📝 Tobi Adebayo-Rowling Signs

[jacobncfc]

Yes, what's the alternative, bring in managers nobody else is going to want for the sake of stability?

The theory is this, I guess:

- Most managerial appointments fail. This is obvious, because most are sacked within a year or two.
- When one does hit it big and transform the club, they tend to leave for a bigger job within a year or two. As happened to us the last two times this happened with Allardyce and Cotterill.
- If they’re in charge of everything, culture, style of play, signings etc etc then when they leave you’re just back to playing a numbers game which is against you because we know most appointments fail.
- If you run a club like Notts, where the manager doesn’t deal with recruitment really and you’re looking for someone who plays the same way, give or take, each time, you’re less reliant on hitting on some magic formula that then disappears a few months down the line.

I don’t think we’re evidence for it either working or not working yet. My view would be that our structure makes it less likely that we’re going to have a one-off amazing season, but makes it much more likely that we won’t have a terrible season and will make progress over a longer time period. It’s pick your poison, I guess.

[upthemaggies]

My view would be that our structure makes it less likely that we’re going to have a one-off amazing season, but makes it much more likely that we won’t have a terrible season and will make progress over a longer time period. It’s pick your poison, I guess.

This would be all well and good at any level above, the problem with tier 5 is that a "one-off amazing season" is the only guaranteed way to go up, you can't finish 1st just by not having a terrible season, which leaves us with the play-offs - and we don't seem to be learning any lessons on that front.

[countygump]

The theory is this, I guess:

- Most managerial appointments fail. This is obvious, because most are sacked within a year or two.
- When one does hit it big and transform the club, they tend to leave for a bigger job within a year or two. As happened to us the last two times this happened with Allardyce and Cotterill.
- If they’re in charge of everything, culture, style of play, signings etc etc then when they leave you’re just back to playing a numbers game which is against you because we know most appointments fail.
- If you run a club like Notts, where the manager doesn’t deal with recruitment really and you’re looking for someone who plays the same way, give or take, each time, you’re less reliant on hitting on some magic formula that then disappears a few months down the line.

I don’t think we’re evidence for it either working or not working yet. My view would be that our structure makes it less likely that we’re going to have a one-off amazing season, but makes it much more likely that we won’t have a terrible season and will make progress over a longer time period. It’s pick your poison, I guess.

Good post.

[jacobncfc]

This would be all well and good at any level above, the problem with tier 5 is that a "one-off amazing season" is the only guaranteed way to go up, you can't finish 1st just by not having a terrible season, which leaves us with the play-offs - and we don't seem to be learning any lessons on that front.

True, but it is what it is. There’s no one left at the club to blame for relegation unless we’re pinning it on Jim O’Brien.

We’ve avoided doing what most big clubs who come down to this level do, which is nearly get themselves relegated again (or manage it like Stockport and get stuck down there for a few years) at least once and bob around in mid-table for a bit before their fifth or sixth attempt at hitting the jackpot with a manager works. Would we rather be doing that? I dunno.

[upthemaggies]

True, but it is what it is. There’s no one left at the club to blame for relegation unless we’re pinning it on Jim O’Brien.

We’ve avoided doing what most big clubs who come down to this level do, which is nearly get themselves relegated again (or manage it like Stockport and get stuck down there for a few years) at least once and bob around in mid-table for a bit before their fifth or sixth attempt at hitting the jackpot with a manager works. Would we rather be doing that? I dunno.

You wouldn't want to finish mid-lower table, but there has to be a demoralising effect in losing in the play offs season in season out.
Having lost a home play off tie for the first time, Notts will now go into next season looking at 2nd-5th knowing full well that home advantage isn't the near guarantee of progress that we'd previously experienced it to be. If they lose touch with 1st, I think a lot of people will be resigned to yet another play off failure at best. So with that in mind it probably would have been better had we finished 17th, 12th, 8th over the past three seasons, but of course the gates would not have been as good with the impact on finances.

[jacobncfc]

it probably would have been better had we finished 17th, 12th, 8th over the past three seasons, but of course the gates would not have been as good with the impact on finances.

This feels a stretch to me.

We would be by no means the first team to keep finishing in the play-offs and losing at this level before getting it over the line.

[upthemaggies]

This feels a stretch to me.

We would be by no means the first team to keep finishing in the play-offs and losing at this level before getting it over the line.

At this level, so far, Grimsby are the only team to have gone up via the play offs having lost in the play offs three times previously.

Number of 5th tier Play off failures before going up via the play off final
Hartlepool - 0
Harrogate - 1
Salford - 0
Tranmere - 1 (lost in final)
Forest Green - 2 (lost one final)
Grimsby - 3 (lost one final)
Bristol Rovers - 0
Cambridge - 2 (lost 2 finals during a 9 season stint)
Newport - 0
York City - 2 (lost one final)
Wimbledon - 0
Oxford - 1
Torquay - 1
Exeter - 1 (lost in final)
Morecambe - 2
Hereford - 2
Carlisle - 0
Shrewsbury - 0
Doncaster - 0

[CamPie]

At this level, so far, Grimsby are the only team to have gone up via the play offs having lost in the play offs three times previously.

Number of 5th tier Play off failures before going up via the play off final
Hartlepool - 0
Harrogate - 1
Salford - 0
Tranmere - 1 (lost in final)
Forest Green - 2 (lost one final)
Grimsby - 3 (lost one final)
Bristol Rovers - 0
Cambridge - 2 (lost 2 finals during a 9 season stint)
Newport - 0
York City - 2 (lost one final)
Wimbledon - 0
Oxford - 1
Torquay - 1
Exeter - 1 (lost in final)
Morecambe - 2
Hereford - 2
Carlisle - 0
Shrewsbury - 0
Doncaster - 0

Oh b*****r it let’s all give up now then!! Anyone want to buy a 22/23 season ticket second-hand, hardly (never) used, going cheap as there’s just no point! (Although hold on we’ve just made a cracking signing of a young striker who scored 30 in the league below plus a quick strong wing-back and re-signed an experienced and consistent RCB/RB. Maybe I’ll stick it out another year).

Or in other words try and see something positive rather than the constant negatives, we get it you’re not happy with the current status of the club but if it is all so bad why are you bothering?

[laddo]

The theory is this, I guess:

- Most managerial appointments fail. This is obvious, because most are sacked within a year or two.
- When one does hit it big and transform the club, they tend to leave for a bigger job within a year or two. As happened to us the last two times this happened with Allardyce and Cotterill.
- If they’re in charge of everything, culture, style of play, signings etc etc then when they leave you’re just back to playing a numbers game which is against you because we know most appointments fail.
- If you run a club like Notts, where the manager doesn’t deal with recruitment really and you’re looking for someone who plays the same way, give or take, each time, you’re less reliant on hitting on some magic formula that then disappears a few months down the line.

I don’t think we’re evidence for it either working or not working yet. My view would be that our structure makes it less likely that we’re going to have a one-off amazing season, but makes it much more likely that we won’t have a terrible season and will make progress over a longer time period. It’s pick your poison, I guess.

That is just what I and a fellow Pie have just been discussing on the phone, almost to the letter. Added that the random approach requires the new manager to have necessary time to assess the squad, sign the players he wants, move others out to reflect and adapt to their new style/approach. If you keep the the overall club approach/philosophy and keep managerial appointments in line with it(like Swansea did to great success, and others also adopt) it is at least one less variable, one less associated risk. It should also quicken the bedding in period for any new manager as they are in the main happy with the player type/players and likewise the players all also happy with less distrubance to what they've been learning under the old boss.

Don't get me wrong I get the concern that the slower, longer method is far from ideal when in NL, and operating below where we should be, but lets be honest we would be saying the same in L2 if this was introduced before our relegation. It's hard to patient in this league but its the better of two options IMO. As mentioned earlier it's far too early to state conclude or even comment on whether this approach will work or not, but a flashback to the alternative means I am happy to find out.

[laddo]

UTM seemingly isn't happy at all and has really changed tone recently.

He's always provided regular unusual statistics and some really interesting ones to boot, but it would be nice if we had one with a positive slant.

Just one? Pretty please.