| The official Garry's got the job debate thread 13:53 - May 7 with 14665 views | Darran |
Any new ones started after this one will be deleted. |  |
| |  |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:23 - May 7 with 977 views | C_jack |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:13 - May 7 by londonlisa2001 |
This thread has finally moved me to post for the first time in many years. A number of people have commented that they could tell that Roberto, Rodgers or Laudrup were going to be a success after 10 games and that they can tell that Garry Monk won't be after his games in charge. (I'm ignoring here some spectacular reworking of the comments that were made after certainly the first two of these appointments).
They seem to be deliberately missing one crucial difference - Roberto, Rodgers etc had a preseason to assess the squad, select the players that they wanted to add to that squad and implement the training style and tactics that they wanted without the interruption of crucial games once or twice a week. Garry Monk has not yet had this opportunity.
He took over a squad that was already in place - no additions were possible, and any changing of training, tactics etc have been restricted to an extent by the games to be played and the need for survival points.
No one can know what the team or playing style will look like until he has had a chance to choose his own players and work with the squad through a preseason. It's an easy criticism to say that the Board have chosen a cheap option, or should have looked to 'insert name of previously famous player' instead but if the appointment does work, and no one can say at this stage whether it will or not, then it could bring a much needed few years of stability to the club.
It may prove to be a mistake, in which case we can be sure that action would be taken, but some of the vitriol being spouted here is utterly without foundation. Surely the one thing that the club deserves is support - that doesn't mean that concern shouldn't be expressed, but comments such as 'we are definitely going to go down' or 'I can't wait to be proved right' are a disgrace. |
What crucial difference? The main (and really, only) valid reason that he's been given the job is that he knows the squad well, so if he 'needed a pre season' to assess them then that takes away his only desirable quality. Again there is a need for some compare this to Martinez and Rodgers, when it does not work
He's played with a handful of them for 7+ years, and spent a considerable amount of time with the rest of them over the last few seasons. One of the few positive reasons for the appointment is that he doesn't have to piss about in pre season 'assessing' anyone. |  |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:25 - May 7 with 964 views | snork44 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 17:40 - May 7 by C_jack |
So why are we (most likely) the first ever Premier League club, in over 20 years to appoint a complete novice permanently? Surely using your argument that experience counts for nothing, other clubs would have worked out this genius plan a fair while ago.
There are no guarantees, but there are better guarantees than others. Why did Palace hire Tony Pulis instead of giving the job to Danny Gabbidon?
So we don't hire a manager that's best fit to manage the club. We hire a manager that is the best fit for the board, and gives them less hassle. Seriously backwards approach. |
The way we play football is unique,that is why Monk was employed. Can you imagine Pulis here with the so-called 'Hoof-ball', the fans would have gone apoplectic asking why such a philistine was employed! Palace play a Pulis type of football even though they had employed Holloway before Pulis turned up in Croydon! |  |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:29 - May 7 with 943 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:23 - May 7 by C_jack |
What crucial difference? The main (and really, only) valid reason that he's been given the job is that he knows the squad well, so if he 'needed a pre season' to assess them then that takes away his only desirable quality. Again there is a need for some compare this to Martinez and Rodgers, when it does not work
He's played with a handful of them for 7+ years, and spent a considerable amount of time with the rest of them over the last few seasons. One of the few positive reasons for the appointment is that he doesn't have to piss about in pre season 'assessing' anyone. |
The crucial difference, is that he could not change the squad - would have thought this to be fairly evident.
He may well, and we don't know, think that there are real gaps or problem areas in the squad - what could he do about it other than juggle what was available. He has not had a transfer window to make changes so his assessment was not able to result in any meaningful action other than tinkering with the players that he had (eg. move Pablo in more centrally rather than play him out wide). |  | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:31 - May 7 with 934 views | jeza739 |
Top post. Common sense | | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:31 - May 7 with 933 views | C_jack |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:25 - May 7 by snork44 |
The way we play football is unique,that is why Monk was employed. Can you imagine Pulis here with the so-called 'Hoof-ball', the fans would have gone apoplectic asking why such a philistine was employed! Palace play a Pulis type of football even though they had employed Holloway before Pulis turned up in Croydon! |
Garry Monk was employed because of the way we play? You're off your rocker mun
The Pulis comparison wasn't intended to be taken literally, just an example that there's a reason why nobody in 20 seasons hasn't really given our genius plan a go. It's not so much breaking the mould, as to creating a whole new one from scratch with no idea wtf is going to happen. [Post edited 7 May 2014 21:32]
| |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread (n/t) on 21:32 - May 7 with 929 views | jeza739 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:23 - May 7 by C_jack |
What crucial difference? The main (and really, only) valid reason that he's been given the job is that he knows the squad well, so if he 'needed a pre season' to assess them then that takes away his only desirable quality. Again there is a need for some compare this to Martinez and Rodgers, when it does not work
He's played with a handful of them for 7+ years, and spent a considerable amount of time with the rest of them over the last few seasons. One of the few positive reasons for the appointment is that he doesn't have to piss about in pre season 'assessing' anyone. |
[Post edited 7 May 2014 21:39]
| | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:34 - May 7 with 919 views | jeza739 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:13 - May 7 by londonlisa2001 |
This thread has finally moved me to post for the first time in many years. A number of people have commented that they could tell that Roberto, Rodgers or Laudrup were going to be a success after 10 games and that they can tell that Garry Monk won't be after his games in charge. (I'm ignoring here some spectacular reworking of the comments that were made after certainly the first two of these appointments).
They seem to be deliberately missing one crucial difference - Roberto, Rodgers etc had a preseason to assess the squad, select the players that they wanted to add to that squad and implement the training style and tactics that they wanted without the interruption of crucial games once or twice a week. Garry Monk has not yet had this opportunity.
He took over a squad that was already in place - no additions were possible, and any changing of training, tactics etc have been restricted to an extent by the games to be played and the need for survival points.
No one can know what the team or playing style will look like until he has had a chance to choose his own players and work with the squad through a preseason. It's an easy criticism to say that the Board have chosen a cheap option, or should have looked to 'insert name of previously famous player' instead but if the appointment does work, and no one can say at this stage whether it will or not, then it could bring a much needed few years of stability to the club.
It may prove to be a mistake, in which case we can be sure that action would be taken, but some of the vitriol being spouted here is utterly without foundation. Surely the one thing that the club deserves is support - that doesn't mean that concern shouldn't be expressed, but comments such as 'we are definitely going to go down' or 'I can't wait to be proved right' are a disgrace. |
Spot on! Top post | | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:38 - May 7 with 903 views | PozuelosSideys |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:13 - May 7 by londonlisa2001 |
This thread has finally moved me to post for the first time in many years. A number of people have commented that they could tell that Roberto, Rodgers or Laudrup were going to be a success after 10 games and that they can tell that Garry Monk won't be after his games in charge. (I'm ignoring here some spectacular reworking of the comments that were made after certainly the first two of these appointments).
They seem to be deliberately missing one crucial difference - Roberto, Rodgers etc had a preseason to assess the squad, select the players that they wanted to add to that squad and implement the training style and tactics that they wanted without the interruption of crucial games once or twice a week. Garry Monk has not yet had this opportunity.
He took over a squad that was already in place - no additions were possible, and any changing of training, tactics etc have been restricted to an extent by the games to be played and the need for survival points.
No one can know what the team or playing style will look like until he has had a chance to choose his own players and work with the squad through a preseason. It's an easy criticism to say that the Board have chosen a cheap option, or should have looked to 'insert name of previously famous player' instead but if the appointment does work, and no one can say at this stage whether it will or not, then it could bring a much needed few years of stability to the club.
It may prove to be a mistake, in which case we can be sure that action would be taken, but some of the vitriol being spouted here is utterly without foundation. Surely the one thing that the club deserves is support - that doesn't mean that concern shouldn't be expressed, but comments such as 'we are definitely going to go down' or 'I can't wait to be proved right' are a disgrace. |
Im pretty sure most people werent impressed with Roberto's initial stint in charge at the back end of the 2006-07 season. He had about 15 games and we won about half of them.
Oddly, everyone only started to perk up after we had lost at Oldham on the first day of the new season and saw things which they hadnt before.
Just sayin' like.. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:48 - May 7 with 877 views | Chief |
I don't buy this stability argument. the fact that we have changed managers a lot over the years I believe has helped us evolve and use a wide range of contacts to full affect.
Unfortunately I cannot see Monk using any contacts he may have (if he has any) or altering our play for the better.
I hope i'm wrong |  |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:52 - May 7 with 867 views | snork44 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:31 - May 7 by C_jack |
Garry Monk was employed because of the way we play? You're off your rocker mun
The Pulis comparison wasn't intended to be taken literally, just an example that there's a reason why nobody in 20 seasons hasn't really given our genius plan a go. It's not so much breaking the mould, as to creating a whole new one from scratch with no idea wtf is going to happen. [Post edited 7 May 2014 21:32]
|
Well that is obvious,that he was chosen to continue the style we are playing! Who else out there could we have got at the time? I would loved Bielsia to have been appointed, but he is going to Marseille or Hoddle, but he had ruled himself out at the time. Just accept this, I wish we could have a way of pulling up the thread when Rodgers was appointed, because half of the people at that time were questioning the boards sanity when he was appointed! | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:53 - May 7 with 861 views | raynor94 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:48 - May 7 by Chief |
I don't buy this stability argument. the fact that we have changed managers a lot over the years I believe has helped us evolve and use a wide range of contacts to full affect.
Unfortunately I cannot see Monk using any contacts he may have (if he has any) or altering our play for the better.
I hope i'm wrong |
Ah for Christ sake not the " I hope I'm wrong" bollox! you obviously can't wait to come on here and say I told you so |  |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:57 - May 7 with 849 views | lifelong |
The decision has now been made and , as many posters have stated, we must get behind Garry and his staff and give them our full support.
I think the key for the following season is who stays and who leaves in the summer, if we can keep our main players and make a few quality additions then Garry will have a very good chance.
Should we lose the likes of Bony and Williams and fail to find suitable replacements we could have a very difficult season.
It's going to be an interesting summer. |  | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:01 - May 7 with 834 views | Chief |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:53 - May 7 by raynor94 |
Ah for Christ sake not the " I hope I'm wrong" bollox! you obviously can't wait to come on here and say I told you so |
so just because I've stated my opinion and made a few points to back it up, I apparently want him to fail?
how about replying to the rest of my thread instead of making unfounded, false stupid assumptions about me? | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:06 - May 7 with 817 views | Trundle10 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:53 - May 7 by raynor94 |
Ah for Christ sake not the " I hope I'm wrong" bollox! you obviously can't wait to come on here and say I told you so |
Do you really think anyone wants Monk to fail?? |  | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:07 - May 7 with 812 views | AngelRangelQS |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 21:17 - May 7 by Dr_Winston |
Martinez had no experience it's true, but Swansea were not in the Premier League when they appointed him.
Sousa had a year at QPR and three years experience of coaching in the Portuguese National system.
Rodgers and Laudrup had well over 20 years combined experience of coaching and management at various levels.
Monk has fifteen games. Of which he's won four. |
I don't disagree with you but 4 wins from 15 equates to just over 10 wins over the season which is hardly shocking. Last season we won 11. |  | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:08 - May 7 with 805 views | Chief |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:07 - May 7 by AngelRangelQS |
I don't disagree with you but 4 wins from 15 equates to just over 10 wins over the season which is hardly shocking. Last season we won 11. |
this season has been traumatic at times though! | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:10 - May 7 with 801 views | raynor94 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:01 - May 7 by Chief |
so just because I've stated my opinion and made a few points to back it up, I apparently want him to fail?
how about replying to the rest of my thread instead of making unfounded, false stupid assumptions about me? |
What! the point you make he has no contacts? how do you know that? for God's sake wait till the season starts before you sit in judgement. One thing I know about you is you don't know how to dress!  | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:11 - May 7 with 801 views | AngelRangelQS |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:08 - May 7 by Chief |
this season has been traumatic at times though! |
I meant last season as in the league cup winning season | | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:17 - May 7 with 775 views | Chief |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:10 - May 7 by raynor94 |
What! the point you make he has no contacts? how do you know that? for God's sake wait till the season starts before you sit in judgement. One thing I know about you is you don't know how to dress! |
ok so we should all stay silent until the season starts? what the hells the point in having a thread then? | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:19 - May 7 with 767 views | monmouth |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:17 - May 7 by Chief |
ok so we should all stay silent until the season starts? what the hells the point in having a thread then? |
now that is a damn fine question |  |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:34 - May 7 with 736 views | raynor94 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:06 - May 7 by Trundle10 |
Do you really think anyone wants Monk to fail?? |
Reading this thread there are some obviously gagging to say I told you so, read it | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:38 - May 7 with 719 views | raynor94 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:17 - May 7 by Chief |
ok so we should all stay silent until the season starts? what the hells the point in having a thread then? |
Well you made the point he has no contacts! so at least give a close season to show what he can fetch in | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:43 - May 7 with 709 views | Chief |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:38 - May 7 by raynor94 |
Well you made the point he has no contacts! so at least give a close season to show what he can fetch in |
so we can't comment on potential transfer targets or who we think he will get in either yet then? this site and thread will be redundant soon. | |
| |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:51 - May 7 with 693 views | AngelRangelQS |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:38 - May 7 by raynor94 |
Well you made the point he has no contacts! so at least give a close season to show what he can fetch in |
Apart from obviously 2 of the current top 5 premier league sides, an ex England manager and the current Scottish manager. | | | |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 23:15 - May 7 with 673 views | raynor94 |
| The official Garry's got the job debate thread on 22:43 - May 7 by Chief |
so we can't comment on potential transfer targets or who we think he will get in either yet then? this site and thread will be redundant soon. |
What on earth are you babbling on about you said he "has no contacts " I said wait and see, you are losing me now | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.