Summer Clearout Who Would You Let Go?

[upthemaggies]

Apologies yes, my timescale is slightly out, it was a long time ago. Warnock did continue to manage Scarborough for a short time after promotion before joining us, but I think the point is still relevant that his football league experience was very limited at the time, and he was qualified and had worked, at least part-time, in an occupation very separate from football.

The jibes being aimed at Maynard "being out of his depth" because he was only part-time, worked as BT engineer, and has no previous league management experience are a red herring in my view. If Maynard has the ability and is given time and patience, it will show. I'm not advocating for him - I'll make my mind up about him over the coming months - I'm just saying some of the narratives apparently advocating against him are unfair and unbelievably premature.

Warnock had 18 months FL experience after winning the 5th tier championship.

Maynard by contrast didn't even get Wealdstone promoted, he was assistant with the same guy he'd been at with Kingstonian and Billericay Town, one of those clubs sacked them and they resigned from the other. Maynard was initially caretaker manager at Wealdstone after his no.1 quit, since when he's finished no higher than 13th. In his two and a half seasons as manager of Wealdstone, he's won just 2 games against sides who finished top 8, Bromley and Grimsby, both at home by the odd goal.

There are no sensible comparisons to be made with Warnock, none.

[upthemaggies]

Yes, I've admitted Maynard's results have been poor. My point wasn't that Maynard is going great guns and .33 PPG is a good return. It is clear that 2 losses and a draw is not a good return. That is obvious to anyone.

My point was that LW's first results with us were poor and he was seeing the same criticisms Maynard is getting now. 74 points in our 4th season in the NL would've been seen as regressing and a failure, and fans were making fun of him and were upset about his appointment.

He won some goodwill when he took the fans' side against the players and basically told them to man up after getting booed, and good for him, but until that point results were unsatisfactory and he was unpopular - but look how he turned out.

I think I've made this point before on here, that if you took a dozen unknowns from total obscurity in tier 9/10 and shoehorned them into managers jobs in L2, most would be a disaster but one or two would end up in the play offs or even winning promotion, that's the random aspect of the game. Some people just happen to be the right person at the right time for the right club.
Maynard *could* be that man, sure, but then bringing Steve Thompson back for a 3rd go *might* have been also. If Notts were serious about giving themselves the best possible chance of promotion this season or next, they would not have picked Maynard. He's been selected for different reasons.

[jackal2]

Warnock had 18 months FL experience after winning the 5th tier championship.

Maynard by contrast didn't even get Wealdstone promoted, he was assistant with the same guy he'd been at with Kingstonian and Billericay Town, one of those clubs sacked them and they resigned from the other. Maynard was initially caretaker manager at Wealdstone after his no.1 quit, since when he's finished no higher than 13th. In his two and a half seasons as manager of Wealdstone, he's won just 2 games against sides who finished top 8, Bromley and Grimsby, both at home by the odd goal.

There are no sensible comparisons to be made with Warnock, none.

Well obviously I disagree, to an extent, but clearly from the tone of your post you're adamant about your view so I won't waste my time asking you to see it differently.

For my part I think, like Warnock, Maynard is a young, up-and-coming manager who was performing very well relative to the size of the club and resources they were managing. That's not always to be measured in titles or promotions, but sometimes just in keeping a team competitive at a level higher than they might realistically have a right to expect.

Clearly, Maynard's preferred style of play was a major factor in him being picked to continue our philosophy under the current owners. It remains to be seen what his precise interpretation of that will be, and how successful it will be, but those writing him off or briefing against him at this ridiculously early stage are being unfair, because he simply hasn't had time yet to show what he can or indeed can't do.

Whatever we think the reasons were behind his appointment, he is Notts County's manager, appointed by owners whose previous appointments have both been poached by higher league clubs, so even if you're not a fan of the current choice, at least give him a chance.

[upthemaggies]

Well obviously I disagree, to an extent, but clearly from the tone of your post you're adamant about your view so I won't waste my time asking you to see it differently.

It's not my view I'm giving you the raw facts.

[jackal2]

It's not view I'm giving you the raw facts.

What is your view then?

We've established that you don't rate the appointment and you're suspicious of the reasons, which is fine.

But what are you proposing we do with Maynard now he's here? Give him a chance or treat him like, say, Jamie Fullarton, who was appointed by owners whose prior track record for selecting managers was nowhere near as impressive as the Reedtz Bros?

[drillerpie]

I think I've made this point before on here, that if you took a dozen unknowns from total obscurity in tier 9/10 and shoehorned them into managers jobs in L2, most would be a disaster but one or two would end up in the play offs or even winning promotion, that's the random aspect of the game. Some people just happen to be the right person at the right time for the right club.
Maynard *could* be that man, sure, but then bringing Steve Thompson back for a 3rd go *might* have been also. If Notts were serious about giving themselves the best possible chance of promotion this season or next, they would not have picked Maynard. He's been selected for different reasons.

Sorry UTM but that is just a random stat you've decided to invent. I don't see what relevance or value it has.

I think the crucial of what we disagree about is that you evaluate a manager's potential in terms of prior achievements (fine, me too) but you only accept winning titles or promotions as evidence of achievement.

So I would ask you the same thing I asked Bohinen before, what in your opinion is an acceptable level of achievement that would make you think the person managing Wealdstone in the National League is a promising manager who is achieving good things?

Winning the league? Getting promoted? Play offs? Top half? Finishing above the other part time teams?

[upthemaggies]

What is your view then?

We've established that you don't rate the appointment and you're suspicious of the reasons, which is fine.

But what are you proposing we do with Maynard now he's here? Give him a chance or treat him like, say, Jamie Fullarton, who was appointed by owners whose prior track record for selecting managers was nowhere near as impressive as the Reedtz Bros?

Fans will react as football fans do, fuelled by the results. I don't think this will be the Reedtz Bros Fullarton moment, maybe their Kiwomya but more likely Keith Curle, where you start to see a significant percentage beginning to lose faith. That staggering sideways moment before the fall backwards.

[upthemaggies]

Sorry UTM but that is just a random stat you've decided to invent. I don't see what relevance or value it has.

I think the crucial of what we disagree about is that you evaluate a manager's potential in terms of prior achievements (fine, me too) but you only accept winning titles or promotions as evidence of achievement.

So I would ask you the same thing I asked Bohinen before, what in your opinion is an acceptable level of achievement that would make you think the person managing Wealdstone in the National League is a promising manager who is achieving good things?

Winning the league? Getting promoted? Play offs? Top half? Finishing above the other part time teams?

If we just wanted to avoid the bottom 2 in tier 4, then I suppose he might make some sense. Otherwise, what has ticking along year in and year out in the bottom half of tier 5 with the likes of Maidenhead, Woking and Dorking got to do with ambitions of playing against the likes of Bolton, Portsmouth and Sheffield Wednesday? He's not "promising", nor has he achieved anything, he's merely a survival manager with a dyed in the wool non-league outfit that relies on results against other bottom half teams to stay out of trouble. He's 43, five years older than Howard Wilkinson was when he took over from Sirrel as team manager and 3 years older than Warnock was when he arrived.

[jackal2]

Fans will react as football fans do, fuelled by the results. I don't think this will be the Reedtz Bros Fullarton moment, maybe their Kiwomya but more likely Keith Curle, where you start to see a significant percentage beginning to lose faith. That staggering sideways moment before the fall backwards.

We will see. Obviously I hope not, both for the manager and owners but mainly for the club.

I think fans recognise that few if any owners get every managerial appointment right, indeed sometimes an otherwise good manager just has a bad time at a particular club, like Accrington's John Coleman did at Rochdale, so if Maynard doesn't 'work' then I still think Notts fans would acknowledge the Reedtz's previous credit in the bank.

What I certainly won't be doing as a fan is putting Maynard under any more pressure than is fair at this early stage in his tenure. He's inherited the team at a tricky moment where the promotion bubble has burst and we're having to re-calibrate to real life in this division, so things could get worse before they get better, but Maynard's ability as a manager - whatever it is - will become more evident in the coming months and when we start to move into next season.

The classic case of not judging a manager too soon was Sam Allardyce, who had a truly awful time at the start of his reign, leaving many of us wondering whether he was doomed to failure, but when he finally got the team playing 'his' way, boy did things change!

[drillerpie]

If we just wanted to avoid the bottom 2 in tier 4, then I suppose he might make some sense. Otherwise, what has ticking along year in and year out in the bottom half of tier 5 with the likes of Maidenhead, Woking and Dorking got to do with ambitions of playing against the likes of Bolton, Portsmouth and Sheffield Wednesday? He's not "promising", nor has he achieved anything, he's merely a survival manager with a dyed in the wool non-league outfit that relies on results against other bottom half teams to stay out of trouble. He's 43, five years older than Howard Wilkinson was when he took over from Sirrel as team manager and 3 years older than Warnock was when he arrived.

Ok, I understand that you are not impressed with his achievements at Wealdstone, I am curious to know what the right level of achievements with Wealdstone would be to satisfy you that he's a good manager.