roversfan99

You nor chaddy have explained WHY it makes sense to prioritise "knowing a club" in appointing a manager. Nor why its especially important for those clubs. O'Neill didnt know the club ahead of his hugely successful spell there that ended in 2005. Wasnt important then.

Im not against the idea. Although it was a fair question by ossydave to at least ask why, and one you didnt answer properly.

How is that an explanation? That a team has appointed someone they used to have on what is for the moment a purely interim basis. Which could well be an attempt to appease the supporters or quite possibly a case of the owner/chairman pulling in a favour and asking an old mate to cover the team while they look for someone proper. A man who has been left behind in footballing terms, no job for 6 years, his most recent jobs being failures and big questions over whether he has been left behind. Scottish football isnt unique, youve seemingly just got a soft spot for it, but even if it was, I dont get why it specifically suits someone who knows the club. O'Neill hadnt played for or worked for (as far as I can see) Celtic before he had his successful spells in the early 2000s, so he didnt know the club then. My point is, why is it so important to "know the club" when deciding upon who to hire. What does that even mean? That hasnt been answered. The club he knew will have changed massively in 20 years.

Whilst I think your mark is slightly harsh, certainly agree with your comments on Wharton and need to sign a defender. TGH loved just booting the ball anywhere and was really lax on the ball, and once in particular just switched off. Cantwell comes back in surely. Neither Henriksson nor Miroshita have nailed down a spot or convinced.

I dont. And not in the patronising way you imply, where I am just being a bit thick. Ive yet to see an explanation as to why specific clubs benefit from someone who "knows the club" rather than just finding the best possible manager ignoring whether hes been there before.

Absolutely. Its a tired old cliche spurted out often by poor quality pundits. In Celtic's case, any joe bloggs would likely guide them to the title to be fair with the resources they have. And if its literally just a couple of weeks interim appointment, makes little difference. But in general, why do people deem it as so important? In what scenario does it outrank just getting the best possible manager to get the best possible results? What is so important "to know" about the club that requires an ex manager or player when the club would have been run by and employing different people.

Why do so many teams have set piece coaches? I dont get why its seen as necessary. Lots of teams do. Yeah, but why? Is it necessary. Team x and team y do. Superb counter arguments.

Because his CV in the past decade wouldnt have him near any serious job. Why dont United re appoint Ferguson? Surely we should try and re appoint Souness? Why dont Tottenham get back Harry Redknapp? Its not that I dont accept it. Its that I havent had it explained as to WHY that is the case.

They could never have been seen as a free hit.

Wolves are being linked with the re appointment of Gary O'Neil. A manager who was doing an atrocious job that led to Pereira coming in and saving them. Would be a terrible appointment.

I acknowledged the job he did. I do get that he is loved up there. But it was 20 years ago that he left. Alex Ferguson walks on water on the red side of Manchester but I dont see United trying to get him back. My point was that no club should appoint based on nostalgia and former glories as a manager or player. You saying that isnt a counter argument, I have acknowledged that its because O'Neill (or in Rangers case, the suggestion was Ferguson) is loved up there that he has been appointed, certainly not on merit. He may well end up overseeing a successful season, in fact he probably will. Even with a for their standards frugal summer, and even with Hearts starting well, their resources in a poor league will likely make the league title a formality.

Its not about comparisons to last season although sometimes it is relevant. You dont like it because it opens the door to pointing out faults with the club. And its not just about having a certain number of players. We have a void in quality with Hyam leaving, we dont just need to bring back O'Riordan who was nowhere near our first team when here, he needs to be replaced properly. Our lack of depth in defence and lack of quality in depth in midfield is just down to poor recruitment. Spending £2m on Tavares was really poor as was signing a player with a long term injury. We also have players in Gueye and Kargbo who have just been really poor signings by Gestede. I agree that changing formation has worked out well short term but it naturally causes issues with the balance of the squad that will need rectifying if we are to commit to it. It also makes players like Ribeiro and Pickering surplus to requirements as they dont fit the system. I also cant see where Henriksson fits in with Cantwell and also Miroshita in the same position.

The squad is definitely lacking in players for either formation, I would agree there. At centre back, we knew we had left ourselves massively short either way when we let Hyam go and didnt replace him. I am not as convinced that Wharton is best suited centrally, he has always had a mistake in him so I think if he was competing for the left hand side, as he is particularly left footed, at least he would have someone to help cover in the middle. Had we kept Hyam, we would look much more balanced and well covered. Some of the issues for either formation are just down to poor recruitment. If Gueye was even competent, we would at least have some depth up front. Kargbo doesnt fit this formation but he has been poor and is again out long term so theres no need to consider him. I think we are light of quality in midfield too but we shouldnt be having signed 3. One is average (TGH) one has looked terrible (Tavares) and one we signed knowingly with a bad injury (Baradji). We look really thin in quality there with the main 2 close to a suspension. Morishita was seemingly signed as a winger but the change means that we technically have 3 players in him, Henriksson and Cantwell for one position. However, the first 2 have struggled so far. Hedges and De Neve definitely suit the new formation and Alebiosu has been freed up by it.

.

Explain what I "don't get."

You just keep repeating the same cliches without explaining why you think that is more important than actually just appointing the best possible manager available.

Thanks for the patronising undertone, I do understand that he had a lot of success, but he left 20 years ago. His career since has included being out of football for the last 6 years, and his last few jobs were failures with suggestions that he has been left behind. You mention Rodgers, they are incomparable. Rodgers went back pretty much straight after leaving Leicester. Although it ended sour there, he initially did a really good job and won the FA cup. He was still a relevant person in football management, he was still an appointment that would have been probably the stand out candidate regardless of having been there before, in fact I may be wrong but I feel like Celtic fans were unhappy with how he left initially. Appointing O'Neill is purely based on nostalgia, he wouldnt be under consideration if he didnt have history which is 20 years ago. Ferguson wouldnt be considered for Rangers if he hadnt been a good player, not even a manager. I know if it was my club, I wouldnt want an appointment based on nostalgia. I would want the best manager available based on his recent managerial career.

Of course its like any other league in the world. And like any club, you would be better off choosing the best manager available. Not some bloke purely based on nostalgia or having been a good manager decades ago or a great player decades ago.

Assuming we keep the same formation, we need and simply will not get: A proper Hyam replacement, probably a second centre back Right wing back cover A central midfielder 1 or more likely 2 strikers

Im still unclear WHY you think those clubs would specifically benefit from someone who "understands" the club. As opposed to someone with a better recent CV. You keep repeating the same lines without saying why thats more important. Every club is really important to the local area and to the fans who show up week in week out. Surely their best bet is to choose the person best suited in terms of managerial ability and their CV. O'Neill hasnt managed at Celtic for 20 years, at all for 6 years and recent jobs he had were unsuccessful in management, with suggestions that he hasnt moved with the times. And Ferguson who you suggested for Rangers has mainly managed in the lower leagues aside from not a particularly productive interim spell at Rangers last season.

That will be a worry if he has to play. He is nowhere near good enough and there is no use to him. I suggested yesterday as a somewhat desperate measure, just to provide cover now we have changed formation. To maybe sign Bamford on a short term contract just to give us some cover now we play 2 up instead of 1. Alternatively, we would maybe rejig it to play 1 up front if either Ohashi or Gudjohnsen couldnt play or needed a break, with 2 inbehind.

I still think Brittain across the whole of last season was excellent. Hes as good as youll get at this level. Technically very good, more refined that Alebiosu, was obviously a big threat in attack, had really improved defensively too. I wouldnt expect any replacement at a fraction of the price to instantly be at that level. I dont think Alebiosu has gone beyond the level that Brittain consistently showed last season. But I feel like hes as good as you could reasonably expect such a replacement to be and he still has room to grow. A really good addition.

Gueye should not play more.

The squad definitely was built for a 4231 rather than a back 3 so some issues in terms of the squad build relate to a squad built for a different formation, and some are just poor recruitment. I dont see that back 3/4 keeping clean sheets like last seasons back 4 did, purely on quality. But yes, Carter is beyond just injury prone. Our issues of cover in this position are mainly because we sold Hyam and simply didnt replace him. If we had kept him then we would have a bit of cover and more balance and quality there. We also signed 2 right backs, one is an excellent wing back, one is needed in the middle. We need a right wing back and at least one if not two centre backs. In midfield, the issues relate to who we signed as we would be playing 2 midfielders either way. Tavares has been very poor, Baradji is a waste of time. TGH is a certain downgrade on Travis, I think hes a useful player to have, would be a good squad player. But the issue in this position is whats beyond the main 2. Up front, we expected to play one up front, now we play 2 we have no cover. Thats definitely just a result of building a squad for one formation and then changing. We do have players in Ribeiro and Pickering who dont fit into the current formation which youd expect, if you build a squad for one formation then change to another, you will have the odd player that falls through the cracks. So in regards to issue with depth. Defence is down to selling a key player and pocketing the money. Midfield is down to poor recruitment. Up front down to the formation change.

I did enjoy the win. I commented as such soon after the game that it was a good win and overall a good performance. A few players in particular I really praised. Notably Gudjohnsen who I felt was a different player yesterday. The post you quoted was off the back of a discussion about the squad. The team we played yesterday is competitive. The issues I forsee down the line come when you peel beyond that team as the fixtures pile up, has been the case before for us and will likely happen again. I can have these thoughts on the squad whilst still enjoying the win, the post you quoted wasnt my immediate takeaway from the game.