Neil Warnock..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AucklandRover

If Warnock is appointed, I will have to bite the bullet, because I support Rovers and nothing will change that.
All the same, some of you are getting a bit carried away.
Look at the Wiki article on him. He has a patchy record of success as a manager, and there is the list of incidents which underline his lack of self-control.
There are also some very short memories on display.
Remember someone called Paul Lambert? Ticked all the boxes: blunt, no-nonsense approach; wouldn't take any crap from the owners; strong character; "knows what it takes"; wouldn't take the job without guarantees; etc.
Just what we're hearing again now.

---

Patchy record of success are you real? The man jointly owns the record of most promotions on 8.....

Z[/quote]

Welcome to the world of aucklandrover brin.. :)[/quo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jordan12rhodes

Going off that view aucks, the only person you would appoint is a rookie. No failures y'see? ;)

---

Saxo - as you know, my bottom line is that we grossly exaggerate the influence of a manager, anyway. As I said, Lambert seemed to tick all the boxes, if the man at the top was all that mattered.
But we don't learn from this. Instead, we start looking around for the next magic bullet.
What annoys me is that when people start throwings about, only the previous successes of that person are mentioned.
Why is that the failures don't count?
In the end, I will support whoever is appointed, but I really don't believe that the manager is the be-all and end-all of a team doing well.
For me, the whole "brilliant manager" thing is a bit of a myth. If not, how do we account for what happened with Mourinho at Chelsea this year?

So in your view there is no difference between appointing Warnock or Redfearn. Neither has a better chance of success than the other?

That's nonsense aucks.

No - I honestly don't think it is nonsense. We'll never know, of course.
And I am NOT saying the manger doesn't matter. I am saying that the influence of the manager is one of many factors.
If that is NOT true, how do you account for the difference between Warnock's time at Leeds and his spell at Rotherham?
Also, you have not picked up my point. Why did LAMBERT "fail", relative to what was expected of him?
Were the Lambert at Norwich and the Lambert at Villa two different men?
The other thing is, if Redfearn WAS to be appointed, and he made a big success of the job, how would you account for that?

Ask Burnley if there is any difference between Brian laws and Shaun dyche.

Are you suggesting the only difference factor in their respective tenures at turf moor is luck rather than talent?

Rip down the shankley gates and take away Alex Ferguson's knighthood I say then, they were only ever 'just another manager'..

Bonkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jordan12rhodes

Ask Burnley if there is any difference between Brian laws and Shaun dyche.

Are you suggesting the only difference factor in their respective tenures at turf moor is luck rather than talant?

Rip down the shankley gates and take away Alex Ferguson's knighthood I say then, they were only ever 'just another manager'..

Bonkers.

---

No - it's not "bonkers". You are using extreme examples (although remember that even Ferguson was one game away from being sacked. Then the "legend" would never have been born!)
Of course there are exceptional managers, but they are a rare breed. We're talking about the run-of-the-mill type.
And I have nowhere said that it is all down to luck.
Luck and good managership are just two of the factors that go to make up success.
But you're really missing the point. What I have been arguing for years on here is that good "managership" is not necessarily a question of who is chosen. Sometimes things fa

Lambert never failed, he quit. Even souness took over half a season to get a tune out of an excellent set of players. Far from instant success. Again, Sean dyche, after his first half season, Burnley fans wanted him replaced after many indifferent performances.

With Lambert, we'll now never know.

That saxo is your best post in a long long time
I think with backing we would of seen a different rovers this season but alas it's all ifs buts and maybes
Warnock
slade
redfearn
I know who I would pick we know who you would pick sadly it's becoming apparent who the idiots from Pune are going for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jordan12rhodes

Lambert never failed, he quit. Even souness took over half a season to get a tune out of an excellent set of players. Far from instant success. Again, Sean dyche, after his first half season, Burnley fans wanted him replaced after many indifferent performances.

With Lambert, we'll now never know.

---

I'm actually with you there to some extent. I don't think someone can be labelled a failure after such a short spell in charge. I didn't take to him, but I wish he'd toughed it out for another year.
Some fans, though, expected that he would at least take us close to the play-offs, and he certainly "failed" in that respect.
To be honest, you are still avoiding the issue. It is a plain, simple fact that most mangers have failed as often as they have succeeded, so I have no idea how you can decide in advance which appointments will work.

I think some fans got over excited when he took over the more realistic group of fans were more optimistic about this season
now any optimism I had has been truly destroyed.