Management trio. How long do they have?

Joking aside i was been serious for once then.

 

How come every prediction you have said has been total bolloxs....... THAT'S A FACT.

 

Like what?

 

I think the answer is in what I said. If it's too hard to understand phone Norman

 

He

Hes engaged

 

Who to ?

 

Edin

 

Congrats :thumbsup:

 

Does his wife know?

 

Not sure about the budget but they both got beat by Millwall in the play offs, they just happened to meet them at different times.

One had Proctor and an injured Hanson upfront the other had Wyke. One of them also benefited from inheriting the core of that team but the other one built it. Given those two factors I know who gets more credit in my mind.

 

That's PP's fault for not recruiting adequately enough. He had the resources though. Paul Anderson, Steve Davies, Mark Marshall and Morris were all high earners who were almost redundant that season. If he had used the budget wisely rather than having a bench worth almost more than the first 11, he could have brought in a Charlie Wyke if he wanted to.

That's besides the point anyway. I'm not trying to get into a discussion about who's achievements are more worthy. I was responding to a comment stating that PP would have got us up automatically if he our manager instead of McCall. Irrespective of which manager had it easier, He failed to do it and (factually speaking) achieved less despite having more financial backing, so I'm really questioning the basis of his assumption. I saw nothing in that campaign which suggested that PP would get us up through the top 2 the following season, especially as he would have had less to work with as the owners were cost cutting* when they had arrived.

*That's not a dig at Rahic/Rupp, as it was understandable at the time.

 

Maybe. Give Parkinson Wyke and he'd very likely have done better.

Give McCall Proctor and Hanson instead for a full season and I wonder where we'd have ended up?

Both achieved the same results - beat by Millwall in the play offs. One off their own work and one building on somebody else's. You can't just ignore the ability to build and improve a squad when you're looking at projections. PP clearly showed that, McCall probably didn't although his team building efforts were less straightforward in this role.

None of it matters now though I suppose. More relevantly they both unfortunately likely to be better than Collins.

 

Agree, but he didn't recruit/scout a player similar to Wyke and through his own choice opted for strikers such as Proctor, Davies and Clarke. He's only got himself to blame.

Would I back McCall to build a better team than PP from scratch? No, but it wasn't necessary either.

He had to, on the whole, get the best out of the players already in the building, and I don't think he was any worse at doing that than PP, in fact i thought he was better so for that particular season, I don't believe we would have been any better off under Parkinson. Would PP have gone one better than McCall and got us promoted for the 2016/17 season?Nobody knows, he might have done but it's too presumptuous to assume that he would when he failed to do it the year before with a large budget. It's certainly not a guarantee like Norman thinks.

On Collins, I think he's got a better squad than both PP and McCall had during their playoff campaigns. If we didn't have a complete punt in charge I think more would feel optimistic about the upcoming season. Only time will tell if he's any good, but I think Collins and Rahic will rightly come in for criticism if we fail to make the playoffs with the current crop of players.

 

Not quite a choice when he was never in a position to spend £250k on a player like Wyke but I get your drift.

Nobody knows for definite it I would say the Parkinson's overall managerial record would give me more hope for progression and success than McCall's but that's certainly not a guarantee.

I think you're probably right about the quality of the current squad on paper though.

 

The 69 one?

 

I may have over estimated this.