Jump to content
Cherry Blue

Championship 2018-19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday.

When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You don't care for Ipswich fans opinions because you cant stand them cos they back Lambert. 

I'll ask again Chaddy as you must have missed the question when I asked it previously. Are these Ipswich fans that are backing Lambert the same ones that wanted McCarthy out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DE. said:

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

The fact that Hurst had fallen out with and alienated the players and staff and presumably Lambert has not done that yet his results are ever so slightly worse surely is all the judgement that is needed! Lambert is a politician as you say rather than a football manager.

Totally agree on McCarthy playing how he did due to restricted resouces and quality, the only way he could play and the most effective way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JHRover said:

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday.

When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

You've got a right bee in your bonnet with Paul Lambert, haven't you? Christ!

I thought it was just because it was something else to talk to Chaddy about......:)

Edited by K-Hod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Stability and patience are only worthwhile and only work if the manager is any good to begin with. 

Based on the example being discussed, Lambert may have suggested that x, y and z was wrong when he was appointed (he does that at every club he turns up to) and that may be seen as a man who knows the problems and is saying exactly what the fans are thinking. But ultimately, results show that he is incapable of doing anything to halt the slide. And you look at the way at hes going about his job to maybe find glimmers that hes thinking longer term, that hes doing things that may not prove instantly fruitful but give them hope for the future. Signing 7 players on short term deals and playing them is quite the opposite.

When Mowbray came in, results improved. The main thing that has caused us to progress as we have under Mowbray is Mowbray himself, not the fact that we kept a manager for x amount of time. If we had offered Coyle the courtesy of a full season, being patient, do we think results would have improved? No because hes a poor manager. Kean did get plenty of time, did things ever improve? No.

Ironically, they had the very definition of stability under Mick McCarthy, didnt appreciate it, drove him out and are seemingly craving it again as the answer to their problems.

Stability is a good thing for a while, up until the point it becomes stagnant. You mentioned Arsenal and things stagnated terribly for a number of years. At Chelsea, the manager is still crucial even with the money he has, former managers like Mourinho and Conte have been incredibly successful but their managerial style has caused a quick burn out of player manager relations and requires a more short term approach. But stability is only useful if the manager is good and shows sign of improvement. Lambert hasnt and doesnt meet that requirement.

Of course you need to have a good manager in order to see the benefits of long term management. I'm not trying to say that any manager, given enough time, will go on to achieve great things at a club. Just that history suggests if you have the right manager then firing them in the hope of a new manager bounce often proves unsuccessful. 

I'm not talking about Lambert or any manager in particular really. Likewise there's an obvious difference between sacking a manager that has your team in bottom place than sacking a manager that is sitting mid table. Or, as you put it, stagnating. I was just arguing the point that board structure doesn't really have much to do with it save an owner with deep pockets. Clubs that go through a big turnover of staff invariably under perform compared to clubs that retain a good manager with a vision. Chelsea got rid of Conte after a season of not winning anything (SAVE A FUCKING FA CUP); Tottenham stick by Poch despite being "close" a few years. Who is in the better position now?

Yet despite that it is entirely possible that Chelsea sack Sarri and bring in a huge managerial name next season. The success won't be down to the manager change, it will be down to the fact they will more than likely spend £100+ million on players the new superstar manager has brought in. Meanwhile Championship clubs will inevitably get rid of their managers having failed to achieve promotion and, due to being unable to spend approx 50m on players, will reset their progress by 2 years as the new manager looks to change the philosophy of the club.

All of the above is of course from my own non-expert thoughts. My discussion has nowt to do with firing/retaining Lambert but more the sentence JH said that "you can chop and change managers regularly" - I don't think that's the case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.

Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

I think you'll find that any club (again save Watford) that have high manager turnover + high success are usually always clubs that can splash huge sums of money on replacing players as and when they please. Clubs like us, for example, couldn't fund a change in philosophy every 12 months and so would suffer - and did suffer - with a high turnover of managers/coaches

I'd argue that Derby, Brentford and Chelsea have done quite well out of managerial instability. Not necessarily that they set out to do it, but that in doing so it hasn't prevented them progressing and developing as clubs. Brentford even now are massively overachieving for the size of their club and financial power, despite making some eyebrow-raising managerial decisions. Southampton have managed to stay in the Premier League for years despite going through more than a manager a year on average.

Huddersfield are another lot who made a bold decision to fire off Powell when they were floating towards the bottom of the Championship, brought in an unknown coach and within 18 months were in the Premier League. They didn't stick with Powell out of loyalty or stability, they had a vision and got their man to deliver on it. Wolves - could have stuck with Jackett or Lambert but wanted to go to the next level so fired them both off despite decent results to appoint Zenga (failure) and Santo (big success). Wolves could have done what Villa and Forest have which is spend obscene money and drift into mid-table but they made a positive change rather than stand still.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of hiring and firing but some clubs have structures in place to cope with it without it de-railing the club. I'm not convinced we do, as I think the manager at this club, ever since Kean rocked up, has had too much power over the operation. It's ok as long as a positive trajectory is maintained, but when things go sour then it becomes a problem as the changing of manager affects more areas here than it would at e.g. Brentford.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t Brentford get nearly 3 years each out of Rosler, Warburton and Smith with just a couple of caretakers (Carsley etc) in-between? 

I may be remembering that wrong but I certainly wouldn’t call that instability (certainly not by our standards anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Didn’t Brentford get nearly 3 years each out of Rosler, Warburton and Smith with just a couple of caretakers (Carsley etc) in-between? 

I may be remembering that wrong but I certainly wouldn’t call that instability (certainly not by our standards anyway)

Yeah, but they axed Warburton after he got them to the Championship play-offs. Most thought that to be an insane decision yet they managed, then they appointed that Dutch bloke who was a disaster but quickly got shut as it wasn't working and put Carsley in charge,

Brentford are very good at coping with departures and change. They've been picked off for their best players for years, had to make managerial changes and yet have still punched above their weight through shrewd management behind the scenes, not because all their managerial appointments have been good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Watford aside how many of them clubs are on a positive trajectory?

Brentford and Derby have wallowed in their respective places for quite a few seasons, Southampton have gone hugely downhill, Swansea have been relegated and Chelsea are in their worst position since Mourinho. Chelsea's success lies more in the fact they can spend circa £60m on a striker any transfer window they please as opposed to regular changes in managers.



Wolves, again, have benefited from lots of money (plus the advise of super agents...) as opposed to a policy of chopping and changing managers.

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

 

Not sure that Arsenal have had continued success at one point they went 9 seasons without a trophy and haven't won the League in 15 years. In the last 26 years Chelsea (with multiple managers) have had a lot more success than Arsenal (with one manager).

Edited by Ewood Ace
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ewood Ace said:

Not sure that Arsenal have had continued success at one point they went 9 seasons without a trophy and haven't won the League in 15 years.  .

Edited by old darwen blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I'd argue that Derby, Brentford and Chelsea have done quite well out of managerial instability. Not necessarily that they set out to do it, but that in doing so it hasn't prevented them progressing and developing as clubs. Brentford even now are massively overachieving for the size of their club and financial power, despite making some eyebrow-raising managerial decisions. Southampton have managed to stay in the Premier League for years despite going through more than a manager a year on average.

Huddersfield are another lot who made a bold decision to fire off Powell when they were floating towards the bottom of the Championship, brought in an unknown coach and within 18 months were in the Premier League. They didn't stick with Powell out of loyalty or stability, they had a vision and got their man to deliver on it. Wolves - could have stuck with Jackett or Lambert but wanted to go to the next level so fired them both off despite decent results to appoint Zenga (failure) and Santo (big success). Wolves could have done what Villa and Forest have which is spend obscene money and drift into mid-table but they made a positive change rather than stand still.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of hiring and firing but some clubs have structures in place to cope with it without it de-railing the club. I'm not convinced we do, as I think the manager at this club, ever since Kean rocked up, has had too much power over the operation. It's ok as long as a positive trajectory is maintained, but when things go sour then it becomes a problem as the changing of manager affects more areas here than it would at e.g. Brentford.

Just another case of two people seeing the game very differently I suppose. Brentford had 5 play off places in a decade before reaching the Championship. After that the only real change around was after Warburton - he was sporting directory when Rosler was there so it wasn't exactly a huge shift in managerial staff. I wouldn't say they are over performing and, if anything, suffered after the sacking of Warburton and suffered after Dean Smith went.

Let's not pretend like Wolves' agent links haven't helped them be where they are now. All of their players are represented by the same guy and there's not a chance Ruben Neves would have gone to the Championship otherwise! Santo is a success but booking Jorge Mendes is the bigger success. 

I don't disagree with sacking a manager by the way I just don't think it's the right thing to do if chasing success, regardless of behind-the-scenes board structure. There are definitely more cases of clubs suffering through a change than succeeding, save relegation battles - which they end up in the next season anyway.

5 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Not sure that Arsenal have had continued success at one point they went 9 seasons without a trophy and haven't won the League in 15 years.  

Then they won 3 FA Cups on the bounce. It was a difficult transition for them at the time and Arsene Wenger brought them through with lots of cash in the bank and a platform to build. If you chop + change managers in that period you'd have found you'd have invested lots of money for similar return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Then they won 3 FA Cups on the bounce.

Arsenal did not win 3 FA Cups on the bounce which as a Rovers fan you should know as we were the last club to do that.

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Two clubs have had continued success throughout my entire lifetime (26 years) and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. Both clubs had one thing in common in that they were stable in the manager department. Since the sacking of Fergie Utd haven't won a thing despite having a great board - we are yet to see whether Arsenal's fortunes benefit from a change in manager.

Why do you disregard the FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League which Man Utd have won since Ferguson left?  That's as many trophies as Wenger won in his last 13 seasons. Also Ferguson wasn't sacked he retired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

They do need a clearout and a rebuild but they need a competent man to do it. I am judging a manager on results, I know the squad is poor but there was no point changing from Hurst to Lambert as his results with the same set of players (plus hes been able to add 7 more) has been no better. (in fact moderately worse) Lambert has done nothing to earn that trust.

The best example is when we had Coyle, surely by your above logic we should have stayed patient and kept with Coyle rather than appoint Mowbray.  No, because Coyle hadnt earnt any trust. Mowbray then managed to get a significant IMPROVEMENT IN RESULTS WITH THE SAME PLAYERS even though the squad was crap because he is a better manager than Coyle. As a direct comparison. Lambert has not got any improvement in results with the same players. Simple as that. What the fans think, what sort of bloke he is, its irrelevant, judge a manager on results.

I think Lambert is a competent man and the right manager to do the rebuilding job there. You don't. 

Coyle/Mowbray and Hurst/Lambert situations is different IMO. Firstly we didn't have a poor squad but a very poor manager in Coyle. Secondly, Hurst behind the scenes upset the players and other staff at the club. Hurst's attitude towards the players was like he was big shot without having nothing to back it up with. Lambert can point to success in his career and earn the players respect. Hurst cant. Whilst Mowbray can point to his success in his career and the why he talk and treat the players. 

6 hours ago, JHRover said:

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday.

When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

You made very good points there. 

I would say Swansea went downhill quickly and after appointing too many managers within in a short space of time. now they appointed Potter and he doing a good job there despite having players sold above him

7 hours ago, DE. said:

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

exactly my point. it was never going to work with Hurst. 

Ipswich owner Marcus Evans seems more involved than Ive previous heard he is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, K-Hod said:

You've got a right bee in your bonnet with Paul Lambert, haven't you? Christ!

I thought it was just because it was something else to talk to Chaddy about......:)

I wondered when the Lambertini-in-chief would finally crack. It took longer than I thought so fair play😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

exactly my point. it was never going to work with Hurst. 

Ipswich owner Marcus Evans seems more involved than Ive previous heard he is. 

He recently did an interview where he said over the past year or so he's become much more hands on. Basically the club was running itself with Mick at the helm, but with him leaving and the upheaval it caused he felt he had no choice but to get involved. Obviously it hasn't worked out very well so far, but if he wants Ipswich back up at the first attempt he needs to stick with Lambert (assuming he stays) and back him with a reasonable budget. Ipswich are going to need some surgery in the summer to be competitive in L1, but it can be done. They have to hold on to their younger stars (as we did with Nyambe, Lenihan, Raya, etc) and bring in some wise old heads who know how to get the job done. That's where Lambert needs to earn his crust and use his contacts to bring in players that can do the job, as he did for us with the likes of Graham and Bennett. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DE. said:

He recently did an interview where he said over the past year or so he's become much more hands on. Basically the club was running itself with Mick at the helm, but with him leaving and the upheaval it caused he felt he had no choice but to get involved. Obviously it hasn't worked out very well so far, but if he wants Ipswich back up at the first attempt he needs to stick with Lambert (assuming he stays) and back him with a reasonable budget. Ipswich are going to need some surgery in the summer to be competitive in L1, but it can be done. They have to hold on to their younger stars (as we did with Nyambe, Lenihan, Raya, etc) and bring in some wise old heads who know how to get the job done. That's where Lambert needs to earn his crust and use his contacts to bring in players that can do the job, as he did for us with the likes of Graham and Bennett. 

I didn't know about the interview so thanks for sharing. 

Yes Ipswich do need some surgery. I would say about 10 new signings including a complete new defence. I would be building my team around Bishop and Lankester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I didn't know about the interview so thanks for sharing. 

Yes Ipswich do need some surgery. I would say about 10 new signings including a complete new defence. I would be building my team around Bishop and Lankester

I think it's only the second proper interview Evans has given in the last six or seven years. To be honest he comes across as a sensible and decent bloke. Ipswich are 14/15th in terms of Championship wages so it's not like they're criminally underspending. He just made a terrible, terrible mistake in appointing Paul Hurst, I'm not sure I've ever seen one manager have such a devastating affect on a team in such a short space of time- and I would even include Steve Kean in that. Hurst ripped the spine out of the team and replaced it with lower league quality. He destroyed morale both on the pitch and behind the scenes. It's really amazing how badly Hurst screwed Ipswich over. I think the majority of neutrals expected Ipswich to struggle this year, but to only have three wins by mid-February is shocking. They've totally collapsed. 

Ipswich have a lot of loan players who will leave, which should give scope to bring in a few decent players next season. Looking at the players they have on permanent deals, they have the foundation for a decent L1 team. I'd expect Bialkowski and Knudsen to go (and before anyone says anything, no, we don't want them, no better than what we already have), but there shouldn't be much more movement in terms of outgoings. Gerken should be a good enough GK for League 1, and they've got the likes of Chambers, Skuse, Nsiala, Nolan, Edwards, Harrison, Jackson, Ward, Spence, Judge and Huws who should all be competitive at that level. They'll need reinforcements across the defence and probably up front as well, but theoretically their senior pros should give them a solid base to build from assuming most of them aren't sold.

In terms of youngsters they've got Lankester, Bishop, Dozzell, Nydam and Downes who have all shown a lot of potential this season. If Ipswich keep hold of them and use next season to really blood them into the team then, again, they should have a solid base to work from. It'll be interesting to see if any of those players are poached when Ipswich take the drop. If Evans if serious about getting the club promoted at the first attempt he'll do everything he can to keep those players.

So, it's not all doom and gloom for Ipswich. There are some good players in there, but it'll all come down to how many leave the club and whether the manager - whether that be Lambert or somebody else - can erase the losing mentality they've picked up this season and mount a serious promotion push. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t realise we were 8 points behind 6th having played a game more; another win for Bristol City tonight puts us 10 behind 5th place on the same games played 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bristol City won again. They're on a fantastic run yet they looked nothing spectacular on Saturday, just well drilled and organised and solid in defence. Why can't Mowbray set up Rovers in the same way? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Arsenal did not win 3 FA Cups on the bounce which as a Rovers fan you should know as we were the last club to do that.

 

Boy oh boy was I biting my fingernails during that semi-final between Arsenal and Man Utd. The only time I was right behind Utd and loving every moment of Roy Kean's aggressive play.

Can we leave the Lambert/ Ipswich thread now? I'm bored.

Great to see Bristol City win again. Rather they win promotion than Leeds, Sheff Utd, Boro or WBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Arsenal did not win 3 FA Cups on the bounce which as a Rovers fan you should know as we were the last club to do that.

Why do you disregard the FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League which Man Utd have won since Ferguson left?  That's as many trophies as Wenger won in his last 13 seasons. Also Ferguson wasn't sacked he retired.

Ah my bad. Two fa cups in a row.

And fuck, I didn’t mean sacked. When Fergie left then.  It’s not that I disregard them. My point was that sustained success happened with two clubs under managers with long careers; whether that success be the state of the club or trophies. United probably don’t call the years since fergie a success despite them trophies. They’ve worsened in terms of quality and have barely challenged for a league title since.

I alsodon’t believe any manager would have been successful with the level of investment arsenal got during their transition to the emirates, especially with the other clubs around them really beginning to splash the cash. 

In terms of Premier League challenges Utd haven’t mounted a serious one since they started chopping managers regularly. Although it’s true that in later years neither did Wengers Arsenal. I suppose there’s merit in the argument he should have been sacked sooner but it cannot he argued that he left the club in a far better state than when he got it, after all a lot of Arsenal’s success as a club is based around his own vision. Could you have got that with 10 different managers in that spell? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.