The Big Question?

[Ted Hughes]

well the positives are obviously that results are still there. I was anticipating us losing to Everton and rags at Swamp was always going to be tough tie. Hull loss was a real shock to the system though and send a worrying message. Tonight we were shite again but are still in competition where we were last season kicked out by Forest so at least there's some improvement in longer term.

It's the performances that are the worry really. I do feel that we are in stage where we are taking that step backwards in order to move forward. Whether I'm right remains to be seen but every club go through rough spell at some stage with their new manager. Whether we will bounce back will tell us whether Mancini has what it takes.

I agree with this but the step back and pain we're going through is a bit excessive considering we've spent what we have! What was so bad under Hughes that we needed to strip the fucking lot back and start again to this extent?

Nothing but they could hardly have sacked Hughes because of his attacking prowess. We let in too many crap goals to be top 4 so rather than give Hughes the license to try & sort it, we brought in Mancini clearly with those instructions, so it's a bit unfair to slag him for trying to do what he's been appointed to do.

Unfortunately, it's failed against all but the worst of attacks & the goals we let in v Everton, Hull & today's disaster v Stoke are identical to the previous faults but that's often how it goes.

[CityFanFromRome]

It's both because neither the majority of the team has been here for longer than 12 months, save for Ireland, Richards and Shauny, and the managment have been brought in only 2 months ago in the busiest part of the season.

The solution: Time and patience. If there isn't either of these things then we'll keep going round in circles and continue to be unsuccessful no matter how many players are brought in and money spent.

Sensible post, thanks for that. I just wish more people on here shared your views.

[Beefymcfc]

Simply, is it the players or is it the management?

If it's the players what do you think we should do?

If it's the manager what do you think we should do?

Justing pointing finger isn't very constructive. You have to be able to offer solution.

He's asking a question mate !
Besides any "solution" he comes up with will hardly have an effect on real life

for me I think it has to be down to the players - this isn't Mancini's team and if what I am hearing about Marwood is right, it wasn't entirely hughes's team either, its a hotch potch of talented players who don't compliment each other that well - from what I understand we have a "director of football" in everything but name and we all know how well that turns out in the prem!
add to that we seem to be using Pearces old "tactics book" for some reason

I agree with you there Wooders. We seem to have taken a mish-mash of highly priced players, players who had problems at their last clubs (Ade, Gazza, Carlos etc) and thrown them together on a pitch. Hughes realised that our strengths were in attack whilst Mancio seems to have been given the remit of sorting out our leaky defence.

With regard to Marwood, he is definately a Director of Football who highlights players and buys them for the club, not the manager. The manager will also be able ask the club for players, but the final say will be down to Marwood, and on his terms. This in itself causes problems as in my book, DoF is there to keep continuity in purchases as the managers are turned over. Another problem arises when the players brought in do not neccessarily fit into the managers plans (Robbie springs to mind - although not a Marwood buy), leaving player and manager without that 100% trust needed to play at the top of their games.

[ant london]

I agree with that there Beef

The idea behind having a DoF (ie. maintaining continuity throughout potential changes in managerial personnel) is sound in itself but I have a few fundamental issues with it in practice.

Firstly, it is the coaching staff and not the corporate staff who have the job of working with these players. Aside from the fact that sometimes the manager might not actually feel that he wants or needs a particular player there is the more fundamental point of chemistry between player and coaching staff and teammates...the coaches have much more of a barometer on whether someone would fit into the playing staff and enhance it (from a personality and technical perspective) than the DoF and his team would (irrespective of how tuned in they think they are).

Also, if you are operating with the mindset that you are going to great pains to find a new manager (and the right manager), you are prepared to invest heavily to support him with new recruits and you want a period of sustained success (which is pretty well proven to most likely come through appointing the right man, getting good players and giving him time to develop his side) then having a business structure predicated upon the assumption that you want to "maintain continuity" if you sack the manager and replace him seems a tad perverse to me.

Then you can chuck in all the other more frequently debated points of manager/director of football clashing (redknapp at Pompey first time), director of football paying bungs (chelsea), director of football being shit (spurs), director of football being a mercenary fuckwit (notts county) and all in all the Director of Football seems like a post that just adds more problems than it solves (in the UK game at least....to date).

Manchester United and Arsenal are the two templates for managerial/coaching success that I think we should be aiming to emulate. We have the academy, we have the finance, we have the ambition....we just need a good manager (maybe we have him), stability and time.

And we, as fans, need patience. But, I agree that we also need value for money (for matchgoers) and some degree of entertainment (for most).

[Ted Hughes]

I don't believe that Marwood chooses the players, not for one second.

I think there is a system in place for scouting young players which will remain, irrespective of the manager & Johnson's signing may be connected with that but Mancini has still ok'd it I recon & probably said no to Vic Moses.

Hughes signed the current players imo. I think he's signed a pretty good bunch as well. Just need one or two top stars to finish it off & either Mancini or yet another manager to point them in the right direction.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Simply, is it the players or is it the management?

If it's the players what do you think we should do?

If it's the manager what do you think we should do?

Justing pointing finger isn't very constructive. You have to be able to offer solution.

He's asking a question mate !
Besides any "solution" he comes up with will hardly have an effect on real life

for me I think it has to be down to the players - this isn't Mancini's team and if what I am hearing about Marwood is right, it wasn't entirely hughes's team either, its a hotch potch of talented players who don't compliment each other that well - from what I understand we have a "director of football" in everything but name and we all know how well that turns out in the prem!
add to that we seem to be using Pearces old "tactics book" for some reason

I agree with you there Wooders. We seem to have taken a mish-mash of highly priced players, players who had problems at their last clubs (Ade, Gazza, Carlos etc) and thrown them together on a pitch. Hughes realised that our strengths were in attack whilst Mancio seems to have been given the remit of sorting out our leaky defence.

With regard to Marwood, he is definately a Director of Football who highlights players and buys them for the club, not the manager. The manager will also be able ask the club for players, but the final say will be down to Marwood, and on his terms. This in itself causes problems as in my book, DoF is there to keep continuity in purchases as the managers are turned over. Another problem arises when the players brought in do not neccessarily fit into the managers plans (Robbie springs to mind - although not a Marwood buy), leaving player and manager without that 100% trust needed to play at the top of their games.

I agree with both of you. I don't like the idea of director of football just buying bunch of players whenever they become available. The man who chooses the tactics and the players, wheteher that's Hughes or Mancini or someone else, should be the one buying the players. He and he alone can see the strengths and weaknesses in squad regarding the way he wants us to play.

Furthermore, I'd question the credentials of Marwood for this kind of job. We have top players, manager with experience of winning things, one of the most succesfull assistants ever, great infrastructure and top professional personel in the background. Everything is pretty much top notch. However we have as a director of football a man who has NO previous experience of this kind of job. He has got the job because he was Cook's mate from Nike days. I actually think Cook appointed him because he was the only man he knew personally who knew ANYTHING about football.

[Ted Hughes]

Simply, is it the players or is it the management?

If it's the players what do you think we should do?

If it's the manager what do you think we should do?

Justing pointing finger isn't very constructive. You have to be able to offer solution.

He's asking a question mate !
Besides any "solution" he comes up with will hardly have an effect on real life

for me I think it has to be down to the players - this isn't Mancini's team and if what I am hearing about Marwood is right, it wasn't entirely hughes's team either, its a hotch potch of talented players who don't compliment each other that well - from what I understand we have a "director of football" in everything but name and we all know how well that turns out in the prem!
add to that we seem to be using Pearces old "tactics book" for some reason

I agree with you there Wooders. We seem to have taken a mish-mash of highly priced players, players who had problems at their last clubs (Ade, Gazza, Carlos etc) and thrown them together on a pitch. Hughes realised that our strengths were in attack whilst Mancio seems to have been given the remit of sorting out our leaky defence.

With regard to Marwood, he is definately a Director of Football who highlights players and buys them for the club, not the manager. The manager will also be able ask the club for players, but the final say will be down to Marwood, and on his terms. This in itself causes problems as in my book, DoF is there to keep continuity in purchases as the managers are turned over. Another problem arises when the players brought in do not neccessarily fit into the managers plans (Robbie springs to mind - although not a Marwood buy), leaving player and manager without that 100% trust needed to play at the top of their games.

I agree with both of you. I don't like the idea of director of football just buying bunch of players whenever they become available. The man who chooses the tactics and the players, wheteher that's Hughes or Mancini or someone else, should be the one buying the players. He and he alone can see the strengths and weaknesses in squad regarding the way he wants us to play.

Furthermore, I'd question the credentials of Marwood for this kind of job. We have top players, manager with experience of winning things, one of the most succesfull assistants ever, great infrastructure and top professional personel in the background. Everything is pretty much top notch. However we have as a director of football a man who has NO previous experience of this kind of job. He has got the job because he was Cook's mate from Nike days. I actually think Cook appointed him because he was the only man he knew personally who knew ANYTHING about football.

I never liked Marwood anyway, he used to slaughter us on Sky but before we accuse him of all manner of things, shouldn't we ascertain that it's actually true? I don't see anything amongst the squad that leads me to believe they're not Hughes' signings. Vieira is quite clearly Mancinis. I f Marwood cocks the deals up then fair enough but we need more evidence if we're going to slate him.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I agree with both of you. I don't like the idea of director of football just buying bunch of players whenever they become available. The man who chooses the tactics and the players, wheteher that's Hughes or Mancini or someone else, should be the one buying the players. He and he alone can see the strengths and weaknesses in squad regarding the way he wants us to play.

Furthermore, I'd question the credentials of Marwood for this kind of job. We have top players, manager with experience of winning things, one of the most succesfull assistants ever, great infrastructure and top professional personel in the background. Everything is pretty much top notch. However we have as a director of football a man who has NO previous experience of this kind of job. He has got the job because he was Cook's mate from Nike days. I actually think Cook appointed him because he was the only man he knew personally who knew ANYTHING about football.

I never liked Marwood anyway, he used to slaughter us on Sky but before we accuse him of all manner of things, shouldn't we ascertain that it's actually true? I don't see anything amongst the squad that leads me to believe they're not Hughes' signings. Vieira is quite clearly Mancinis. I f Marwood cocks the deals up then fair enough but we need more evidence if we're going to slate him.

You are right. I don't have any concrete evidence on that. It's just the way it seems to me things are going. Should've put a disclaimer there that it wa pure speculation.

[Beefymcfc]

I never liked Marwood anyway, he used to slaughter us on Sky but before we accuse him of all manner of things, shouldn't we ascertain that it's actually true? I don't see anything amongst the squad that leads me to believe they're not Hughes' signings. Vieira is quite clearly Mancinis. I f Marwood cocks the deals up then fair enough but we need more evidence if we're going to slate him.

I don't have anything against Marwood, but do have a concern over the position. As I've said, Mancio should and does have a say on the players he wants, but I have a sneaky feeling that it will be down to Marwood to rubber stamp it, in the interests of the club. Vieira is obviously Mancio's signing, but on a temporary basis (6 month contract). Johnno, I would suggest, is a club purchase that was notified to Mancio as part of our 'Young Player' policy.

And yes, from your previous post, we have bought some quality players who hopefully soon will start playing as a team (which I thought I seen more of yesterday) but at the same time, quite a few of them came from chequered backgrounds:

Ade - pushed out of Arseanl
Kolo - similar and not getting any gameplay
Carlos - wasn't feeling the love from Taggart
Gazza - was already out the door before we went in for him
Robbie - less said the better

We took what we could rather than picking players for positions, which is why I believe that it's a combination of all elements that has lead to our poor displays. Yes, we've sured up at the back, but that is due to packing our box with defensive minded players. Going forward, we have looked awful in comparison to when Hughes was here and I believe it is a combination of the players we have, the managers strategy and the pressure coming from above not to lose games.