Which muppet can we appoint next?

[BWFC_Insane]

It boggles my mind that Gary Neville gets a mention. Might as well throw John Motson into the ring. He talks a good game.

Most of football management is about man management and critical decision making off the pitch. Neville is entirely unproven and the only slim evidence we have of his managerial ability screams massive failure.

Why on earth would we take a complete and utter gamble on someone like that. You could pick any ex player who has ever played the game and they'd have the same odds as being a success as Gary Neville.

I disagree somewhat: he's assistant to a resurgent England team and was part of their coaching set up prior to that; and has a 36% win record at Valencia which whilst low for a team of their calibre, certainly isn't a complete failure in my book given that he can't fully speak the language. I don't think he should have been given the job in the first place but I do think there might well be a good manager in him. Plus there does seem to be a bit of stigma in Spanish football over non Spanish speakers (just look at Bale and Owen, decent performances but constantly hounded and blamed by fans). It was a recipe for failure from the start, but I don't think it was entirely down to Neville's ability or lack thereof. Ronald Koeman had a similar experience and fate at the club, although admittedly a few years before.

That said, I don't think he would come here for many reasons that myself and others have said already. I wouldn't be completely averse to it but I wouldn't say he's top of my list.

Absolutely none of that is relevant. Plenty of highly respected coaches at a very high level are absolute failures when they make the step up.

Even if that were relevant, England were under Neville's coaching absolute flops at the last WC.

In addition we're looking for a manager who can work on a non-existent budget with knowledge of league one and league two players who can make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Someone who knows exactly what they're doing. We have no evidence that Neville can do that, and a small amount of evidence that he can't.

If he hadn't been in the limelight he'd not be being mentioned. There are literally hundreds of managers with more experience than Neville. More track record and more success. Why on earth would we appoint him over that incredibly long list?

[Hoboh]

It boggles my mind that Gary Neville gets a mention. Might as well throw John Motson into the ring. He talks a good game.

Most of football management is about man management and critical decision making off the pitch. Neville is entirely unproven and the only slim evidence we have of his managerial ability screams massive failure.

Why on earth would we take a complete and utter gamble on someone like that. You could pick any ex player who has ever played the game and they'd have the same odds as being a success as Gary Neville.

I disagree somewhat: he's assistant to a resurgent England team and was part of their coaching set up prior to that; and has a 36% win record at Valencia which whilst low for a team of their calibre, certainly isn't a complete failure in my book given that he can't fully speak the language. I don't think he should have been given the job in the first place but I do think there might well be a good manager in him. Plus there does seem to be a bit of stigma in Spanish football over non Spanish speakers (just look at Bale and Owen, decent performances but constantly hounded and blamed by fans). It was a recipe for failure from the start, but I don't think it was entirely down to Neville's ability or lack thereof. Ronald Koeman had a similar experience and fate at the club, although admittedly a few years before.

That said, I don't think he would come here for many reasons that myself and others have said already. I wouldn't be completely averse to it but I wouldn't say he's top of my list.

Absolutely none of that is relevant. Plenty of highly respected coaches at a very high level are absolute failures when they make the step up.

Even if that were relevant, England were under Neville's coaching absolute flops at the last WC.

In addition we're looking for a manager who can work on a non-existent budget with knowledge of league one and league two players who can make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Someone who knows exactly what they're doing. We have no evidence that Neville can do that, and a small amount of evidence that he can't.

If he hadn't been in the limelight he'd not be being mentioned. There are literally hundreds of managers with more experience than Neville. More track record and more success. Why on earth would we appoint him over that incredibly long list?

Given your set of criteria for the job, one thing I will say is anyone who fills it will be a complete anathema to you.

[BWFC_Insane]

Given your set of criteria for the job, one thing I will say is anyone who fills it will be a complete anathema to you.

My only criteria is someone with a decent amount of experience in similar situations. Someone who has succeeded and failed and everything in between.

It is a hard job right now. A hard job in league one with new owners, potentially no money, an embargo, players who are overpaid and unable to be shifted. This is no place for a novice. Or even an up and coming young manager.

We've been down the inexperienced road the last 3 tries and it has left us here.

We need someone who has been there done it before. It would be unrealistic to expect to get someone who has never failed. But in a way I think we need someone who has failed and been through tough times before because they need to be toughened up for this job in my view.

[BWFC_Insane]

Given your set of criteria for the job, one thing I will say is anyone who fills it will be a complete anathema to you.

I've said this before (about the wider fanbase, not you BWFCI!); what we need and what the fanbase want is a unicorn - some mythical manager who will work wonders at a declining club. What we're likely going to get is a horse - a run of the mill manager who is nothing to write home about for whatever reason. Whether it's a manager who's had hit and miss success (a Warnock or a Brown) or a younger unproven guy (a Phillips or a Neville) remains to be seen.

I accept that. But our problem has been going for inexperience over the likes of Warnock. We'd still be a championship team with someone like him in charge I'm sure. We might not be a very good one or an entertaining one but we'd be far better off.

[thebish]

Absolutely none of that is relevant. Plenty of highly respected coaches at a very high level are absolute failures when they make the step up.

Even if that were relevant, England were under Neville's coaching absolute flops at the last WC.

In addition we're looking for a manager who can work on a non-existent budget with knowledge of league one and league two players who can make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Someone who knows exactly what they're doing. We have no evidence that Neville can do that, and a small amount of evidence that he can't.

If he hadn't been in the limelight he'd not be being mentioned. There are literally hundreds of managers with more experience than Neville. More track record and more success. Why on earth would we appoint him over that incredibly long list?

So pointing out that a manager's first and only job so far was doomed to fail from the start (I know, hindsight is 20/20...) for a number of reasons isn't entirely relevant?

of course some of what you wrote is relevant - but BWFC_I operates on an extreme hyperbolic binary model of forum response - either what you wrote would have been totally relevant and right - OR - absolutely NONE of it would be relevant... those were the basic options...

[thebish]

Given your set of criteria for the job, one thing I will say is anyone who fills it will be a complete anathema to you.

I've said this before (about the wider fanbase, not you BWFCI!); what we need and what the fanbase want is a unicorn - some mythical manager who will work wonders at a declining club. What we're likely going to get is a horse - a run of the mill manager who is nothing to write home about for whatever reason. Whether it's a manager who's had hit and miss success (a Warnock or a Brown) or a younger unproven guy (a Phillips or a Neville) remains to be seen.

indeed!

though - what we reaklly need is a shire-horse for that tiara...

[BWFC_Insane]

Absolutely none of that is relevant. Plenty of highly respected coaches at a very high level are absolute failures when they make the step up.

Even if that were relevant, England were under Neville's coaching absolute flops at the last WC.

In addition we're looking for a manager who can work on a non-existent budget with knowledge of league one and league two players who can make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Someone who knows exactly what they're doing. We have no evidence that Neville can do that, and a small amount of evidence that he can't.

If he hadn't been in the limelight he'd not be being mentioned. There are literally hundreds of managers with more experience than Neville. More track record and more success. Why on earth would we appoint him over that incredibly long list?

So pointing out that a manager's first and only job so far was doomed to fail from the start (I know, hindsight is 20/20...) for a number of reasons isn't entirely relevant?

of course some of what you wrote is relevant - but BWFC_I operates on an extreme hyperbolic binary model of forum response - either what you wrote would have been totally relevant and right - OR - absolutely NONE of it would be relevant... those were the basic options...

In actual fact the bit that I felt wasn't relevant was the England stuff. But I didn't write it very well and it made it sound like I was addressing the whole post. In my head it was different.

[Enoch]

and has a 36% win record at Valencia

Or to put it another way, won 3 out of 16 league games.

[thebish]

^ OK - we'll let you off that one then!

[boltonboris]

I think having a high profile manager like Neville would bring in a bit of extra revenue and I think he'd be very hungry after a pretty bad experience with Valencia.. Still think he could offer a lot in the game, so whilst a pair of steady hands would be great, I wouldn't be averse to having him here..

Look at what Caldwell has done with Wigan.. Aren't they 19 games unbeaten or something?

[Prufrock]

Given your set of criteria for the job, one thing I will say is anyone who fills it will be a complete anathema to you.

I've said this before (about the wider fanbase, not you BWFCI!); what we need and what the fanbase want is a unicorn - some mythical manager who will work wonders at a declining club. What we're likely going to get is a horse - a run of the mill manager who is nothing to write home about for whatever reason. Whether it's a manager who's had hit and miss success (a Warnock or a Brown) or a younger unproven guy (a Phillips or a Neville) remains to be seen.

I accept that. But our problem has been going for inexperience over the likes of Warnock. We'd still be a championship team with someone like him in charge I'm sure. We might not be a very good one or an entertaining one but we'd be far better off.

Balls to settling for someone who best case scenario is going to keep us flat. If we're not at least aiming to be very good or very entertaining what's the fecking point? Back in the Prem I thought Megson was right to play the team he did against Sporting. Now, whilst I can see why it happened, I wish it hadn't. Staying in the Prem, staying still in the hope of having another year of staying still the year after, balls to that, it's not what sport is about. I thought getting relegated would be a disaster - it's been fine, we're still here, the fans are still here - it's been shite, but it's been shite because the team are crap, not because the team are crap in the Championship.

You can certainly make the case that an experienced manager is the one most likely to make us successful, fine, but I'm not interested in flat. If you gave me a choice tomorrow between manager A who had a 100% chance of finishing 12th, or manager B who had a 50/50 chance of finishing 1st or 24th, I'd take B every time.

[thebish]

aye - but we picked:

C: playing flat, crap football AND getting relegated!

[Lord Kangana]

I disagree that Neil Warnock is a "hit and miss" manager.

In a realistic world - where the majority of football resides - he has done a good job pretty much everywhere he has been.

[Worthy4England]

It's going to be a gamble whoever we appoint.

If you look at Mourinho's performance by the stats since 2010/2011 season started - you'd be tempted to say "How great thou art" - I mean what would be better than a 72% win rate at Real Madrid and 58% at Chelsea (Ferguson was 59% at red-shite), but then if you look at it a little differently - you'd say he came second in a two horse race twice in three years at Madrid and had one in three good seasons at Chelsea. Yes there were a couple of Cup wins thrown in (Copa Del Rey, Spanish Super Cup and English League Cup) - but you'd almost expect that with the resources at his disposal.

So I think looking for "evidence" is going to by mighty tricky. After Allardyce, I probably held the opinion that getting someone to stick with long term was the right approach - I mean not only was there Allardyce with us, Moyes was still doing pretty good at Everton and Wenger/Ferguson were still at the top of their game too - all long term appointments. But I think since then, I've questioned whether previous experience and "sticking with it", is a better choice than chop and change until you find someone who can work with the squad they have. Once you get past the notion that a new manager coming in will get some sort of change the entire squad budget, you're left with trying to find a fit to the squad you have, so try some bloke, if it's looking like it's not working hoosh 'em out sharpish and try some other bloke...

[Andy Waller]

I disagree that Neil Warnock is a "hit and miss" manager.

In a realistic world - where the majority of football resides - he has done a good job pretty much everywhere he has been.

I think he's a decent manager around this sort of level, but I couldn't quite think of where to accurately place him. He's not consistently successful (to a high level), which is why he's at Rotherham rather than managing nearer the top half or in the Premiership, but at the same time he's not got the reputation of being poor. He had an extended period of success with the Blades, but since then seems to have flitted from club to club every two or three years, and got QPR to the Premiership but has had middling success since then. He's also got a bit of a reputation for being quite abrasive, which has caused internal and external tensions before (he's actually got about half of his wiki page dedicated to it). In fact if I remember correctly he was fired from Palace for (in short) saying that he couldn't be bothered managing the club following their administration points deduction.

It's why I described him as a bit hit and miss.

We're more used to our managers being sh*t and p*ss.

[Worthy4England]

Staying in the Prem, staying still in the hope of having another year of staying still the year after, balls to that, it's not what sport is about. I thought getting relegated would be a disaster - it's been fine, we're still here, the fans are still here - it's been shite, but it's been shite because the team are crap, not because the team are crap in the Championship.

Getting relegated has been a fairly large disaster to give it it's full due. Isn't sport (at this level) about being the best you can be? If that's 14th in the Prem, that's 14th in the Prem. I'd much rather be watching Chungy at his best bombing up and down the wing v the redshite than Feeney (who I've been supportive of for giving plenty of effort) bombing up and down the wing V Rotherham - Still costs me broadly the same amount per game, so out of preference I'd rather watch Chungy thanks.

I get the point that if we had a decent team for whatever Division we were in, the "matchday experience" would improve, coz we were winning a few games etc. So in principle, I would enjoy beating Bury with our League 1 team as much as beating United with our Prem team. But the football would be poorer in quality generally. That's why we're in League 1.

[Worthy4England]

I disagree that Neil Warnock is a "hit and miss" manager.

In a realistic world - where the majority of football resides - he has done a good job pretty much everywhere he has been.

He had an uphill battle at Palace. The only other real "miss" would be Bury - and I can forgive him that.

[Prufrock]

Staying in the Prem, staying still in the hope of having another year of staying still the year after, balls to that, it's not what sport is about. I thought getting relegated would be a disaster - it's been fine, we're still here, the fans are still here - it's been shite, but it's been shite because the team are crap, not because the team are crap in the Championship.

Getting relegated has been a fairly large disaster to give it it's full due. Isn't sport (at this level) about being the best you can be? If that's 14th in the Prem, that's 14th in the Prem. I'd much rather be watching Chungy at his best bombing up and down the wing v the redshite than Feeney (who I've been supportive of for giving plenty of effort) bombing up and down the wing V Rotherham - Still costs me broadly the same amount per game, so out of preference I'd rather watch Chungy thanks.

I get the point that if we had a decent team for whatever Division we were in, the "matchday experience" would improve, coz we were winning a few games etc. So in principle, I would enjoy beating Bury with our League 1 team as much as beating United with our Prem team. But the football would be poorer in quality generally. That's why we're in League 1.

It's been bad. It's not been a disaster. The club is still there, the fans are still there, it's fine. There's nothing wrong with finishing 14th in the Prem, but that can't be the ambition. You can't set out to be the 14th best at something at the start of the year. Sure, unless you're Leicester you're not seriously expecting to win it, but if you finished 14th last year, aim for the top half. If you get the top half, aim for the top 7 next year. I'd rather watch Feeney against Rotherham if he was playing in a good outfit, with ambition, than watching Chungy pootle along in a midfield picked by Owen Coyle and sleep-walking towards the drop. There's folk out there who can get excited about a season of consolidation! I'm not saying we won't have one, but you can't go into next year *aiming* to finish 12th!

[TANGODANCER]

It's all about perspective and reality.Perspective is/can be decieving, reality is the status quo. We can't tell the future so, accept it or not, we live on hope. Most of it, no all of it, is governed by finance and the reason for the snakes and ladders leagues . This season we really learned the truth about just how much money matters because a lot of us (including me) probably still tended to think sporting values matter in football; they don't. Oh aye, it's still about winning, but that used to be governed by ambition, skill fight and pride. Now all of those are motivated by who will pay the most to players and agents. "Have boots will travel" is totally relevant in the dogfight that football now is. Well, we're well and truly out of the big casino glitter box and facing life in the sawdust floored last chance saloons so making predictions is all a bit irrelevant right now. I reckon the hope that so far has killed us is still the safest bet for predicting our future. Just like the EU, it's all as big a gamble as playing darts in the dark. .

I'm still hoping.....

[Worthy4England]

Staying in the Prem, staying still in the hope of having another year of staying still the year after, balls to that, it's not what sport is about. I thought getting relegated would be a disaster - it's been fine, we're still here, the fans are still here - it's been shite, but it's been shite because the team are crap, not because the team are crap in the Championship.

Getting relegated has been a fairly large disaster to give it it's full due. Isn't sport (at this level) about being the best you can be? If that's 14th in the Prem, that's 14th in the Prem. I'd much rather be watching Chungy at his best bombing up and down the wing v the redshite than Feeney (who I've been supportive of for giving plenty of effort) bombing up and down the wing V Rotherham - Still costs me broadly the same amount per game, so out of preference I'd rather watch Chungy thanks.

I get the point that if we had a decent team for whatever Division we were in, the "matchday experience" would improve, coz we were winning a few games etc. So in principle, I would enjoy beating Bury with our League 1 team as much as beating United with our Prem team. But the football would be poorer in quality generally. That's why we're in League 1.

It's been bad. It's not been a disaster. The club is still there, the fans are still there, it's fine. There's nothing wrong with finishing 14th in the Prem, but that can't be the ambition. You can't set out to be the 14th best at something at the start of the year. Sure, unless you're Leicester you're not seriously expecting to win it, but if you finished 14th last year, aim for the top half. If you get the top half, aim for the top 7 next year. I'd rather watch Feeney against Rotherham if he was playing in a good outfit, with ambition, than watching Chungy pootle along in a midfield picked by Owen Coyle and sleep-walking towards the drop. There's folk out there who can get excited about a season of consolidation! I'm not saying we won't have one, but you can't go into next year *aiming* to finish 12th!

Well quite - I'm not suggesting we aim to finish 12th (or 14th) etc. but I don't think that was the ambition either. I seem to recall Leicester's stated ambition this season was to get to 40 points. Being shit in the Championship is a lot worse than being shit in the Prem. At least in the Prem, you've got half a chance of seeing some decent football from the opposition. If a side has no ambition, then they have no ambition so comparisons between Divisions become fairly pointless.

2007/8 we finished 16th, with Megson as our negative Manager. Our team was Jussi, J'LLoyd, AoB, Cahill, Hunt, Campo, Nolan, McCann, Joof, SKD, Anelka. - If you're saying you'd rather watch Feens, than that team, then I don't agree, I'm afraid...

I almost certainly enjoyed the football more that year, than the year after we dropped and just missed out on the playoffs...