Was it not really Maynard's fault?

[the_anticlough]

IMO, one way to understand the Maynard era, especially the final run-in, is to think of technicians and artists.

As a former BT engineer SM surely fell into the first group and he certainly had that approach and seemed happiest thinking of tactics, shapes and formations. I suspect he approached the run-in as a series of technical challenges, a bit like a BT call-out. And neglected the emotional side of the game artists like Clough would've concentrated on. The team certainly looked like that, frozen by an overload of tactical instructions rather than confident and pumped-up by a skilled man manager.

[jackal2]

IMO, one way to understand the Maynard era, especially the final run-in, is to think of technicians and artists.

As a former BT engineer SM surely fell into the first group and he certainly had that approach and seemed happiest thinking of tactics, shapes and formations. I suspect he approached the run-in as a series of technical challenges, a bit like a BT call-out. And neglected the emotional side of the game artists like Clough would've concentrated on. The team certainly looked like that, frozen by an overload of tactical instructions rather than confident and pumped-up by a skilled man manager.

Fair comment, that.

The first priority when Maynard took over was to address the defensive weaknesses that were increasingly evident in the final part of Luke Williams' reign, and make no mistake they needed addressing, because you can't keep conceding four of five goals in games and taking ridiculously unnecessary risks at the back with defenders and a goalkeeper (at the time) who weren't technically capable of handling such pressure.

To a degree, Maynard did address those problems, and then he benefitted further from a personnel overhaul at the back, with Bedeau and Platt simply being better defenders more equipped for League Two than Cameron, Rawlinson and Baldwin. The problem, however, was that Maynard didn't seem to be able to maintain the best aspects of Luke Williams' style, with the crispness of the passing, the pace of play and the creative flair. Going forward we appeared to be ever more stifled, particularly (I felt) after his assistant Saunders departed.

As you say, it began to feel like an obsessive technical experiment where all the joy and spontaneity (and pace) was squeezed out of our play and we just became horribly dull to watch. Even after the significant departures of recent months, I feel that in players like Traore and Jarvis we've only scratched the surface of what they have to offer, and that Jodi Jones can be restored to his best form if we can appoint a coach able to combine the most attractive aspects of Luke Williams' "art" with the degree of defensive pragmatism that all teams need as they seek to climb the pyramid and encounter stiffer competition.

The National League had become a bit of a flat track for us, and we probably got a bit too cavalier about what we could get away with defensively, but surely with the right head coach a stylistic and emotional middle ground can be found between gung-ho and unremitting boredom.

[i961pie]

The owners left him pissing in the wind from January onwards starting with Crowley and ending with his coaching team leaving but he still had enough at his disposal in terms of players to get us over the line.

My honest opinion is he shouldn't have been given the chance if I'm honest - the writing was on the wall from January - May last season. Nothing changed massively and but for several McGoldrick / Abbott specials I don't think he'd have seen the season out.

Agree with the previous post about mindset / character. The BT engineer jibes were cheap and largely unnecessary because of the plethora of other reasons we'd seen week in and week out but let's be real - if Mansfield were in League Two and had appointed a part-time manager who installed smart meters for Eon or worked on the gas for Cadent we'd be filling our boots.

Like others have said the reality is it means he's an incredibly hard working man but footballers are shallow, vain boys / men and they absolutely will have had their heckles up once they heard that and he would have been up against it from the get go.

Wilshere has the playing experience but has always seemed too petulant and ratty to command a dressing room. He'll get some grace if he's appointed because of what he achieved before his injuries took their toll but they need an actual leader in there.

If it's Alves then the brothers have just Trojan Horsed their own man in there and I would be incredibly wary of how that would pan out.

Wiltshire is favourite for the Plymouth job according to the Sun.

[LeftPeg_Pie]

When you have a head coach model, it is generally quite difficult to pin it all on one individual.

Of course, in that model, Maynard is still hugely accountable and whilst he had a solid coaching foundation, I think he lacked in the more Manager aspects of his role at times. Not many would argue with that.

January was a massive month:

Cedwyn Scott left on the 6th.
Will Jarvis came in on Jan 7th.
Charlie Whitaker came in on Jan 13th.
Dan Crowley left on the 14th.
The Blueprint Brothers left on the 24th.

Amongst all this, 10 points picked up from an available 15. We picked up the same in February too (Mai Traore signed on the 3rd).

It is far too simplistic to blame Maynard. It is also not a sign of disloyalty to question the business done in January.

Did Maynard lack a little bit of something to be successful at Notts? At this stage in his coaching career, yes.
Did we replace Dan Crowley effectively? No.

[M0ufMk3]

Fair comment, that.

The first priority when Maynard took over was to address the defensive weaknesses that were increasingly evident in the final part of Luke Williams' reign, and make no mistake they needed addressing, because you can't keep conceding four of five goals in games and taking ridiculously unnecessary risks at the back with defenders and a goalkeeper (at the time) who weren't technically capable of handling such pressure.

To a degree, Maynard did address those problems, and then he benefitted further from a personnel overhaul at the back, with Bedeau and Platt simply being better defenders more equipped for League Two than Cameron, Rawlinson and Baldwin. The problem, however, was that Maynard didn't seem to be able to maintain the best aspects of Luke Williams' style, with the crispness of the passing, the pace of play and the creative flair. Going forward we appeared to be ever more stifled, particularly (I felt) after his assistant Saunders departed.

As you say, it began to feel like an obsessive technical experiment where all the joy and spontaneity (and pace) was squeezed out of our play and we just became horribly dull to watch. Even after the significant departures of recent months, I feel that in players like Traore and Jarvis we've only scratched the surface of what they have to offer, and that Jodi Jones can be restored to his best form if we can appoint a coach able to combine the most attractive aspects of Luke Williams' "art" with the degree of defensive pragmatism that all teams need as they seek to climb the pyramid and encounter stiffer competition.

The National League had become a bit of a flat track for us, and we probably got a bit too cavalier about what we could get away with defensively, but surely with the right head coach a stylistic and emotional middle ground can be found between gung-ho and unremitting boredom.

Agree with pretty much all of that.

The need to re-set/overhaul the defence and the addition of Platt and Bedeau (two of our stand outs last season) were much needed and mostly successful but with a knock-on effect. Where they have struggled is with the ball. Baldwin's range of passing and pace with the ball haven't been replaced unlike his occasional carelessness which has but, I'd argue, has come at the cost of how quickly and incisively we can start attacks. [In fairness to Baldwin he was rarely bailed out by Rawlo, who was willing but too slow, or Cameron who was more interested in allocating blame.] The problem of ponderous delivery from the back (other than Bedeau going on the charge) led to what looked like indecisive possession based messing about further up the field when, in reality the opposition had been given so much time to reset that our best hope was that they'd get bored.

You don't find a combination of Platt and Baldwin at this level so why not go for both (not actually AB obvs) with the paradox that adding to the defence will free up the attack. It would remain possession based (nothing intrinsically wrong with having the ball unless you're going for oggies) but when we go we go quickly.

[kill_the_drum]

The more the dust settles on this, the more I think Maynard has been desperately unlucky.
His formation wasn?t one that is based on a defensive mentality or deliberate slow play. Macari and Bedeau would overlap and we tried to overload the opposition. Despite people saying he had all the tools to do the job, I would strongly disagree, especially after Jan. We just didn?t have good enough players in the final 3rd.
We had insufficient pace on either wing to get behind the defenders, so they just played in front of the opposition, and we lost our last remaining creative player in the middle.
We?re comparing Nemane/Jones/Crowley with the likes of Gordon/Austin/Grant. It?s not even close!
The two things combined made it so hard to move the ball fast and pull the opposition out of position.
SM tried to counter that by trying to feed the ball into Jatta early and work off him, but he didn?t have the physicality with his back to goal.
The run in from Jan reminded me of just hoping Boldewijn would do something special, but this time it was Didsy.
Unfortunately we didn?t have enough individual brilliance or luck to get us over the line and we certainly didn?t finish the season with a good enough squad to finish top 3.
If the owners primary objective was promotion this season, then I feel the biggest mistakes were made in the transfer market.
If they decided in Jan that Maynard wasn?t the right fit and will go again next season, then that?s fine by me.
Regardless of whether it?s fair/unfair, Maynard had lost the fans which makes his job untenable. So sacking him was the right decision.
I also thought Forest sacking Cooper was extremely unfair but that hasn?t turned out bad for them. So here?s hoping the next guy fires us up to league 1.

[durhampie]

Did anyone on this site actually watch some of the crap played under his leadership ? Judging by some of the comments NO..

[kill_the_drum]

Did anyone on this site actually watch some of the crap played under his leadership ? Judging by some of the comments NO..

I don?t think anyone is disputing the quality of football, it?s the reasons behind it.
That said, I?d also say I saw some absolute brilliant performances under SM.
The Grimsby game was a complete domination from start to finish. 8-1 wouldn?t have been unjust!

[Jampie]

We missed auto promotion by two wins.

Don't sell Crowley? Promoted.

Sell Crowley but don't get the last Jones injury? Promoted.

Sell Crowley, Jones still injured but have a little bit of luck somewhere else? (like a penalty or two at the right time) Promoted.

Instead we sold Crowley, Jones got injured yet again and we missed out by six points. Sacking the head coach is not how I'd respond to that but thankfully it isn't my decision or my 2-3 million pounds per year getting flushed over it.

Presumably the brothers have data that says for certain that SM underperformed on top of all of the above and we should've hit an auto spot anyway. Presumably they have a better man lined up and haven't announced yet for... reasons. I doubt they've lost the plot. They've been so cool, calm and collected throughout their tenure so far.

But, for the first time in their tenure I've got a creeping doubt (like 5%) that they've lost the plot.

[LeftPeg_Pie]

Did anyone on this site actually watch some of the crap played under his leadership ? Judging by some of the comments NO..

I do not see many people saying we were consistently brilliant under Maynard. I think most people would say we underperformed too often.

The argument is just more nuanced than Maynard was terrible. Obviously.