City Managers Records and achievements

I don’t count Big Sams 1 game as England manager

 

Agree but isn't that because of Rhodes though? It's like Rupp has said to Rhodes run it how you like I am not interested.
Rhodes has been around the game for long enough he should know that data, scouting network and even a Sporting Director is important in football in 2020.

Rupp passes the hot potato to Rhodes and Rhodes passes it to McCall.

 

I'm now only concerned about 1 manager.

Stuart McCall. Stint 3.

Whats happened in the past whether McCall or whomever is irrelevant.

Forward thinking.

 

Have to disagree.

It speaks to a mindset at the club.

If they are lazy in this area, arguably one of the most important the club, then it is not a stretch to project that they are lazy in other areas, scouting, player retention, player recruitment, revenue work, commercial etc etc

So no it' not irrelevant.

 

Mate, I was against the appointment of McCall, strangely saying it was a lazy appointment myself. I was looking at Evatt or Wild but hey ho.

I'm not concerned as I said above about the past. It's about now. The manager we have is whom I will judge. Not his first two stints.

I've already said, I feel like we are a club in regression.

Take a look at the National League final right now. One club on the up, one on the slide. One with a novice manager, a bloody hard working ethic, with a real press. I look at the Notts team whom look slow, looking at old guard I see more of our team (as it stands) in Notts.

 

I wasn’t being critical of your stance. Actually it is the sensible one.

I was just trying to state that we can’t say ‘just move on’ because I believe it is a reflection of the club in general.

 

I deliberately avoided any comment on the "value" of the numbers, apart from the observation that Stuart's second-spell numbers are impressive whilst his first-spell numbers are less so. There are valid criticisms to be made of Stuart, but these particular numbers do not suggest that this is the approach to take. What the numbers do is give one particular view of the question; each of you have added other views that complement mine.

As RT has posted above, we were close to promotion. Who knows how the match would have played out if Clarke had scored. A win, and Stuart would have had that achievement on his record and, I suppose, the objectives of both owners and supporters would have been met.

And that brings me to something that I have thought deserves its own thread -- what do we think of as "success" for a manager?

Objectives met? But what we the supporters see as the objective(s) might be dramatically different from what ownership wants. Promotion, or simply avoid relegation? Win, or win entertainingly? Win a cup, or get to the latter rounds of a cup? Develop youth? Build up the infrastructure at the expense of a promotion challenge? Go for promotion but leave the infrastructure lagging? Sell a player for immediate cash gains as opposed to keeping that player for his value to the side? Increase crowds? And so on...

Achievements? This one is probably easier to define: Championships (whatever the division), promotions, and Cup wins certainly. Beyond that, I suppose winning and winning in style could be added. But what about going through a season undefeated at home? What about setting a new club record, in a good way, for a season? And again, as posted above, what about Dolan and good football but just falling short, and not necessarily through failings of his own?

Methinks we will all define "success" a little differently.

RCB

 

I think you're over complicating things a bit. Pretty much everyone knows what the predominant objectives are for any football club at the start of the year and they're based around league positions. All the other bits are secondary and "nice to haves" and I doubt they'd change much between fans and board members. All the ancillary stuff if just other factors to take into account if they do/don't meet the primary target.

Achievements, progress (leaving a team in a higher position that you left them) winning the big games are the only the main factors I'd use when judging a manager. Win percentage and things like that are easier to compare but when it comes down to it if you've ticked those three boxes then you've generally done a good job.

 

Very interesting submission and I actually can’t argue with your point of view.

The nub of the problem, as far as I see it, Is that we accept mediocrity, we accept failure, we lower our expectations and use a lower bar to measure success because the incumbents name is McCall. We don’t hold him to the same standard we would anyone else.

That’s the issue I have.

 

You have created a problem as you see it. Well that is your opinion but you don't talk for me when you say "we".

It is very clear you don't like SM as the manager.

But don't try to make out he is not held to the same standards any manager would be held to. He sure is.

 

Is your final statement a wind up?

McCall is held to the same standard by Bradford fans as all other managers...really?

You really have got to be kidding me.

 

Show me proof otherwise.

 

Why wouldn't McCall be held to the same standard as anyone else?

Maybe in his first stint he was given a lot of leeway, just as various other clubs who appoint legends in early managerial posts tend to give them a little longer - but I see absolutely no evidence that he was given excessive leeway in his second stint, nor do I understand why you think he will be here?

Stuart needs to produce results or he'll get sacked. The only difference between sacking Stuart and Colin Todd is that people will be sad to see us sack McCall.

 

His second spell would have always been a big ask with regards the conditions he worked under, yet he got us one step further than Phil could a Wembley appearance in the League One play off final.
His second season with us we only dropped out of the top 4 because of the 6 defeats yet we were still in a play off place, Rahic sacked him and guess what our performances/results didnt change would it have been better keeping Stuart on ?, we'll never know because from the outset Rahic thought he should be the man getting all the plaudits.
All history but I'm not sure his second season could be classed as failure.