Worst Rams Manager Ever

[Brammie Steve]

Doc sold Todd!

[Van der MoodHoover]

Seems to be quite a few votes each for the Doc and Paul Jewell. How to separate them? Hmm....

As far as I can tell Tommy Doc was an overweight, sex-scandal riddled has-been with a completely impenetrable regional accent. 

Whereas Paul Jewell was.....er,......oh......hang on.......?

[Tyler Durden]

Honorourable mention for Billy Davies. 

Yes I know he got us up via the playoffs but totally bottled it by quitting in November after directing a number of excuses at everyone else but himself. Could start an argument in an empty room.

Got to be worthy of a nomination alone for paying over £3 million on Clod Davis.

[i-Ram]

On 20/03/2020 at 10:05, Ellafella said:

Has to be Docherty. He actually “sold” Roy McFarland without even mentioning it to him until it was “sorted”. There are as already stated plenty of other candidates {Jewell, Brown, Worthington} but Docherty inherited a fleet of top players and flogged em cheap and replaced them with Unknowns and journeymen. 

What’s the background with Mac? He didn’t leave until a year or more after Docherty left did he?

I remember actually being quite energised by Docherty coming in thinking he might be identifying nuggets like Gerry Ryan, Terry Curran and Jonathan Hunt.  Fools gold as it turned out, although pound for pound it’s almost arguable that Jewell’s reign and purchases was just as damaging.

[Van der MoodHoover]

36 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

What’s the background with Mac? He didn’t leave until a year or more after Docherty left did he?

I remember actually being quite energised by Docherty coming in thinking he might be identifying nuggets like Gerry Ryan, Terry Curran and Jonathan Hunt.  Fools gold as it turned out, although pound for pound it’s almost arguable that Jewell’s reign and purchases was just as damaging.

Doc didn't really "discover " Terry Curran tho.....I remember him as ex forest. I thought he'd played for them in the top flight when they got promoted but my confirmatory check of wikipedia suggests not....he was flogged at the end of the 1977 season.....to the doc. 

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

What’s the background with Mac? He didn’t leave until a year or more after Docherty left did he?

I remember actually being quite energised by Docherty coming in thinking he might be identifying nuggets like Gerry Ryan, Terry Curran and Jonathan Hunt.  Fools gold as it turned out, although pound for pound it’s almost arguable that Jewell’s reign and purchases was just as damaging.

That’s right..the deal for Mac fell through perhaps understandably I think it was with an American Club. Agree about Jewell but Docherty implanted a rot into the guts of the Club. 

[Brammie Steve]

5 hours ago, Brummie Steve said:

Doc sold Todd!

And Gemmill!

And Leighton James!

And Colin Boulton!

And Derek Hales......His only decent achievement in 20 months!

[jono]

Docherty seems to be the first choice for most fans of my generation. Dismantling a top top team was tragic and he deserves all the criticism he gets ... but 

i am really curious as to how and why. Docs Manchester United were a young flair filled team of his own making replacing the aging bones of of the 68 European cup winning team. He did a good job there. It’s hard to develop a winning team being a successor to Clough / McKay was always an odds against gig but to do so so spectacularly with the positive record he had at the time is one of footballs strangest puzzles for me

[IslandExile]

23 minutes ago, jono said:

Docherty seems to be the first choice for most fans of my generation. Dismantling a top top team was tragic and he deserves all the criticism he gets ... but 

i am really curious as to how and why. Docs Manchester United were a young flair filled team of his own making replacing the aging bones of of the 68 European cup winning team. He did a good job there. It’s hard to develop a winning team being a successor to Clough / McKay was always an odds against gig but to do so so spectacularly with the positive record he had at the time is one of footballs strangest puzzles for me

It's a really interesting question. I think seeing what he did at United gave him more leeway, at the time, at Derby than might otherwise have been the case.

Clearly, though, many of those he cast off at Derby were far from finished - Gemmill and Todd being the obvious ones but others also. I think the real difference, compared to United though, was the quality of the replacements.

Compare Stuart Pearson, Lou Macari, Gerry Daly, Martin Buchan, the Greenhoffs on one hand with Billy Caskey and Vic Moreland on the other. So maybe scouting played a part.

[MuespachRam]

The only 2 good things that Peter Taylor did when he was manager was eating that lot in the cup and signing Bobby Davison. 

[sage]

Not the worst manager obviously but Mackay has to take some of the blame for the Clough/Mackay period. Of the players he signed, only George was below 27 and we ended up with an aging squad. There were rumours that players weren't training properly. It shows how good a side we had that an aging squad won in 75 but he needed to start the re-invention by signing younger players from a position of strength not one of weakness.    

[popside ossie end popside]

DOCHERTY!!!

Sold Archie for peanuts think £25 000 plus we got Steve Carter (yeah, who?) and John Middleton RIP

Add salt into the wound Gordon Hill and the little fat toad came back to haunt us, knocking us out of cup on penalties and dancing in middle of BBG.  Just about over it now, except when that t****r Hill comes on talk sport talking about United. Remember he started our demise at Hillsborough in the semi '76. . . . . . . . . . .  like I said, I'm over it now

[Turnstile]

On 20/03/2020 at 20:44, Abu Derby said:

The Doc single-handedly destroyed this club. 

Assisted by chairman George hardy who was well out of his depth.

[jono]

For me as a latecomer it has to be about the football I have watched under different managers rather than results or league position.

I had sympathy (for a while) for clement because I think he wanted to what Cocu is getting to. He just did it badly. Pearson was rudderless and we didn’t even score goals .. the most depressing time for me. No form, no style, he seemed to want 442 but played a loan striker. Poor Vydra was like a kid on a beach facing a tsunami with a lilo

[cannable]

Clement and Pearson both took over from positions of strength. 

Even at our best we didn’t look as good a side under Clement as we did under McClaren and that’s with £25,000,000 spent on transfers and increasing the wage bill by ~£13,000,000. I’ll let you have that Hughes and Bryson did their knees. I’ll counter it with the fact we already wanted Butterfield prior to that and Johnson limited Jeff’s game time. 

Pearson tried to change too much too quickly. Clement left the squad untidy but it was still capable of challenging. He spent less than he brought in and his signings would have worked in a 442. He just took a sledgehammer to something that wasn’t particularly broken. It needed some housekeeping, not a complete rebuild. There were times the players didn’t know what to do. 

[Jourdan]

On 20/03/2020 at 14:55, IslandExile said:

I think wee Billy deserves a mention because he added poor players to a decent squad, practically blowing automatic promotion, scraped into the play-offs and was horrible (wishing it were Preston) when everyone else was celebrating. Then - albeit with his hands tied financially - bought some rank players for the Premier League. Not only that, his tactics weren't just defensive but more suitable for a team like Leeds - win at all costs, play dirty.

Shudder.

Worst manager in Rams history? Billy Davies? How is he even entering the discussion? And some of you say I'm harsh on Cocu!

Love or loathe him, it is impossible to deny Billy did a fantastic job here. In the summer of 2006, the club was on its knees and needed rescuing by Gadsby and friends. There was little hope for the season ahead because the team Burley had so craftily put together was a distant memory. Smith and Idiakez left that summer and many fans thought our chances of having a decent season went with them. It's easy to forget that.

Bottling automatic promotion? Scraping into the play-offs? A top half finish would have been an achievement coming from where we had come from. The fact that finishing third was a disappointment to some speaks volumes about the scale of the job Billy did. We finished third in a tight race. The real bottlers were the likes of WBA, Wolves, Southampton and Preston - all of whom had better squads, played better football, and had better promotion credentials compared to ourselves.

It told you everything you needed to know when we finished third - some eight points in front of our nearest rival in fourth - and still entered the play-offs as massive underdogs. Billy did very well to get us promoted.

On 20/03/2020 at 15:38, Anon said:

The poison dwarf absolutely deserves mention here because you can't quite shake the suspicion that there was an element of self sabotage to prove a point to the board. He whinged incessantly about lack of funds and then spent his largest transfer fees on Earnshaw and Davis. I can categorically state that there was much better value available for 6.5 million quid in 2007.

What happened from the summer of 2007 onwards was just a case of the club - from top to bottom - not being ready for the demands of Premier League football. Without knowing all of what went on behind the scenes, I find it very difficult to put the blame solely at Billy's door. Of course, we can say Billy Davies ultimately looked out of his depth. But you could say the same for all of the key people at the club at the time - the owners, the executives, the scouting and recruitment teams, the coaching staff, the club secretary, Rammie, everyone.

It was a club issue. There was a lack of direction. There was a lack of strategy. There was a lack of ambition. There was a lack of investment, and none of the vision or creativity to make up for it. Earnshaw and Davis were good signings based on their track records at the time, but they were not meant to be the bedrock of our team. They were meant to supplement much better and much more expensive signings. But it never transpired like that.

At the time, Billy was one of the brightest young managers working in English football. He was ambitious, he was driven, he was arrogant, he wanted to prove himself worthy of being at the top table. I don't, for a minute, believe he would have sabotaged his chances of success to prove a point. The truth is both Billy and the board failed each other and worse, both parties failed the fans. We deserved a club on a united front going into that season. Without it, we didn't stand a chance.

But one of the worst managers in our history? Not even close. In his first 12 months at the club, he achieved more than all of the managers we have had in recent times. That alone should keep him well away from such a discussion. 

[GB SPORTS]

2 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Worst manager in Rams history? Billy Davies? How is he even entering the discussion? And some of you say I'm harsh on Cocu!

Love or loathe him, it is impossible to deny Billy did a fantastic job here. In the summer of 2006, the club was on its knees and needed rescuing by Gadsby and friends. There was little hope for the season ahead because the team Burley had so craftily put together was a distant memory. Smith and Idiakez left that summer and many fans thought our chances of having a decent season went with them. It's easy to forget that.

Bottling automatic promotion? Scraping into the play-offs? A top half finish would have been an achievement coming from where we had come from. The fact that finishing third was a disappointment to some speaks volumes about the scale of the job Billy did. We finished third in a tight race. The real bottlers were the likes of WBA, Wolves, Southampton and Preston - all of whom had better squads, played better football, and had better promotion credentials compared to ourselves.

It told you everything you needed to know when we finished third - some eight points in front of our nearest rival in fourth - and still entered the play-offs as massive underdogs. Billy did very well to get us promoted.

What happened from the summer of 2007 onwards was just a case of the club - from top to bottom - not being ready for the demands of Premier League football. Without knowing all of what went on behind the scenes, I find it very difficult to put the blame solely at Billy's door. Of course, we can say Billy Davies ultimately looked out of his depth. But you could say the same for all of the key people at the club at the time - the owners, the executives, the scouting and recruitment teams, the coaching staff, the club secretary, Rammie, everyone.

It was a club issue. There was a lack of direction. There was a lack of strategy. There was a lack of ambition. There was a lack of investment, and none of the vision or creativity to make up for it. Earnshaw and Davis were good signings based on their track records at the time, but they were not meant to be the bedrock of our team. They were meant to supplement much better and much more expensive signings. But it never transpired like that.

At the time, Billy was one of the brightest young managers working in English football. He was ambitious, he was driven, he was arrogant, he wanted to prove himself worthy of being at the top table. I don't, for a minute, believe he would have sabotaged his chances of success to prove a point. The truth is both Billy and the board failed each other and worse, both parties failed the fans. We deserved a club on a united front going into that season. Without it, we didn't stand a chance.

But one of the worst managers in our history? Not even close. In his first 12 months at the club, he achieved more than all of the managers we have had in recent times. That alone should keep him well away from such a discussion. 

Hi Billy 

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Earnshaw and Davis were good signings based on their track records at the time, but they were not meant to be the bedrock of our team.

You had me until this.....

they were poor signings. We didn’t have the money for the players we needed, or couldn’t attract them, but this pair were howlers who added absolutely nothing. 

[Anon]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

You had me until this.....

they were poor signings. We didn’t have the money for the players we needed, or couldn’t attract them, but this pair were howlers who added absolutely nothing. 

This bit really got me too. Davis was a joke, even at Championship level. He was the type of defender who opposition fans would hope was playing. I can possibly understand the argument for Earnshaw. Yes, he'd failed in his previous crack at the top division, but his scoring record in the Championship was excellent. The problem was that Billy didn't play him. I know there's some talk about Earnshaw not being Davies' signing, but it's part of the manager's job to work with the board on signings. Davies' subsequent career has proved that he is unwilling to work with anyone who isn't a family member or under his thrall.

No, he isn't the worst rams manager ever, but he gets mentioned here because he's a spiteful little **** *** who is so toxic that he's only been able to find work for 3 of the last 12 seasons, despite the promotion and play off finishes on his cv.

[Jimbo Ram]

Statistically I think John Newman was our worst Manager.....