Give the manager more time

[slack_pie]

Time will tell.

The current owners aren't in the habit of making emotional decisions based on a relatively small sample size of results, and although that patient approach certainly doesn't guarantee that a later/slower decision will always be the better one, their track record so far has been more encouraging than their predecessors.

Trew and Hardy (and other owners after Pavis) made several early/fast decisions on managers but left the club in a worse position than they inherited it, so a case certainly hasn't been made (consistently) for the early dismissal approach.

Spot on. No way our owners will make a decision at this point. They'll need to see more to be absolutely certain of the next move. Right now, sacking a manager after six weeks would probably be more damaging to the club's reputation and finances than sticking with him. There's still a chance he'll turn this run around.

We need calm heads right now, not emotional ones. Our current failings aren't down to one man. Yes, he might not be the right coach to lead us forward long term, but sacking him won't instantly solve the recruitment blunders and clear issues we have in the squad. It will cause more upheaval and instability, however. I'd give him more time. We're aren't going up or down this season, so there's no reason to rush into hasty decisions.

[Bohinen]

Spot on. No way our owners will make a decision at this point. They'll need to see more to be absolutely certain of the next move. Right now, sacking a manager after six weeks would probably be more damaging to the club's reputation and finances than sticking with him. There's still a chance he'll turn this run around.

We need calm heads right now, not emotional ones. Our current failings aren't down to one man. Yes, he might not be the right coach to lead us forward long term, but sacking him won't instantly solve the recruitment blunders and clear issues we have in the squad. It will cause more upheaval and instability, however. I'd give him more time. We're aren't going up or down this season, so there's no reason to rush into hasty decisions.

An argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as a false compromise or as taking the middle ground, is a logical fallacy in which a position between two extreme points of view is promoted as the correct position. It is considered a fallacy because the quality of being a compromise has nothing to do with the veracity of a claims. A compromise may itself have implications which require scrutiny.

Sack him, he's useless.
No, keep him, he will inevitably come good.
Give him more time .. the 'sensible solution'.

[Elite_Pie]

An argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as a false compromise or as taking the middle ground, is a logical fallacy in which a position between two extreme points of view is promoted as the correct position. It is considered a fallacy because the quality of being a compromise has nothing to do with the veracity of a claims. A compromise may itself have implications which require scrutiny.

Sack him, he's useless.
No, keep him, he will inevitably come good.
Give him more time .. the 'sensible solution'.

That reminds me of a very long disagreement I had with a certain ex-poster on here regarding Neal Ardley in the relegation season. His argument was that constantly sacking managers rarely leads to success. I agreed with the principle, but said sticking with a poor manager for the sake of it is even less likely to lead to success. That's the conundrum with Maynard at the moment. Because we are not in relegation danger I would give him more time, but I must admit it's more in hope than expectation. The other problem is that we are very rapidly losing the feelgood factor we had built, and if this awful form continues it won't be easy to get back. A tricky one for the brothers to solve.

[jackal2]

That reminds me of a very long disagreement I had with a certain ex-poster on here regarding Neal Ardley in the relegation season. His argument was that constantly sacking managers rarely leads to success. I agreed with the principle, but said sticking with a poor manager for the sake of it is even less likely to lead to success. That's the conundrum with Maynard at the moment. Because we are not in relegation danger I would give him more time, but I must admit it's more in hope than expectation.

Certainly there has to be a 'cut off' point where you conclude that a manager isn't having an impact or likely to have one in the future. I think the difference between previous owners and the current ones is that they their 'cut off' point is longer compared with the knee-jerk nature of, say, Trew and Hardy, whose decision-making was more influenced by ego and the pressure they felt from fans (not least because they spent too long on social media!).

I think last night's result confirms, if there was any remaining doubt, that Stuart Maynard has had a poor start, but at present that's all it is: a start - one month and 7 games. There was a ray of light in the outstanding performance at Newport playing with a different system, but having to play Wrexham in the following game wasn't ideal, and confidence is now really low. I think the Head Coach got the tactics spot on against Newport (obviously, in fact) but seems to have moved away from that blueprint at the first sign of trouble, and that hasn't helped.

[Mark_Ross]

That reminds me of a very long disagreement I had with a certain ex-poster on here regarding Neal Ardley in the relegation season. His argument was that constantly sacking managers rarely leads to success. I agreed with the principle, but said sticking with a poor manager for the sake of it is even less likely to lead to success. That's the conundrum with Maynard at the moment. Because we are not in relegation danger I would give him more time, but I must admit it's more in hope than expectation. The other problem is that we are very rapidly losing the feelgood factor we had built, and if this awful form continues it won't be easy to get back. A tricky one for the brothers to solve.

Not losing EP, lost it. The Dr Feelgood is dead & buried.

[slack_pie]

An argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as a false compromise or as taking the middle ground, is a logical fallacy in which a position between two extreme points of view is promoted as the correct position. It is considered a fallacy because the quality of being a compromise has nothing to do with the veracity of a claims. A compromise may itself have implications which require scrutiny.

Sack him, he's useless.
No, keep him, he will inevitably come good.
Give him more time .. the 'sensible solution'.

I'm not saying giving him more time is the right thing to do because it's a compromise or the middle ground. I'm saying it's the right thing to do because I don't think it's possible to know for certain that he's the wrong man for the job yet. I need more time to come to that conclusion with certainty, and I imagine our owners do to.

Given that we aren't going up or down this season, why not see what happens over the next few weeks rather than pulling the trigger right now? What tangible benefit would there be in sacking him and beginning yet another search for a new manager mid-season? And what if the new-new manager loses more games than he wins? Should we sack him too after six weeks?

[Kent Magpie]

I'm not saying giving him more time is the right thing to do because it's a compromise or the middle ground. I'm saying it's the right thing to do because I don't think it's possible to know for certain that he's the wrong man for the job yet. I need more time to come to that conclusion with certainty, and I imagine our owners do to.

Given that we aren't going up or down this season, why not see what happens over the next few weeks rather than pulling the trigger right now? What tangible benefit would there be in sacking him and beginning yet another search for a new manager mid-season? And what if the new-new manager loses more games than he wins? Should we sack him too after six weeks?

Good point... sack him now and the season is likely to be almost done by the time a new guy comes in, we simply don't move that quickly in these situations. We may as well stick rather than twist now for that reason alone.

[MAD_MAGPIE]

Spot on. No way our owners will make a decision at this point. They'll need to see more to be absolutely certain of the next move. Right now, sacking a manager after six weeks would probably be more damaging to the club's reputation and finances than sticking with him. There's still a chance he'll turn this run around.

We need calm heads right now, not emotional ones. Our current failings aren't down to one man. Yes, he might not be the right coach to lead us forward long term, but sacking him won't instantly solve the recruitment blunders and clear issues we have in the squad. It will cause more upheaval and instability, however. I'd give him more time. We're aren't going up or down this season, so there's no reason to rush into hasty decisions.

This is where I'm at. There needs to be an acceptance that last night was a culmination of problems that have manifested since we got back from Wembley and have led us to where we are currently at.

What we have to remember as well is SM is not the manager he is the head coach. He has a recruitment team, a management team, a coaching team and a squad of players. Under such a set up everyone has to take ownership and collective responsibility for the current situation. Likewise it will be down to everyone to turn it around.

Whether SM is the man who can lead and front the turnaround time will tell.

Sutton away on the opening day was a wake up call and warning that we would have problems with conceding goals this season. Sutton at home yesterday was confirmation that something has to be done in the next six months to stop us conceding so many goals and having a season of struggle next year. We simply cannot rely on outscoring the opposition at this level.