Now he's gone, who's next?

[Lord Kangana]

You're still dodgong the question of why Mick McCarthy is less of a risk than Owen Coyle was and OGS is when appointed. And nothing you've written can substantiate that, given that Owen Coyle has a better recent record in the Prem than MM, that he has a better % of getting clubs promoted than Mick, who has taken 2 sides up, 1 down (twice) and been sacekd before he took a third relegation. He aslo has spent nine seasons at this level to achieve that.

Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

[Lord Kangana]

Like it Crazy.

[Lord Kangana]

Or should I say CH.

[CrazyHorse]

[BWFC_Insane]

You're still dodgong the question of why Mick McCarthy is less of a risk than Owen Coyle was and Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red) is when appointed. And nothing you've written can substantiate that, given that Owen Coyle has a better recent record in the Prem than MM, that he has a better % of getting clubs promoted than Mick, who has taken 2 sides up, 1 down (twice) and been sacekd before he took a third relegation. He aslo has spent nine seasons at this level to achieve that.

Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

There is evidence that McCarthy is capable of taking teams up from this division, the FACT that he's done it more than once.

There is less evidence that OGS is capable of that. There might be some "soft" evidence based on his efforts in Norway, how well he'd interview etc.

Its slightly pointless comparing to Coyle as like I said he wasn't sacked for his record, but because his current performance was unacceptable to Eddie Davies.

[Beefheart]

You're still dodgong the question of why Mick McCarthy is less of a risk than Owen Coyle was and Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red) is when appointed. And nothing you've written can substantiate that, given that Owen Coyle has a better recent record in the Prem than MM, that he has a better % of getting clubs promoted than Mick, who has taken 2 sides up, 1 down (twice) and been sacekd before he took a third relegation. He aslo has spent nine seasons at this level to achieve that.

Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

There is evidence that McCarthy is capable of taking teams up from this division, the FACT that he's done it more than once.

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red) is capable of that. There might be some "soft" evidence based on his efforts in Norway, how well he'd interview etc.

Its slightly pointless comparing to Coyle as like I said he wasn't sacked for his record, but because his current performance was unacceptable to Eddie Davies.

But given that Mick McCarthy's team last season did worse than Coyle's, surely recent records would suggest he's not the man for the job?

[thebish]

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red)

does this REALLY make a difference to you? is it REALLY relevant??

[CrazyHorse]

[Lord Kangana]

So you just discard evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis?

It seems a large oversight, considering you gave Coyle as prima facie evidence of a gamble, and McCarthy as a sure thing.

[thebish]

bring back Greavesy... (from the dead...)

[BWFC_Insane]

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red)

does this REALLY make a difference to you? is it REALLY relevant??

I didn't type that! And it makes absolutely zero difference to me.

[Verbal]

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red)

does this REALLY make a difference to you? is it REALLY relevant??

I didn't type that! And it makes absolutely zero difference to me.

It looks like you did. THE GAME'S UP, INSANE.

[thebish]

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red)

does this REALLY make a difference to you? is it REALLY relevant??

I didn't type that! And it makes absolutely zero difference to me.

yes you did!!!

[BWFC_Insane]

So you just discard evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis?

It seems a large oversight, considering you gave Coyle as prima facie evidence of a gamble, and McCarthy as a sure thing.

Not really. Coyle was a gamble because he'd not been properly tested as a manager, he'd never had to deal with "a difficult spell", people questioning him etc.

He had a good record before, but it was limited.

We've all seen how thats worked out.

A manager like McCarthy, its all known, how he reacts to things, how he copes under pressure, his limitations, his strengths etc.

So less of a risk, because Eddie and Phil will know pretty much what they're getting and not getting.

[Lord Kangana]

Can you not do that for Roy Keane, Graeme Souness and Gary Megson Crazy?

[CrazyHorse]

Six years I've been a mod on here. I can't believe I've never thought of this before!

[Lord Kangana]

A manager like McCarthy, its all known, how he reacts to things, how he copes under pressure, his limitations, his strengths etc.

So less of a risk, because Eddie and Phil will know pretty much what they're getting and not getting.

Relegated in a bad spell?

Sorry, I'm still really confused as to how that marks him out as different to Coyle?

[BWFC_Insane]

There is less evidence that Ole Gunnar Solskjær (The dirty filthy Red)

does this REALLY make a difference to you? is it REALLY relevant??

I didn't type that! And it makes absolutely zero difference to me.

yes you did!!!

I can honestly say that I didn't!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

So you just discard evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis?

It seems a large oversight, considering you gave Coyle as prima facie evidence of a gamble, and McCarthy as a sure thing.

Not really. Coyle was a gamble because he'd not been properly tested as a manager, he'd never had to deal with "a difficult spell", people questioning him etc.

He had a good record before, but it was limited.

We've all seen how thats worked out.

A manager like McCarthy, its all known, how he reacts to things, how he copes under pressure, his limitations, his strengths etc.

So less of a risk, because Eddie and Phil will know pretty much what they're getting and not getting.

Coyle had been a manager for what? 5 or 6 years before he came to us? Never having to deal with a difficult spell in 5 years or so in most folks mind would mean he was a good manager. We of course know now he isn't.

[thebish]

A manager like McCarthy, its all known, how he reacts to things, how he copes under pressure, his limitations, his strengths etc.

So less of a risk, because Eddie and Phil will know pretty much what they're getting and not getting.

I kind of understand - but I am sceptical that the gritty and determined no-nonsense McCarthy will be dead chuffed by the idea of an on-trial 9-month contract to see if he can get us promoted with a view to employing someone else when he does...

and if that's not the plan - I'm sceptical that Eddie D wants to give someone a 3yr contract with the knowledge that he will have to sack yet another manager next season and go through this whole shebang again..

and - if, as you say, they'd know what they were not getting - then they'd know they were not getting someone who anyone has any long-term confidence in (not even you) - and I amj sceptical that Eddie is looking for another short tenure or short-term fix - my guess is he is sick and tired of shelling out to sack failed managers...

all of that is guesswork, not FACT.