Thank you Neil Adams

[The Great Mass Debater]

Saddest thing about this for me is than Glenn Roeder probably has a smug grin on his face right now...

 

[Beauseant]

In fairness he's been proven right though.

 

[eatonparkboy]

Saddest thing about this for me is than Glenn Roeder probably has a smug grin on his face right now...

Why? Has somebody broken a leg?

 

[Monty13]

Not "abject failure", no, that would describe Peter Grant's tenure. But underachieving or failing to meet performance targets would certainly be applicable. Besides, none of the other names on that list had a squad as strong as the one that Adams had at his disposal. Adams has not got this group of players playing anywhere near to their full potential on a consistent basis. Some are blaming the players for simply not performing, some blame Adams for failing to motivate the players and getting the tactics wrong. Perhaps the truth probably lies somewhere in between, and that is probably usually the case. 

But how can he have failed to meet targets when the season isn't over? He has been pushed based on the assumption that he will fail, not the fact that he has.

Is it a strong squad? Or is it a squad filled with individual players, who on paper, are strong for this division? How many times have squads that are strong on paper failed to deliver in practice? 

A strong squad needs togetherness, good teamwork, confidence, team spirit, tactical awareness, balance, focus, hunger, a good attitude, winning mentality, mental resilience etc. etc. not all of that can be instilled by the manager. When you have a squad devoid of a lot of the key positive qualities of a strong squad before starting out then it doesn't matter how good the individuals are or the guy managing them, because the positive psychological elements aren't going to be put in place overnight, especially if the squad has far more negative traits. It takes a lot of time to remove that kind of negativity. 

 

[Canaryboy]

 He has been pushed based on the assumption that he will fail, not the fact that he has.

As is always the case when somebody is judged to be under-performing in a job? Presumably people who are terminated for poor performance are sacked on the belief of bosses that their performance won't improve sufficiently. Rightly or wrongly. But isn't retaining them just as big a risk as disposing of them? 

A trader in the city could be down -2% on his portfolio, could always argue that he has time before the end of the calender year to claw back his losses, doesn't mean that he should be given the time. Their replacement could result in the portfolio ending up -5% or he could trade up to 2%. They have annual bonuses relating to a year end performance too, doesn't mean that they won't be sacked mid-year if they are losing money. 

It is stating the obvious that we don't know whether Adams could have led us higher up the table or not if he was here until the end of the season. Just like we don't know whether Hughton would have found a win, and just like we don't know whether Bryan Gunn could have won the League One title for us. 

I'd say that Hughton finding a win was unlikely, and that Gunn taking us up was unlikely, both times the board have made an assumption, and we will never know whether it was correct or not. 

7 defeats in a little over half a season, just 3 wins in 15 games. He was massively under-performing. How else can we judge performance other than results? Results were poor, he got the sack, that's what happens in football. Much the same happens in most jobs. Sales for example, you don't sell enough you get let go. Traffic Warden? You don't issue enough tickets then you get let go. Bricklayer.... you don't lay enough bricks then you get let go (or get paid less, if it is piece rate). 

 

[Monty13]

As is always the case when somebody is judged to be under-performing in a job? Presumably people who are terminated for poor performance are sacked on the belief of bosses that their performance won't improve sufficiently. Rightly or wrongly. But isn't retaining them just as big a risk as disposing of them? 

A trader in the city could be down -2% on his portfolio, could always argue that he has time before the end of the calender year to claw back his losses, doesn't mean that he should be given the time. Their replacement could result in the portfolio ending up -5% or he could trade up to 2%. They have annual bonuses relating to a year end performance too, doesn't mean that they won't be sacked mid-year if they are losing money. 

It is stating the obvious that we don't know whether Adams could have led us higher up the table or not if he was here until the end of the season. Just like we don't know whether Hughton would have found a win, and just like we don't know whether Bryan Gunn could have won the League One title for us. 

I'd say that Hughton finding a win was unlikely, and that Gunn taking us up was unlikely, both times the board have made an assumption, and we will never know whether it was correct or not. 

7 defeats in a little over half a season, just 3 wins in 15 games. He was massively under-performing. How else can we judge performance other than results? Results were poor, he got the sack, that's what happens in football. Much the same happens in most jobs. Sales for example, you don't sell enough you get let go. Traffic Warden? You don't issue enough tickets then you get let go. Bricklayer.... you don't lay enough bricks then you get let go (or get paid less, if it is piece rate). 

Well no, it isn't. Many people are sacked for failing to meet specific targets, not the perception they will fail to.

We were told the target is promotion, from Adams own mouth. Therefore if that was the target he was given, he has "resigned" 3 points off the playoffs after a run of 1 loss in 5 games in the league, 3 of them wins and 2 of them by a 5 goal margin. He was therefore terminated on the up and improving (judging on results). The target wasn't winning the FA Cup and many of our most successful managers have consistently fared poorly in cups, often at home to weaker opposition.

Would your city trader have been sacked in the middle of reclaiming his lost cash because of the risk he might not reclaim it all?

In the season Lambert got us promoted we had lost just one less game by this point and been knocked out of the FA Cup at home to Leyton Orient and out of the League Cup at the same stage.  Lambert had a period of 3 wins in 11 in the league that season, and I believe you're counting wrong as our blip was actually 4 wins in 15 games, not 3. Lamberts worst 4 wins in 13. At this same stage we had 5 more points.

That seems a very fine margin between many peoples greatest manager we have had in the Championship and someone under performing. Especially considering one was in charge of a confident promotion winning side and one took over a relegated demoralised looking one.

If we are using business metaphors lets be more relevant than traffic wardens and brick layers - you think that a major company, in the middle of a highly critical project, in which they have invested millions, would remove the person in charge for being (judging on results) slightly behind the curve? I would think that would cause consternation among shareholders.

 

[Canaryboy]

I will say that it does seem a bit strange that his dismissal has come just after a mini-revival, with three wins in five games in the league.

But it should perhaps be noted that Phelan's arrival appears to be the catalyst for that change.

Perhaps the board just felt like Adams was out of his depth, they see and hear more than we do. All I know is that whenever we haven't won he's stood in front of a camera post-match looking like a deer in the headlights and often looked like he had watery eyes, and that in recent times he'd started using the word "luck" a lot and that I've always considered that word to be a complete cop out.

I'm excited by the change, you are disappointed by it. That's just football, a game of opinions.  

 

[Monty13]

I will say that it does seem a bit strange that his dismissal has come just after a mini-revival, with three wins in five games in the league.

But it should perhaps be noted that Phelan's arrival appears to be the catalyst for that change.

Perhaps the board just felt like Adams was out of his depth, they see and hear more than we do. All I know is that whenever we haven't won he's stood in front of a camera post-match looking like a deer in the headlights and often looked like he had watery eyes, and that in recent times he'd started using the word "luck" a lot and that I've always considered that word to be a complete cop out.

I'm excited by the change, you are disappointed by it. That's just football, a game of opinions.  

Surely if Phelan's arrival was the catalyst for that change, then he was equally responsible for Preston and Reading?

I'm not disappointed by the change per se, I'm disappointed by the nature and timing. By the fact we seem to have gone from the club who gave someone way too much time when the writing was on the wall, to the one that makes decisions that we laugh at other clubs for, would we not do that if Fulham or Cardiff were in our position and did the same?

I genuinely hope you're right, that this change has been made by the board based on what is happening within the Club that we are not privy to, any other explanation genuinely worries me.

And yet luck is part of any game, no matter much you plan, something will either wreck or help those plans unexpectedly. I actually think Adams has been an unlucky manager, he can't blame everything on that, not by a long shot! But there have definitely been results this year that with a little more luck would have had us comfortably in the play-offs.

And I'm sorry but if Phelan is the answer to our question, then no it doesn't excite me, why should it? One guy learning his trade out of the door to be replaced by another more expensive version? I genuinely hope if it is him he is an awesome manager and we start moving upwards, but I just don't see any reason to believe that, there is no past experience to go on. 

I'm more fearful than excited, to me this has just as much chance of backfiring or in reality changing little, as it does of providing what people want. Fans of Fulham or Cardiff would swap places with us in an instant and I'm worried we are turning into one of those supporter bases that is just never satisfied because we overachieved with Lambert. I'm worried that whoever takes charge will suffer from the same effect of dividing and losing support for not bringing constant success.