Life after Brendan

[Alan Partridge]

After the caretaker spell I wasn't sure Brian/Heston was the right man for the job. One thing I thought he'd got spot on in that time regardless of the elague results was he simplified things. Picked a formation and the players to play it, and despite the results there was some improvement.

What has happened since he got the job full time has been miraculous almost. Will gladly say my doubts have proved to be wrong, as the team is playing wininng football and some decent stuff as well at times. The good thing about this run is it's had differing tests which the team has passed with flying colours. The added pressure of the Plymouth match, the team grinded out the win, Palace have done well of late and we outplayed them as well as Doncaster and they also outscrapped an improving Barnsley.

His signings have been the major difference between him and Rodgers along with the obvious favoured 4-4-2. It was absolutely evident this team needed some more leaders, experience and quality in defense. Mills re inclusion gives us more mobility back there, Griffin has been excellent and Khizinishvilli just looks a good player to me. Composed, good defender, at this level him and Griffin are EASILY good enough. Now had Rodgers had the nouse to pick up a few of these proven players instead of gambles like Cummings and persisting with players who at this minute aren't up to the task he may have had a bit more joy.

Off the field another massive difference between the two, is their characters. McDermott seems down to earth, genuine and is a likeable person. Rodgers had models, skillful soldiers, flash cars, watches and absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Man Friday]

I'm not sure he is the best man to progress in subsequent years as he's, basically, a scout who's made a few prudent loan signings and engendered a bit of team spirit and fight.

Correction: He was a scout. Winston Churchill was a second-rate, washed-out, has-been MP. John Madejski was a car salesman. Can't people rise from "humble" beginnings?

[Woodcote Royal]

Only time will tell.

That last sentence counts for more than the other four paragraghs.

The point is we didn't have time for the "Rodgers Project" and, the fact he appeared oblivious to this state of affairs and was incapable/unwilling to respond to our impending relegation, made him the wrong for man the job and a disaster waiting to happen.

McDermott shows with every passing game that removing Rodgers was the right decision and his appointment a huge mistake..........................and that the board was spot on in responding when they did.

I would have been happy for McDermott to have been appointed until the end of the season but as he's currently getting more out of Rodgers low budget squad than Coppell managed last season from his former Premiership charges, I believe he's already earned his rolling 12 month contract.

[Man Friday]

No doubt if we lose the next two and slump back into the bottom three, popular HNA opinion will swing back the other way once more

Fans in judging a manager by his results shock.

Stupid comment.

The point is that you should have an opinion and hold it, not change it with the wind depending on our results. One week Jimmy's the worst player ever, the next week he's getting cheered to the rafters. One week Shane Long will never make it, the next he's a goal machine destined for the premiership.

Fickle is as fickle does.

"In short, you have no response to any point I raise. Didn't think so." Wonder who said that?

[Schards#2]

I'm not sure he is the best man to progress in subsequent years as he's, basically, a scout who's made a few prudent loan signings and engendered a bit of team spirit and fight.

Correction: He was a scout. Winston Churchill was a second-rate, washed-out, has-been MP. John Madejski was a car salesman. Can't people rise from "humble" beginnings?

Yes, hence "I'm not sure" as opposed to "he is not".

[Man Friday]

As good a job as he's doing though, I share Schards is worry that he isn't the man to take us on once he's secured our Championship status. It's one thing getting a group of players to perform in the short term, it's a totally different proposition to build and evolve a squad over time.

That's speculation. The "facts" are that McD has got 14 points from his 9 league matches which is a darn sight more from any run of 9 matches under BR.

[fester_royal]

[John Madejski was a car salesman.

was he not actually a bum with on off affiliations with the evening post? who struck it lucky when with a friend in america saw a car magazine out there and brought the idea back to the uk?

[fester_royal]

as little as buck did for us it does make me a little sad to see all the abuse he gets. after all he is a local man with strong connections to the club. he was a gamble and we all knew it. but i think a fair few wanted him to do well, the 'local boy comes good story'. sadly he took on a bigger challenge than he was used to and made too many early mistakes he couldnt recover from.

[papereyes]

I did LOL WUT at the Churchill comment.

[Ian Royal]

I'm not sure he is the best man to progress in subsequent years as he's, basically, a scout who's made a few prudent loan signings and engendered a bit of team spirit and fight.

Correction: He was a scout. Winston Churchill was a second-rate, washed-out, has-been MP. John Madejski was a car salesman. Can't people rise from "humble" beginnings?

Yes, hence "I'm not sure" as opposed to "he is not".

I'd say McDermott has already shown better management skills and tactical nous than Rodgers ever did. McDermott seems to work with what he's got, whereas Rodgers seemed to want to do it his way regardless of what he'd got and how it was going.

So I'm quite positive about him being able to build a team. He looks to be able to identify strengths and weaknesses in his squad, play to the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. As has been said ... time will tell. I for one am now happy that we can actually afford that time now.

[Ian Royal]

as little as buck did for us it does make me a little sad to see all the abuse he gets. after all he is a local man with strong connections to the club. he was a gamble and we all knew it. but i think a fair few wanted him to do well, the 'local boy comes good story'. sadly he took on a bigger challenge than he was used to and made too many early mistakes he couldnt recover from.

Generally I'd agree, but he made a rod for his own back with his media and expectation handling. I want him to do well in future. I'd even be happy for him to come back in 5 - 10 years if he does well. But he's got a lot of learning to do. I'd like to see him take on a number two job for an experienced manager. I think that's his best way to improve.

[Schards#2]

as little as buck did for us it does make me a little sad to see all the abuse he gets. after all he is a local man with strong connections to the club. he was a gamble and we all knew it. but i think a fair few wanted him to do well, the 'local boy comes good story'. sadly he took on a bigger challenge than he was used to and made too many early mistakes he couldnt recover from.

Generally I'd agree, but he made a rod for his own back with his media and expectation handling. I want him to do well in future. I'd even be happy for him to come back in 5 - 10 years if he does well. But he's got a lot of learning to do. I'd like to see him take on a number two job for an experienced manager. I think that's his best way to improve.

To sum up Rodger's reign in a simplistic cliched sentance:

I think he tried to run before he could walk and tried to make our inexperienced squad run before it could walk by using all sorts of complicated tactics and changing formations repeatedly during games

[Ian Royal]

Agree. but I think you missed out "whilst also failing to pick anything approaching a consistent 11."

[Hoop Blah]

As good a job as he's doing though, I share Schards is worry that he isn't the man to take us on once he's secured our Championship status. It's one thing getting a group of players to perform in the short term, it's a totally different proposition to build and evolve a squad over time.

That's speculation. The "facts" are that McD has got 14 points from his 9 league matches which is a darn sight more from any run of 9 matches under BR.

Of course it's speculation.

He's not got any record to speak of in the area's I've expressed a concern. That obviously doen't mean he can't do it, but it means that we're taking another gamble on how successful he can be at it in the future.

I've said before that manager (and player) recuitment isn't all about how they've done at such and such a club before because every club is different and every appointment is under different circumstance. That means that, like almost any other recruitment, you need to do it based on how you think that person will suceed and that's influenced just as much by their character and your perception and belief in their judgement as their previous record of achievement.

[Elm Park Old Boy]

I'm surprised we're still having this argument. I didn't especially want Rodgers appointed, but at the time of his dismissal would not have wanted him sacked. But he's gone and for whatever reason we're playing like a side transformed. Hallelujah. Let's move on.

[Hoop Blah]

To sum up Rodger's reign in a simplistic cliched sentance:

I think he tried to run before he could walk and tried to make our inexperienced squad run before it could walk by using all sorts of complicated tactics and changing formations repeatedly during games

I think that's pretty much it. Has McDermotts been that much different though? He definately seems to have simplified his instructions but he's also chopped and changed the side and formation when appropriate.

He also had the benefit of Rodgers going through the painful process of trying to blend a new squad together and find a new team and formation that works. His last few weeks or so saw a much more settle approach to tactics and team selection, and results and performances were much better because of it. Personally I still think Rodgers latter performances were technically superior to the last 4 or 5 under McDermott, but thankfully McDermott is getting the results and thats the main thing at the moment.

Rodgers was also under the impression that he was building for the future. He was looking to do that by installing a new brand of football and a new squad. He then had that ripped from under him. That was a bit harsh in my book, but it's the reality of football managment I guess.

[Ian Royal]

McDermott's changes have been small, few and remaining generally consistent with the overall game plan.

A straight up 4-4-2 with two defensive midfielders, one wide player and one cutting inside -> a simple 4-5-1 with two defensive midfielders, one operating just behind the striker and two wide players.

I doubt MaccyD has made more than three changes in players between matches. And several of his few changes have been suspension / injury enforced.

So I'd say there is a pretty big difference actually.

Rodgers paid no heed to the present, sacrificing it for his plans for the future. Which would have been meaningless had we got relegated.

[Hoop Blah]

Not that different from the latter days of Rodgers time, which as I said was quite different from the first month or so where he was chopping and changing whilst assessing the capability of the squad in various formations.

[LoyalRoyal22]

After the caretaker spell I wasn't sure Brian/Heston was the right man for the job. One thing I thought he'd got spot on in that time regardless of the elague results was he simplified things. Picked a formation and the players to play it, and despite the results there was some improvement.

What has happened since he got the job full time has been miraculous almost. Will gladly say my doubts have proved to be wrong, as the team is playing wininng football and some decent stuff as well at times. The good thing about this run is it's had differing tests which the team has passed with flying colours. The added pressure of the Plymouth match, the team grinded out the win, Palace have done well of late and we outplayed them as well as Doncaster and they also outscrapped an improving Barnsley.

His signings have been the major difference between him and Rodgers along with the obvious favoured 4-4-2. It was absolutely evident this team needed some more leaders, experience and quality in defense. Mills re inclusion gives us more mobility back there, Griffin has been excellent and Khizinishvilli just looks a good player to me. Composed, good defender, at this level him and Griffin are EASILY good enough. Now had Rodgers had the nouse to pick up a few of these proven players instead of gambles like Cummings and persisting with players who at this minute aren't up to the task he may have had a bit more joy.

Off the field another massive difference between the two, is their characters. McDermott seems down to earth, genuine and is a likeable person. Rodgers had models, skillful soldiers, flash cars, watches and absolutely nothing to back it up.

What you talking about? all our good results recently has been with the 4-4-1-1 formation, which is what brendan was playing before he got sacked.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

You need the support of the players to be a succesful manager.