Originally Posted by
AucklandRover
Champs - on another thread, you called TM "brilliant". I just think that's a step too far. When he arrived, I was sceptical (because of his previous record), but I am always in the "Let's give him a chance" block. He has proved to be much more imaginative and flexible than I expected. He is a superb motivator and man-manager, and his purchases have been very astute. "Brilliant", though? Would fans of other clubs he has managed agree? To me. every manager is only as good as the last job he did. It is a trade where hero to zero applies in Spades!
How to judge Mourinho, for example? Almost all of them have failed somewhere!
In addition, as you all know (a groan here from Despair!), I am a complete sceptic in terms of this widespread belief that "It's all down to the manager." TM was not responsible for Palmer's woeful miss or for the freak equaliser. If we have 70% possession, and the opposition score the only goal from a deflection, it is not the manager's fault. If the referee misses two blatant penalties, it is not the manager's fault.
When we win, that is not entirely down to the manager; the same when we lose.
Obviously, the manager sets the tone, picks the team, decides the pattern, and - in the long run - carries the can, but the reason I got irritated, for example, when posters on the Telegraph site found ways of blaming Mowbray for Ipswich getting the draw is that their criticisms suggest that the manager is there with his remote-control device, operating the players on the pitch. Anyone who has played football or managed a team knows that sometimes things go well; sometimes they don't - and that this (in the short term) rarely has much to do with what the manager has said or done! With some of the teams I've looked after, I have spent whole matches wondering why on earth all my players were ignoring the game-plan!
To get back to transfers, I totally take your point about TM's ambitions for the season, but I don't agree with some of your individual conclusions. Downing has a remarkable record of success when he has played. In comparison, Bauer is a guess.
As for the keeper, I think back to my playing days and try to remember if the effort I put in was greater if I knew there was a rival for my position. The answer? No. Once a game started, I gave 100% and forgot about everything else.
On the subject of McGinn, I think you are being a bit naive. If he is like the vast majority of other players (and, here, Despair will agree with me), Mowbray's links with Hibernian will count for nothing if another club offers him more money!
I have supported TM from the start, and will continue to do so, but I think you are in danger of getting carried away. I don't think we will take the Championship by storm, although I will be delighted to be proved wrong.
This business of Wil Trapp mystifies me. You say somewhere that Davenport was bought for the future, rather than as a genuine challenger for a first-team place, but what would be the point of that? We have a host of "promising youngsters" already. I assumed he was signed because he was regarded as significantly better than Travis. If Trapp arrived as well, where would he be in the pecking-order?
McGinn is a slightly different case, because the evidence is that he is genuinely a class above most of our current players.
Then there is Rothwell. I thought he was bought to play as well.
You seem to support every possible purchase, but that has to be balanced with the question of how much a settled team needs to be disrupted.
That line of argument assumes that the following team (or similar) would be dramatically better than the one which started on Saturday:
A.N Other
Nyambe Lenihan Mulgrew Bell
Tripp McGinn
Dack Palmer
Graham Armstrong.
I am not suggesting this is exactly the team you or TM would pick, but you see my point about disruption. Babies and bath-water come to mind.