roversfan99

I am hoping that if Coleman was our preferred candidate, that we would have sorted it already. Because he wouldnt be able to believe his luck. So hopefully it wont be him. Its clearly best not to get too wound up over betting odds either. The volatility of the market sees random names shoot up based on absolutely nothing. Eustace is still 33/1.

I am not belittling him. I am merely saying that the situations are totally different. Ismael was using excuses as an act of self preservation, like desperate managers always do. Why would Johnson bemoan injuries in the same way when the majority have cleared up, hes not our permanent manager trying to keep his job, hes only managed one game and we won? He has been a good servant and I hope he does well in the mean time and stays at the club once a manager is appointed. No comparison to Tony Parkes obviously. If you think I have a negative opinion of him or am keen to belittle him because I dont think it makes any sense whatsoever to potentially speed up or slow down the urgent matter of appointing a manager, based on each individual result he gets in this interim period, then you arent listening to my point. It isnt a reflection of Johnson, I felt the same with Lowe. It also doesnt mean that I want us to rush into getting someone for the sake of having someone permanent or getting someone crap.

Different circumstances though. One is a manager doing a poor job desperate to deflect questioning away from himself. We did have injuries so using them to excuse himself was possible. The other has taken one game (and one against a team that wasnt competitive) with the majority of his squad fit and knows he wont be in the role long. No need for self preservation.

The thing is, it all stemmed from an "insider" account posting that someone with his initials had "interviewed" well. It probably just shows how easy it is to totally change the betting market on a market like this.

For a start, why would 2 managers of their own right agree to be a duo? The priority of this appointment shouldnt be nostalgia or to "capture the imagination."

If we went 352 I would go: Toth Miller Carter Cashin Alebiosu Morishita Tronstad Baradji Pickering Gudjohnsen Ohashi

Alebiosu surely has to play. I would also like to see Afolayan especially considering how ineffective Jorgensen looks.

No. I wouldnt delay the urgent process of a new manager upon a solitary result. And that doesnt mean rushing it. It should be a single minded approach to get the best manager possible in the quickest time possible. That shouldnt change.

I would like to think that the set piece coaching isnt involved as based on what we have seen with the set pieces, he has pulled a blinder to manage to find employment.

😂 Cant complain about being sacked. Results not good enough. Tactically inflexible. The post employment swerve in stance. Welcome back.

It wasnt a response to your post though. If we win, do we abandon the search? Based on a solitary result? Do we tell anyone already contacted to not bother? Yeah we probably are, but we are much more likely to assure our Championship status if we appoint a manager. I certainly have never suggested appointing someone crap for the sake of a permanent manager.

Chaddy straight back in to tell us that he thinks that Lee Bowyer might get the job and that a bloke recently sacked by Oxford wouldnt take it. Presumably still fuming that Ismael was sacked.

Its a big if. He simply shouldnt be just left to be caretaker for the rest of the season. It would be lunacy. The thing is, as bad as we know we are, there are only 2 spots available and one of those is almost certainly to be taken by Oxford. So its 1 from 5 or 6.

If the best candidate at any part of process is Chris Coleman then something has gone horribly wrong. He shouldnt be under consideration.

I really dont get this idea of speeding up or slowing down dependant on each result under Johnson. Imagine if we had spoke to a candidate(s) and then fobbed them off for a week after a win. Cant work like that. It shouldnt be a mad panic but it should be and remain until solved a pressing, urgent priority.

The 3 you mentioned all are very much within the better names mentioned. Rowett was sacked by a relegation rival this season though. I totally disagree with the idea of increasing or decreasing the pace of the appointment based on an isolated result by a caretaker. It should be a top priority regardless, and that shouldnt mean rushing. Dont rush, but dont slow down if we get a result at Norwich. Saw similar with Lowe.

This "insider" account is just desperate for attention. Hence the crypticness. Ainsworth nor Alexander will be our next manager.

Has he a good record in England? Didnt do well at Coventry either. Ok at Fulham a long time ago. His recent career is numerous short stints in random foreign leagues. International football is totally different. He essentially won a couple of knockout games with Bale and Ramsey the catalysts. His club CV is poor. I dont know because I dont know who we could appoint. From the names mentioned, probably Bilic. Who would you appoint? Without tangents about how you would get behind anyone as that isnt the question.

So you are just being a contrarian? People are just saying based on names mentioned who they would want and who they wouldnt want. Doesnt have any indication on whether people would "get behind" them. You specifically seemed to think that Coleman would be a good appointment. Why are you so reluctant to elaborate on why?

He wasnt.

Why?

Nostalgia always overtakes when there isnt a managerial vacancy. Robbie Savage has only had a couple of brief spells outside the football league at clubs with big budgets. If he wasn't Robbie Savage, he wouldnt be considered. Mark Hughes did well here 20 years ago. His last 2 jobs are Carlisle where he isnt pulling up any trees and Bradford. And Tim Sherwood doesnt even warrant further discussion.

His results at Reading have been very good in his short time there. Won 7 of 14 and lost only 3. He certainly shouldnt be under consideration here. But you seem to be good at highlighting by far the best part of a managers career (in this case a very small part) as proof that they arent good overall.

A very good post. At the end of the day, Tony Mowbray was a football manager, a competent one who knew what he wanted his team to look like. He knew the importance of good characters, he knew what he saw a functional team to need. And when Waggott came in, he had no desire to play his own real life football manager. The above isnt a defence of Mowbray. My point is we have succumbed to the modern way where essentially the one designing the team is someone in a suit. He wont know how to make a winning team, everything will be based on data, nothing on character. The manager is lumped with players he didnt pick and he just has to work with them. For us, that setup is made so much worse because the likes of Gestede and Owen in those roles, before you even think of Suhail, are totally out of their depth.