Jump to content

Why do you have faith in Rowett?


Leicester Ram

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

....and those wanting rid now appear to be content with repeating exactly what we've done on so many previous occasions (sacking after a poor run of form) and expecting a different result.

I'm sure some brainy bloke once said something about that.

He said, and Watford are back in the Premier League!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply
56 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Lookman should have come and Winnall got injured. Are they GR's fault?

Jerome hasn't worked so far but if Winnall had stayed fit, he was only ever going to be an impact sub.

Winnall was unfortunate but compared to Fulham and Cardiff the impact of the January dealings has been negligible. Hence our current position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Lookman should have come and Winnall got injured. Are they GR's fault?

Jerome hasn't worked so far but if Winnall had stayed fit, he was only ever going to be an impact sub.

Dare I argue, that Winnall’s could be? Or should I just wear a tin hat and leave the forum for a day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jimbobram said:

He said, and Watford are back in the Premier League!!

Watford did the opposite of what we do. Watford sacked people doing relatively well, then bring in someone who improves them.

We sack people doing poorly (or mediocre having being overly successful earlier in their stint) and then bring in someone that attempts to completely overhaul the club. When you sack manager after manager, who are attempting to bring a new ethos into the club, after a few months. You end up with a club that's the managerial ethos equivilant of a Jackson Pollock, from top to bottom.

Whether people like GR or not, we will be in a better position long-term if we allow him to stabilize his position before making any changes (if changes are necessary at that point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaintRam said:

When you sack manager after manager, who are attempting to bring a new ethos into the club, after a few months. You end up with a club that's the managerial ethos equivilant of a Jackson Pollock, from top to bottom.

Whether people like GR or not, we will be in a better position long-term if we allow him to stabilize his position before making any changes (if changes are necessary at that point).

If Rowett stabilises the club playing the dreary, negative football (to quote other posters!) allowing the next manager to continue the ethos don't you think that might be why some of us are so keen for him to go now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

If Rowett stabilises the club playing the dreary, negative football (to quote other posters!) allowing the next manager to continue the ethos don't you think that might be why some of us are so keen for him to go now!

No you've misunderstood my point.

No manager will get any success with this club in the state it is in (in my opinion) - but if GR is allowed time to finish gutting the squad of its deadwood and integrate some of the youths then - if the style of play is still dreary - its far more likely that someone else could come in and improve things.

Changing things now means a manager comes in with half the squad out on loan. They then spend the summer "reviewing" the players, who they like, who they dont like. the squad would likely still be bloated come the end of the summer and very few (notable) incomings would likely be brought in. 

That's just my opinion of course, I'm not a seer - as no-one here is, but I think we'll be far better off giving GR more time - whether he as an individual is the future or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep going on about him inheriting abunch of deadwood,ageing players and how difficult a job its been for him and he needs more time etc.

This squad is better than Sunderlands and Burtons put together yet they wiped the floor with us ,how.Because they played their hearts out for the club and fans they were focused.Managers do that ours doesnt and wont no matter how much time he gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

No you've misunderstood my point.

No manager will get any success with this club in the state it is in (in my opinion) - but if GR is allowed time to finish gutting the squad of its deadwood and integrate some of the youths then - if the style of play is still dreary - its far more likely that someone else could come in and improve things.

Would the counter argument to that not be that if Rowett rebuilds is ugly the next manager will have to be better at being ugly or need time to rebuild us again?

Case in point, Clough built us to play good football, McClaren took it one step further. 

If we don’t go up this season then we may as well have stuck with Pearson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CROSSWORD said:

People keep going on about him inheriting abunch of deadwood,ageing players and how difficult a job its been for him and he needs more time etc.

This squad is better than Sunderlands and Burtons put together yet they wiped the floor with us ,how.Because they played their hearts out for the club and fans they were focused.Managers do that ours doesnt and wont no matter how much time he gets.

They have been **** have Burton and Sunderland for most of the season though. 

The league table never lies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How do you know that? Rowett played and dropped Winnall at will.

Based on being told at the time that he was an "extra option to help get us over the line". How ridiculous does that sound right now?!

It didn't sound like he'd be first or second choice.

Hypothetcial of course but, given how Nugent has struggled recently I would have expected Winnall to be the next go-to-guy but we'll never know. Winnall kept getting dropped because Nugent was doing well at that point, both on his own and with Vydra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

....and those wanting rid now appear to be content with repeating exactly what we've done on so many previous occasions (sacking after a poor run of form) and expecting a different result.

I'm sure some brainy bloke once said something about that.

Clement was sacked with the club in a considerably better position than we are now. And we hadn't been pathetically beaten by the bottom 2 in the league. What's the benchmark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First post*

I’ve seen the arguments...style of play is poor, tactically challenged, poor people manager, etc. 

 

My position is that he should stay. I hold that position, because managing is difficult. If you luck in to a team of hungry, on the rise talents; sure- it will be good. If you have a team of gritty vets who can just do enough- it will be good. If you have balance- it will be good. 

 

Now, managing those talents (any and all profiles) is the squishiest job of all. Being able to not only get the most out of what’s in front of you, is hard enough. Then you must navigate the politics of the chairman, the Back office team, the farm, the assistants, the doctors, player wants, family life, even the tea lady;)  

 

Point is, GR (all management) is dealing with quite a few moving parts. And the truth (well...my truth) is that it will take time to find a comfort level with all of those pieces to start doing the job (as opposed to thinking about the job to be done). 

 

Their is so much more going on behind the scenes. And I am willing to wait and see the end product after a few windows.  Player ability shifts...managers learn and change tac...team politics shift in a board meeting; and this all happens with every single team. 

 

Im willing to trust (at the risk of being hurt) and see where this goes. Why keep changing managers when we haven’t even figured out what works yet? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mbhanny said:

First post*

I’ve seen the arguments...style of play is poor, tactically challenged, poor people manager, etc. 

 

My position is that he should stay. I hold that position, because managing is difficult. If you luck in to a team of hungry, on the rise talents; sure- it will be good. If you have a team of gritty vets who can just do enough- it will be good. If you have balance- it will be good. 

 

Now, managing those talents (any and all profiles) is the squishiest job of all. Being able to not only get the most out of what’s in front of you, is hard enough. Then you must navigate the politics of the chairman, the Back office team, the farm, the assistants, the doctors, player wants, family life, even the tea lady;)  

 

Point is, GR (all management) is dealing with quite a few moving parts. And the truth (well...my truth) is that it will take time to find a comfort level with all of those pieces to start doing the job (as opposed to thinking about the job to be done). 

 

Their is so much more going on behind the scenes. And I am willing to wait and see the end product after a few windows.  Player ability shifts...managers learn and change tac...team politics shift in a board meeting; and this all happens with every single team. 

 

Im willing to trust (at the risk of being hurt) and see where this goes. Why keep changing managers when we haven’t even figured out what works yet? 

 

I have a feeling you know more about DCFC than you're going to admit to. I thought it when you posted it 'first time' and this  verbatim repeated post has extenuated the 'suspicion'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...