You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Next manager
December 9 2024 7.17am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Next manager

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 57 of 65 < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

  

TheBigToePunt Flag 24 Jan 24 1.11pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by PatrickA

To those who insist that Roy is the best option for the rest of the season, is there any point at which they could contemplate a change?
For example , if we take only 1 or 2 points from the next three games?
Or is this immaterial and he should stay regardless?
I recall Parish saying that he felt he made a mistake by holding on to Pardew too long when it was obvious that Pardew was unlikely to turn things around.
However, he sacked Vieira when a poor run showed no sign of ending.
Roy does seem to be allowed more leeway because of his history with the club, but he will understand it’s a results business ( think Blackburn, England, Liverpool and Watford) so he doesn’t have an unblemished record.

For me the Catch-22 here is that making a change at any time, even in the circumstances you describe, is not certain to make things better.

As per a few posts, when you look at so many relegated clubs it feels as if making a change transmits panic and/or a lack of faith in the playing set-up generally (rather than in the manager alone).

Right now, the players could be going about their business thinking there is no reason to worry, we are not in any great danger, peaks and troughs in form and results are normal for clubs like ours, everyone inside the building understands that and is pulling in the same direction. For me, that seems to me to have been our trump card all these years. Change the manager and you may destroy that.

The worse things get (not that I think they are unacceptably bad now) the greater the need for stability and calm.

Whether I think Parish will see it that way is another matter. As you say, he has pulled the trigger before when (in almost every case) I didn't think it was necessary and didn't think the results afterwards were ones the old manager could not have achieved.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 24 Jan 24 1.25pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt


Or to make it devastatingly, irreversibly worse.

As the posts above point out, far more people have changed managers on the way to relegation than on the way into Europe.

Again, in our case, it depends on whether you think the players are underperforming for their level of ability and/or that the same players are capable of playing a noticeably better style of football.

I don't see any reason to think that. I also don't see our position as dire (it is much the same as it always is - we are hardly in uncharted territory here).

For those two reasons, I wouldn't take the significant gamble of making a change.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (24 Jan 2024 12.33pm)

So yes, there is a huge risk in changing manager. I'd also point out that even if Roy feels no connection to the club whatsoever, you can almost guarantee he is 'trying his best', limited as that may be, where some others may see a short gig here as a throwaway and thus lose any enthusiasm to achieve anything.

It may be a significant gamble but it becomes more so the longer this goes on. I'm not saying that I think we will magically become a much better team under a new manager, or that we have a world class squad that is underperforming, but when the manager is seemingly putting out that which could be a midtable side to settle for a low scoring loss each week, which sometimes translates into losses against relegation candidates and thrashings by bigger sides, the fans are unhappy, the players seem unhappy and a win comes around as often as Christmas, it may be a gamble worth taking.

I would argue the other gamble, sticking with the manager, is it's own entity but not far off that of changing. If the mood becomes very toxic around the club and fanbase, plus the manager has no answers beyond doing what he has been doing for decades, it could be a very, very dark time indeed.

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 24 Jan 24 1.31pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Nicholas91

So yes, there is a huge risk in changing manager. I'd also point out that even if Roy feels no connection to the club whatsoever, you can almost guarantee he is 'trying his best', limited as that may be, where some others may see a short gig here as a throwaway and thus lose any enthusiasm to achieve anything.

It may be a significant gamble but it becomes more so the longer this goes on. I'm not saying that I think we will magically become a much better team under a new manager, or that we have a world class squad that is underperforming, but when the manager is seemingly putting out that which could be a midtable side to settle for a low scoring loss each week, which sometimes translates into losses against relegation candidates and thrashings by bigger sides, the fans are unhappy, the players seem unhappy and a win comes around as often as Christmas, it may be a gamble worth taking.

I would argue the other gamble, sticking with the manager, is it's own entity but not far off that of changing. If the mood becomes very toxic around the club and fanbase, plus the manager has no answers beyond doing what he has been doing for decades, it could be a very, very dark time indeed.

Is that not a contradiction?

If you have no reason to suspect that we will play better under a new manager, or that the players are underperforming now, then what do you hope to gain from a change?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 24 Jan 24 1.41pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Look at it another way.

We have a point a game now. If we average a point a game from now, we will finish with 38 points - almost certainly enough to stay up very comfortably. The idea that the team is broken doesn't seem to tally with the fact that we are on target to achieve the requirement, and have achieved it to date.

I argue we are more likely to get that point-a-game playing for a nil-nil than we are playing for a 4-3 win every week. I am simplifying of course, but we all know Roy, Allardyce, and Pulis succeeded that way.

Is it fun? Christ no. Is it the most likely strategy to work? Sadly, yes.

Why would the club change a man most suited to this ultra-pragmatic approach for one less so, especially when the method is working already?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 24 Jan 24 1.41pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Is that not a contradiction?

If you have no reason to suspect that we will play better under a new manager, or that the players are underperforming now, then what do you hope to gain from a change?

No it's not.

I used the words 'much better' and 'world class' so as to mitigate for people using extremes to try and rubbish my response but I've apparently failed in that endeavour.

I should also point out that I actually addressed and agreed with your dominant point too, so as to try and have a sensible exchange.

Edited by Nicholas91 (24 Jan 2024 1.43pm)

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Willo Flag South coast - west of Brighton. 24 Jan 24 1.42pm Send a Private Message to Willo Add Willo as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

For me the Catch-22 here is that making a change at any time, even in the circumstances you describe, is not certain to make things better.

As per a few posts, when you look at so many relegated clubs it feels as if making a change transmits panic and/or a lack of faith in the playing set-up generally (rather than in the manager alone).

Right now, the players could be going about their business thinking there is no reason to worry, we are not in any great danger, peaks and troughs in form and results are normal for clubs like ours, everyone inside the building understands that and is pulling in the same direction. For me, that seems to me to have been our trump card all these years. Change the manager and you may destroy that.

The worse things get (not that I think they are unacceptably bad now) the greater the need for stability and calm.

Whether I think Parish will see it that way is another matter. As you say, he has pulled the trigger before when (in almost every case) I didn't think it was necessary and didn't think the results afterwards were ones the old manager could not have achieved.

Some recent examples :

He 'Pulled the trigger' on Pardew after 17 PL games that season with the club 17th in the league.We finished 14th under Allardyce after a significant spend.

Vieira was dismissed 27 games into the season with the club 12th in the PL. We finished 11th under Mr Hodgson.

Edited by Willo (24 Jan 2024 1.43pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 24 Jan 24 1.47pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Nicholas91

No it's not.

I used the words 'much better' and 'world class' so as to mitigate for people using extremes to try and rubbish my response but I've apparently failed in that endeavour.

I should also point out that I actually addressed and agreed with your dominant point too, so as to try and have a sensible exchange.

Edited by Nicholas91 (24 Jan 2024 1.43pm)

I'm certainly not trying to rubbish anything you say, not sure why you felt I was.

My point is simply what do you hope to gain from making a change in the dugout, if (use of extremes aside) you agree that the team and players are not in an unnatural position?

Edited by TheBigToePunt (24 Jan 2024 1.49pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
taylors lovechild Flag 24 Jan 24 1.53pm Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

In Roy's previous reign you always had confidence he'd keep us up even when the football was terrible. I just don't think so many people have that confidence anymore. His selection decisions have been odd at times, his public remarks have been tetchy and none of the players seem to be thriving. Between them Olise and Eze have saved us this season with cameos of brilliance. I find little to lay at Roy's door for anything but a couple of results in Manchester. By contrast I have seen several managers in and around us make changes to earn points, who have reacted in games to turn things around, who have taken risks, or in the case of Everton played to the strength of their squad (i.e. old fashioned physical and direct). This season we've pretty much done the same thing every game and if it hasn't worked little has been done to change it but throw on a couple of subs in the last 20 minutes.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 24 Jan 24 1.59pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

I'm certainly not trying to rubbish anything you say, not sure why you felt I was.

My point is simply what do you hope to gain from making a change in the dugout, if (use of extremes aside) you agree that the team and players are not in an unnatural position?

Edited by TheBigToePunt (24 Jan 2024 1.49pm)

It would have been thematic with other exchanges on here plus I really hate the usage of extremes, especially when subtlety has been deliberately used, so I am often aggressively dismissive of them.

I recognise the gamble of discarding/replacing Roy. Equally, I recognise and would also be inclined to believe that the limited resource he has to work with is the primary issue too. I am also happy to concede that changing manager could be as disastrous as it could be revolutionary for us.

At this stage however I would be willing to take the gamble. That's just my stance, I'm not saying it is correct nor that others should be aligned with me on it.

My ideal situation is 4/5 points from the next three, perhaps a signing or two, and a smoother and more optimistic road ahead, with Roy. I'm not hugely confident of this however and am braced for us further sliding downhill.

I am more confident of Roy being shifted than I am of all our players returning and staying fit and/or us signing a winger, central midfielder and full back(s) to strengthen our depleted first team.

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 24 Jan 24 2.00pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Willo

Some recent examples :

He 'Pulled the trigger' on Pardew after 17 PL games that season with the club 17th in the league.We finished 14th under Allardyce after a significant spend.

Vieira was dismissed 27 games into the season with the club 12th in the PL. We finished 11th under Mr Hodgson.

Edited by Willo (24 Jan 2024 1.43pm)

Precisely.

Of course, what we don't know is what (if anything) is happening behind the scenes. Parish famously sacked De Boer in record time, and didn't give very long at all to Warnock, either, but yet he doesn't have a 'trigger-happy' reputation particularly.

I think that is because, in the case of FDB it soon became apparent that the manager's methods were all awfully wrong, and that in the case of Warnock, he just wasn't up to the job at that level (something his career has proved).

I think that is part and parcel of SP being in the building - the decisions to sack the manager are not taken on the basis of runs of results and form alone, as they would be with an absentee owner. I imagine Parish speaks with people, gets the vibe, and to some extent listens to his key staff (the players).

We don't know if Vieria got the boot partly because of Parish's sense of relationships behind the scenes (it is rumoured, though who knows?). One thing for sure, twice Parish has turned to Roy to take over and steady the ship, on about four occasions he has given him a new contract when perhaps it was not obvious that he would, so he must trust the way he runs things.

Thats not certain to protect Roy from the chop of course, but it might be a key difference between Roy and those who got the chop.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Davepalace707 Flag Northumberland 24 Jan 24 2.04pm Send a Private Message to Davepalace707 Add Davepalace707 as a friend

Originally posted by NEILLO

Actually I think the argument is that changing manager is no guarantee of avoiding relegation.

Well there’s no guarantee of anything, stick or twist

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Canterbury Palace Flag Whitstable 24 Jan 24 2.07pm Send a Private Message to Canterbury Palace Add Canterbury Palace as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt


The absence of key creative players is of course critical for any team, but especially for one of our means.

Beyond that, I was deeply unconvinced by the idea, floating around on here at the time, that we had some sort of 'Roy Version 2' at the end of last season - as if a manager famed for sticking to the same basic principles for decades would suddenly change what he does, especially when he was brought in to stave off the lingering threat of getting drawn into a scrap at the bottom of the table.

It goes back to my earlier point about Dyche at Everton. These guys like Roy, Pulis, Allardyce, Dyche etc, have stuck around to make a successful living managing the smaller sides in the top league in the world whilst a cast of thousands of exciting, upcoming, tactically astute coaches from all over the world have come and gone without trace. Why? Because these dinosaurs know what works in the real world.

All of this old guard produce stodgy, cautious teams who seem to be playing for a nil-nil every week. Within that, there will be moments where they get cut apart by the big clubs, or perform disappointingly in non-descript games they might have won, but very often the average points per game will work out OK, and there will be the odd phase where form comes and the team play good stuff.

I think that's what we got at the end of last season, just the usual brief period of good form (aided by playing pressure-free games after a while). I don't attribute it to a different approach from Roy at that time, nor do I see it as evidence that he has done something very different this season.

One of the key reasons players do not progress from clubs like ours to bigger stings is that they are only capable of their best form fleetingly, but do know how to do a job otherwise.


Again I sort of agree in parts.

There was a definite huge shift in our play when Roy came in last season and, regardless of whether his tactics were fundamentally different, it was by a distance the best we've played under him.

You could attribute it to things getting very bad under Vieira and a new manager bounce but we're not playing the same now as we did then.

The situation feels similar, things have gone stale and I'm not sure he knows how to change it. His overall demeanour in post-defeat interviews suggests that he's not enjoying it and maybe, at his age, it's becoming a hassle he could do without.

You're right about the old guard all playing in that way but I think the Premier League has moved past them now. Roy and Sam have taken teams down in recent seasons and obviously we are in danger this time.

Teams like Brighton and Brentford have come up and been successful playing progressive football. Both have finished higher than us despite us being in the league a longer and having more resources.

The issue with Roy now is that he is probably the most experienced active manager in world football, so it's difficult to credibly criticise his methods which are born out of decades of knowhow.

However, that also creates a stubborness and inflexibility within him that means he refuses to give fringe players a fair chance or adjust his tactics, despite players like AWB and Mitchell who he was forced to play through injury in the past, eventually going on to become first teamers.

I don't know what the answer is and perhaps you're right and a new manager will make it worse but at the moment it feels as though there's more of a potential upside than a downside.

Edited by Canterbury Palace (24 Jan 2024 2.08pm)

 


We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 57 of 65 < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Next manager