O'Neill to replace Avram Grant?
- Thread starter pork pie fox
- Start date
- Status
Profondo Rosso
Well-Known Member
SSN seem to reckon it's a done deal. An excellent short-term solution. Will keep them up and do well for them no doubt. I still have reservations on his ability to stabilise club's long-term esp. his ability to put things in place to not allow the club to fall after he leaves though.
Last edited:
pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
Pretty much sums up my thoughts PR.
Motown Fox
Well-Known Member
Well it all depends on who takes over . We had twat Taylor and Villa brought in a hasbeen in Houllier who has no recent experience in the Premier League which could be why they are dropping towards relegation.
Bobbins
Well-Known Member
Grant, Houiller, Hodgson all in my opinion didn't necessarily have the time they needed to make their mark. A few years back it would have seemed crazy to consider sacking a manager after only a few months in the job (look at Ferguson and even O'Neil and the starts that they made). Now sacking when instant results don't come seems the norm. Crazy.
Profondo Rosso
Well-Known Member
What about us sacking Sousa for Sven, was that a "crazy" decision?
We don't see what's going on behind the scenes and how much the manager gets involved. I would imagine it's clear to most chairman (who aren't Mike Ashley) when you have a manager who is very intelligent in his approach and you can see coming good, but just isn't getting results (the main reason SAF was kept in the job so long was because it was obvious how great the youth team with Beckham, Scholes, Giggs etc. he built were) and therfore needs time, compared to when you have a manager who is clearly cluess (i.e. with Sousa he did no fitness training, so all our players were horribly unfit and getting cramp after 70mins etc.) and therefore needs getting rid of asap.
Last edited:
Bobbins
Well-Known Member
What about us sacking Sousa for Sven, was that a "crazy" decision?
We don't see what's going on behind the scenes and how much the manager gets involved. I would imagine it's clear to most chairman (who aren't Mike Ashley) when you have a manager who is very intelligent in his approach and you can see coming good, but just isn't getting results (the main reason SAF was kept in the job so long was because it was obvious how great the youth team with Beckham, Scholes, Giggs etc. he built were) and therfore needs time, compared to when you have a manager who is clearly cluess (i.e. with Sousa he did no fitness training, so all our players were horribly unfit and getting cramp after 70mins etc.) and therefore needs getting rid of asap.
The turnaround in performance and morale means that I can't argue with your point. Bringing Sven in seems to have had an immediate impact and long may it continue! My point is that this is not going to happen with every manager and that they should be given a bit longer to make an impact if needed. I'm also aware that things have changed in the last few years and maybe i am living in the past a little and being unrealistic!
Sir Alex's 1st season wasn't the best and they were expected to win things in his 2nd (think they were runners up)...- I may be wrong but I'm not sure the players you talked about were old enough to be in the youth team then... I also remember the protests at Filbert Street against O'Neil (v Sheff Utd i think) but in both of these cases the manager was given more time.
Profondo Rosso
Well-Known Member
Yes and my point is that sometimes it's easy to tell the manager won't turn it around. How do you know Grant's methods? How do you know that Grant clearly isn't out of his depth and the chairmen at West Ham can't see that? If the chairman at West Ham feels that after seeing the methods and ideas that Grant has shown in the 6 months he's been there, he cannot see Grant turning it around, then it would be idiotic for the chairman not to sack him.
Ferguson was hired half-way through the 1986/87 season with ManUtd 19th in the league and he ended up finishing 11th, which while hardly world beating was certainly a good first half season. I was not born in SAF's second season in the 1987/88 season, but I cannot imagine a side who had not won the league for over 20 years had that high expectations of doing anything, he led them to 2nd in his second season, which seems like quite a good achievement to me. After a couple of mid-table finishes it was in the 1989/90 season when he was supposedly under pressure, though he never actually was. The board at the time told him he wasn't under any pressure because they could see the youth team he was building and because they had a lengthy injury crisis at the time, because they had seen enough of his methods and style to believe he would turn it around.
Giving managers time if they are clearly an intelligent manager whose methods will probably do well for you is worth it, absolutely, but blindly giving a manager time when their methods are quite obviously poor is only going to lead to bad things. Saying that managers should all be given time to me is a fallacy. The manager may not be able to impact the club too much, but the chairman can see his methods and ideas quite quickly and decide whether he thinks those methods will be successful and destructive.
Last edited:
gloucesterfox
Member
I've just seen this on the BBC I was staggered that he would take this firstly with all due respect to West Ham I would have thought he was looking for a bigger club with more money to spend. Secondly and the bigger reason I would have thought it will be only a mater of a small amount of time before he has a major bust up with Gould, Sullavan and Brady. It will be interesting to see, I work with a West Ham fan and when the rumors started I said I did not think there was any chance this would happen.
pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
IMO he would be considered a bit of a risk at the moment for a 'bigger club'. Having left Villa in a bit of a hole just before the season started, I reckon he's harmed his stock a little. There are a few 'bigger' clubs than Villa, but apart from one in crisis (i.e. Liverpool) he would do well to get one of those jobs at the moment without some rebuilding of his reputation, West Ham could be the chance he needs to do this. He has always brought success in the short term as a manager, but big clubs expect more than short term success before falling out with the board and would see him as a bit of a risk. This is all IMO of course
.
Profondo Rosso
Well-Known Member
IMO he would be considered a bit of a risk at the moment for a 'bigger club'. Having left Villa in a bit of a hole just before the season started, I reckon he's harmed his stock a little. There are a few 'bigger' clubs than Villa, but apart from one in crisis (i.e. Liverpool) he would do well to get one of those jobs at the moment without some rebuilding of his reputation, West Ham could be the chance he needs to do this. He has always brought success in the short term as a manager, but big clubs expect more than short term success before falling out with the board and would see him as a bit of a risk. This is all IMO of course
I agree. I find it hard to see much "bigger" clubs than West Ham wanting him right now.
NN Fox
Well-Known Member
The club's recent record is not too bad and Grant seems to getting it right slowly. To sack him in the transfer window indicates that the owners don't trust his judgement on players coming into the club or more probably that Grant is not attracting new players. It looks like they are losing Scott Parker and will need to bring in a quality replacement. Noble and Behrami have also been linked with moves away and Gold/Sullivan can see their squad disappearing. They probably reckon that O'Neill's reputation will attract better players and help to retain the current players.
drummindefender
Active Member
Using it as a stepping stone for when a bigger job becomes available, ie Spurs, Man U, Liverpool
Profondo Rosso
Well-Known Member
gloucesterfox
Member
I agree about his stock may have been a bit lower now than it was if he does turn them around then that would get his reputation on the up again. I still see the relationship with Sullivan, Gold and Brady as a bomb waiting to go off. Good luck to him until and unles we end up playing them next season!
drummindefender
Active Member
I don't think he'll get the Man U job, he'll just want to be in the frame.Is that before or after Allardyce gets the Real Madrid job?
Mourinho will take over from Fergie, and Big Sam will then fill his shoes :icon_wink
Redditch Fox
Well-Known Member
The Sir Alex case is the exception that proves the rule.
Whatever the League Managers Association might say the fact is that football managers are paid big money and with that goes big risks. In most cases it is fairly obvious from early days when a manager isn't going to do much good at a particular club and the best thing is to get rid. Sousa is a classic example. If any mistake was made there it was keeping him on for two months rather than one.
drummindefender
Active Member
whispers going round that it isn't going to be MON but Martin Jol
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
| 5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
| 6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
| 7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
| 13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
| 14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
| 15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
| 16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
| 17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
| 18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |
