playing prettier football, but someone to coach

the defence into conceding fewer goals.

3. The one person in this triumvirate with any serious coaching or managerial

experience hasn’t been hired as the manager or the coach but as the chief

scout. I thought we were trying to get away from square pegs in round holes?

And the directors have such confidence they’ve got this

decision absolutely right that they’ve given this “dream ticket” a three-year

contract, a five-year contract? Er, no, actually. Until the summer.

Nottingham Forest, in as much or more trouble than us. Do they sack Calderwood

and appoint some legend who’s never been a coach or a manager until the end of

the season? No, they go for Billy Davies on a long-term basis. The contrast

could not be starker. The American writer Damon Runyon, who knew a thing or two

about sport, said: “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the

strong, but that’s the way to bet.” Nottingham

Forest chose to get them

out of the mire someone with absolutely no connection to the club, no red and

white blood, but with an excellent track record as a manager. Forest

bet on the swift and the strong. We have chosen to bet otherwise.

Of course I HOPE it works, and of course it COULD work. And of course there is

no guarantee that an Ince or a Boothroyd (who would have been my choice, depending on who was on

the short-list) WOULD work. But at least with a proven manager you are

maximising the chances of success. With an unproven manager, especially with

the rest of the team we have here, you are minimising the chances of success.

And success in this case means avoiding relegation,

with all that entails. Not to mention potential threats from outside. All of

which means we are not in a position to take a gamble. Except that is just what

we have done. A witless, craven and muddle-headed gamble.

------

A day on, I pretty much stick by this. If Deehan, as seems the case, is not

just going to be scouting but will be involved in tactics, then that is to be

welcomed. However the bottom line is that the manager is the manager is the

manager, and the buck stops with him. If we need a point at Charlton on the

last day of the season to stay up, and we’re 1-0 down with 15 minutes to go,

and we have one substitution left, then all the love from the fans, all the

goodwill, all the respect from the players, all the yellow and green blood

nonsense, all the “legend” stuff, will not matter one little bit.

Who do you want taking that decision? Someone who’s experienced that kind of

pressure before, and may even have been in a similar situation, or someone for

whom it is totally uncharted territory?

[venta icenorum 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="blahblahblah"]

All I''ll say to this is just because you get on with the boss doesn''t mean you''ll slack off.  Players that want to slack off will do so whether they like the boss or not, in fact I''d argue that they''d be more likely to do so if they can''t stand the boss.

It worries me what happens in tight relegation battle matches, such as those against Southampton and Donny, if they don''t roll over the way Barnsley did, will our players dig deeper to get the results ?  The hope is that they will for Gunny, in the same way that they couldn''t be bothered to for Roeder.  Until we play these games though, we won''t know.

[/quote]

It worries me too Blah, can Gunn adapt tactically, and quickly enough? I have grave doubts that he can.

[/quote]

Can''t you just  cast a spell on both Southampton and Donny to get relegated, then Gunn''s job will be done?

Tbh I don''t see why his tactics can''t be anything but better than either Roeder''s or Grant''s. And if they appointed Gunny, the other interviewed candidates can''t have been that impressive.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

------

------

Since everyone else is having a say, I posted a version of this yesterday on the club message board…

1. If we had appointed as manager someone who’d played several hundred games in goal for, say Nottingham Forest, and who had never shown any great interest in managing and who had never coached or managed, apart from one game as a caretaker, then we would be outside Carrow Road with pitchforks. Forget the yellow and green blood nonsense, that it effectively what we have done.

2. The assistant to this totally unexperienced manager is someone with a nondescript coaching record who’s never coached in England and was until we came along apparently not even working as a coach  but as a “high performance manager” (whatever the h*ll that is) for the team that is bottom of the league in Australia. His one selling point seems to be that he was a creative player and so he will get the team playing better football. If there was any proven correlation to back that up that might be fine, but there is none. If anything the correlation works the other work. George Graham was an elegant midfielder who produced “1-0 to the Arsenal”. We played our purest football under Dave Stringer – a journeyman defender (and, incidentally, someone who’d paid his dues as a youth team and reserve team coach before becoming manager). In any event what we need now is hardly someone to get us playing prettier football, but someone to coach the defence into conceding fewer goals.

3. The one person in this triumvirate with any serious coaching or managerial experience hasn’t been hired as the manager or the coach but as the chief scout. I thought we were trying to get away from square pegs in round holes?

And the directors have such confidence they’ve got this decision absolutely right that they’ve given this “dream ticket” a three-year contract, a five-year contract? Er, no, actually. Until the summer.

Nottingham Forest, in as much or more trouble than us. Do they sack Calderwood and appoint some legend who’s never been a coach or a manager until the end of the season? No, they go for Billy Davies on a long-term basis. The contrast could not be starker. The American writer Damon Runyon, who knew a thing or two about sport, said: “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.” Nottingham Forest chose to get them out of the mire someone with absolutely no connection to the club, no red and white blood, but with an excellent track record as a manager. Forest bet on the swift and the strong. We have chosen to bet otherwise.

Of course I HOPE it works, and of course it COULD work. And of course there is no guarantee that an Ince or a Boothroyd (who would have been my choice, depending on who was on the short-list) WOULD work. But at least with a proven manager you are maximising the chances of success. With an unproven manager, especially with the rest of the team we have here, you are minimising the chances of success.

And success in this case means avoiding relegation, with all that entails. Not to mention potential threats from outside. All of which means we are not in a position to take a gamble. Except that is just what we have done. A witless, craven and muddle-headed gamble.

------

A day on, I pretty much stick by this. If Deehan, as seems the case, is not just going to be scouting but will be involved in tactics, then that is to be welcomed. However the bottom line is that the manager is the manager is the manager, and the buck stops with him. If we need a point at Charlton on the last day of the season to stay up, and we’re 1-0 down with 15 minutes to go, and we have one substitution left, then all the love from the fans, all the goodwill, all the respect from the players, all the yellow and green blood nonsense, all the “legend” stuff, will not matter one little bit.

Who do you want taking that decision? Someone who’s experienced that kind of pressure before, and may even have been in a similar situation, or someone for whom it is totally uncharted territory?



<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

[/quote]

 

Hi PC, I won''t respond to the main thrust of what you say because I guess I have already said my piece earlier. However, I thought I would pick up on your last point about substitutions with 15 mins to go because the experienced manager who has just been axed left me and a couple of thousand other fans incadescent with rage during the 2nd half against Reading when he abysmally failed (yet again) to react to the changing nature of a game. Coppell brought on three pairs of fresh legs during that second half and with 20 minutes to go the game was still there to be won. Cort was winning all the high balls but there was no one alongside him to take advantage of his flick ons. The pitch was muddy, the players were tired and what did Roeder do ? Diddly flipping squat. He got Lupoli to warm up endlessly and, yes, he would have been the perfect sub. We chanted Lupoli''s name and Roeder told him to go back to the bench. I am convinced that Roeder resented our attempted influence and "jolly well showed us". Time and time again, Roeder''s team selections have left me astounded and the man who influenced the substitution tactics jumped ship before it hit the rocks. So, my point is this : Roeder, an experienced manager, failed on tactics and substitutions, there is no guarantee that a new "experienced manager" would be any better but, in any case,  I am confident that Gunn and his team will read the game well and will have the ability to make changes when called for. We shall, of course, see but that''s my view for what it is worth.

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

Hi, Old Snoorty. I haven''t seen that many games this season, but from what I have heard some of Roeder''s substitutions (or lack of them) were indeed bizarre. However I would stick to my general point, that I would rather have someone with some managerial experience taking crucial decisions like that.The truth is that no-one KNOWS how Gunn is going to do as a manager. He may turn out to be a complete natural. I hope that is the case. But choosing him is still more of a gamble than picking a Boothroyd or an Ince or a Billy Davies.

[Old Shuck 183]

Good post and some good responses, for and against.

I am wondering what this messageboard would have been like the day Mike Walker was appointed?

"Here we are, trying to establish our place amongst the elite of English football and who do the Board appoint? A reserve team coach who has recently been sacked as Manager of Colchester United-what does that say about our ambition, why couldn''t a proven Manager have been appointed?"

The truth is, we can all speculate, predict and rant for or against anything, anyone and any appointment but, until the egg hatches, we can''t say anything with confidence.

I hope these appointments come off. If Chippy has truly thrown his life and work in Oz away for 4-5 months here, that says something about him and his love for the club-he could, after all, be unemployed come May, and, following a probable unhappy time here, coupled with no other experience coaching in the UK, he might struggle to find work here. So its a gamble for him. Likewise Deehan who had a good job at Birmingham. Gunn has the most to lose though, and people are right, it doesn''t matter that its "good old Gunny", if we are struggling, if his selections are questionable, if the performances are dire, then he will feel the heat. Do the Club honestly think that, because the appointment is who it is, they and those appointed will be immune-"...good old Gunny, we''ve gone down, but hey, lets get behind the club..."  ??? Maybe they do?

We could have appointed any of those tipped-Boothroyd, Ince etc-and it could just as easily have failed.

Its a gamble but just about anything in football is these days. I wish them all well, I am wary and nervous about the situation we are in now, as we all are, but I guess we can but wait and see and issue more judgements and conclusions come May.

 

[Badger 0]

[quote user="astrodyne"]Errr...where did I say in my post that it was spineless?[/quote]You didn''t. I was trying to draw attention to the contradiction about it being both a "scary gamble" and "spineless." Your point is a good one - it will put the spotlight upon them even more - which I feel makes it a brave decision, rather than the spineless one that it was potrayed as by the original poster. My conjecture was that perhaps they were just doing what they thought was most likely to be successful. Everyone seems to assign other motives to them - "spineless", season ticket sales, cheaper etc. Above all else though, they want the club to be successful and I think that they have taken the decision that they think maximises the chances of this being the case.Sorry if I appeared to contradict you - it wasn''t intentional,  although on re-reading it, I can see where you are coming from.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I hope the new management team works but if it doesn''t then I hope the fans will not direct their displeasure at the management team but  where it belongs, namely the board.  I feel sorry for any manager who tries to manage Norwich because this board seems to have a fixation about spending money on tangible fixed asset rather than funding the acquisition of good experienced strikers (and we also need a centre back) to entertain the fans. If we have not repaid £2.5m to the bank then its time for some money to be spent on the squad. Lets sign Ched Evans on a permanent basis and give the fans something to cheer about.

OTBC!