Why Should McDermott Have Been Given A Chance?

[Maneki Neko]

Genuine question.

Can someone who thinks this was a good idea explain why we were right to keep Clarke, whose record after 25 league games in charge at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F22 A33, GD -11

Compared to sacked McDermott, who's record after 25 league games at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F25, A34, GD -9

Bare in mind Clarke got a massive 3 extra points in his last six games, thanks to an unlikely final away win.

And were you clamouring for Clarke to go this time last year?

Personally, I thought the team as a whole looked better under Brian than it did at the same stage under Clarke.

May be because he bought in decent players like Quinn and McShane (contrast to McDonuts last few signings for us) and actually achieved something in his time in the Prem?

amend that to he bought in two decent players, Quinn and mcshane

[Maneki Neko]

Those last seven games
Safety was assured. There were two further factors at play. First factor, Brian was planning for next season and experimenting with his side. He was not choosing his best eleven. He was giving experience and game time to the lads that will be with us this up coming season. So we saw Cooper and not Hector. We saw Rakels and not Vydra. We saw Ola John and Piazon sidelined and width taken out of the team, so Brian experimented with this diamond which we all hated and could see didn't really work. Brian played that system because he wanted to experiment, see if he could make a new system work and give experience and minutes to next seasons players. He was right to do that because results no longer mattered as safety was assured. These were only meaningless friendlies at the end of the campaign.

A) He's a fool to think his bosses would be fine with 7 straight games of losing (if that is indeed what he thought - I don't think that's he is a fool, I think he just couldn't find a winning formula with his side, simple as that).

B) He stopped playing our loan players did he? errr not until right at the end of the season if I remember rightly.. hell, lets see for real:

Vs Birmingham: Piazon started, Vydra was brought on
Vs Boro: Piazon started, Vydra started, John was brought on, Taylor was brought on
Vs Leeds: Pizaon started, Vydra started, John came on
Vs. Hull: Vydra started, John came on
Vs QPR: WOAH. TAYLOR WAS THE ONLY LOANED PLAYER WHO STARTED - YOU MUST BE RIGHT!! (Vydra and Hec came on)
Vs. Preston: No loans.
Vs. Blackburn: No loans.

So really.. he only 'experimented' and threw in the towel with 3 games to go. For the other 4 months of his time, he played a confused starting 11 with 'experience-needers' like Cooper, yet 'best-starting-11'ers' like Vydra and Piazon. That's why he failed to get results.

financial constraints meant we had to play some of them, or lose even more money from our vanishing budget

[Forbury Lion]

I think any manager who comes in mid-season should be given a chance, otherwise why appoint them in the first place on a long contract It's a different story if it's clearly a short term "avoid relegation" deal that both parties sign up to.

You only sack a manager 6 months in if the club are heading for relegation and has lost the dressing room/can't turn things around and you need to roll the dice and try something. This was the case when we sacked Rogers. If we were higher up the table I would have wanted him to be given more time.

There are problems at the club, The board seem to be chopping and changing managers in the hope they find one that can deliver under the current conditions when in fact they should be looking at the bigger picture and trying to understand why the managerial appointments are not delivering as the club expect, why the players are not performing and perhaps more importantly, why it worked so well in the past.

They need someone respected like Coppell to come in and give a frank and honest assessment of the footballing side and set realistic expectations and timelines for a manager based on the squad available, funding available, academy outputs, players signed behind the managers back, competition etc etc. Maybe Coppell already did this as he was around the club before Brian's sacking? - Maybe they need to be open and honest about these conditions to any managerial recruits and find one that has a history of success in such conditions.

[Top Flight]

Are you suggesting that Coppell had some kind of hand in McDermott's sacking?

[Brian McDermott]

financial constraints meant we had to play some of them, or lose even more money from our vanishing budget

What on earth are you even saying? We didn't HAVE to play the loanees, there is no financial punishment for not playing them.

[Maneki Neko]

financial constraints meant we had to play some of them, or lose even more money from our vanishing budget

What on earth are you even saying? We didn't HAVE to play the loanees, there is no financial punishment for not playing them.

yes we did. some of the loans were on exactly the same terms as the deal struck with Chelsea for Chalobah the year before. as in Some/all of his wages to be paid by us, if he wasn't played when fit.

[Brian McDermott]

financial constraints meant we had to play some of them, or lose even more money from our vanishing budget

What on earth are you even saying? We didn't HAVE to play the loanees, there is no financial punishment for not playing them.

yes we did. some of the loans were on exactly the same terms as the deal struck with Chelsea for Chalobah the year before. as in Some/all of his wages to be paid by us, if he wasn't played when fit.

So, if we played them, we wouldn't pay their wages? Could be wrong (i'm sure you'll correct me if I am ), but don't you just pay a percentage of wages, and agree on how important that player will be in the team with their parent club?

[Maneki Neko]

So, if we played them, we wouldn't pay their wages?

yep. as with chalobah last season

don't you just pay a percentage of wages, and agree on how important that player will be in the team with their parent club?

whether a percentage, or all, its still a financial penalty
and for some reason clubs want guarantees that their loans wont just be sat on the bench all season. Clarke was happy to give those assurances in the form of the aforementioned deal structure.

[Vision]

Genuine question.

Can someone who thinks this was a good idea explain why we were right to keep Clarke, whose record after 25 league games in charge at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F22 A33, GD -11

Compared to sacked McDermott, who's record after 25 league games at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F25, A34, GD -9

Bare in mind Clarke got a massive 3 extra points in his last six games, thanks to an unlikely final away win.

And were you clamouring for Clarke to go this time last year?

Personally, I thought the team as a whole looked better under Brian than it did at the same stage under Clarke.

May be because he bought in decent players like Quinn and McShane (contrast to McDonuts last few signings for us) and actually achieved something in his time in the Prem?

Quinn and McShane came in the close season not in a January window so it's not comparable. Were Travner , Zat Knight and Yakubu signings that indicate Clarke should have been given time whereas Evans, Kermogant and Rakels (who the owners chose anyway) demonstrates McDermott shouldn't?

Clarke's "achieved something in his time in the Prem" consisted of taking over Roy Hodgson's firmly established side and after an initial short term period of good results began to oversee a slide towards relegation. Most Baggies fans would question this "achievement" you speak of.

[Maneki Neko]

Genuine question.

Can someone who thinks this was a good idea explain why we were right to keep Clarke, whose record after 25 league games in charge at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F22 A33, GD -11

Compared to sacked McDermott, who's record after 25 league games at the end of the season was:
P25, W6, D7, L12, F25, A34, GD -9

Bare in mind Clarke got a massive 3 extra points in his last six games, thanks to an unlikely final away win.

And were you clamouring for Clarke to go this time last year?

Personally, I thought the team as a whole looked better under Brian than it did at the same stage under Clarke.

May be because he bought in decent players like Quinn and McShane (contrast to McDonuts last few signings for us) and actually achieved something in his time in the Prem?

Quinn and McShane came in the close season not in a January window so it's not comparable. Were Travner , Zat Knight and Yakubu signings that indicate Clarke should have been given time whereas Evans, Kermogant and Rakels (who the owners chose anyway) demonstrates McDermott shouldn't?

POINT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[No Fixed Abode]

May be because he bought in decent players like Quinn and McShane (contrast to McDonuts last few signings for us) and actually achieved something in his time in the Prem?

Quinn and McShane came in the close season not in a January window so it's not comparable. Were Travner , Zat Knight and Yakubu signings that indicate Clarke should have been given time whereas Evans, Kermogant and Rakels (who the owners chose anyway) demonstrates McDermott shouldn't?

POINT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, that's what McDermott achieved out of a possible 18 (Eighteen) at the end of the season.

[Maneki Neko]

Wahey!

let it go Kes

your campaign of negativity has worked, hes gone, your revenge for clarkes dismissal is complete
go out and celebr8

[handbags_harris]

I don't see much difference between Clarke at the end of last season and McDermott at the end of this. Yet Clarke was given a summer and decent backing, while McDermott got the sack. In answer to the OP, that's why McDermott deserved his chance.

The Thais' next move is crucial to begin some sort of rebuilding process with the fans. They need to recruit a good manager, back him with funds, hold on to most of our best players and most importantly, give us a clear definition of their plans for the club.

Time will tell, but I don't trust them to get it right.

Agreed with everything on here, however, sadly all of the information I have is to not expect to be blown away by the appointment. And there are very few "funds" available due to the Thais backing both Clarke's judgement last summer and also bestowing him with additional players, so basically any money we saved from dispensing with Pogrebnyak, Drenthe, HRK, karacan, Federici, Pearce and Kelly (all of whom were on lucrative contracts to varying degrees) was shoved into the pockets of loanees and failed foreign mercenaries. And you can also expect the likes of Gunter, Williams and Norwood to be sold.

Clear definition of plans for the club?

[sandman]

I don't see much difference between Clarke at the end of last season and McDermott at the end of this. Yet Clarke was given a summer and decent backing, while McDermott got the sack. In answer to the OP, that's why McDermott deserved his chance.

The Thais' next move is crucial to begin some sort of rebuilding process with the fans. They need to recruit a good manager, back him with funds, hold on to most of our best players and most importantly, give us a clear definition of their plans for the club.

Time will tell, but I don't trust them to get it right.

Agreed with everything on here, however, sadly all of the information I have is to not expect to be blown away by the appointment. And there are very few "funds" available due to the Thais backing both Clarke's judgement last summer and also bestowing him with additional players, so basically any money we saved from dispensing with Pogrebnyak, Drenthe, HRK, karacan, Federici, Pearce and Kelly (all of whom were on lucrative contracts to varying degrees) was shoved into the pockets of loanees and failed foreign mercenaries. And you can also expect the likes of Gunter, Williams and Norwood to be sold.

Clear definition of plans for the club?

So not all bad then.

[Vision]

I don't see much difference between Clarke at the end of last season and McDermott at the end of this. Yet Clarke was given a summer and decent backing, while McDermott got the sack. In answer to the OP, that's why McDermott deserved his chance.

The Thais' next move is crucial to begin some sort of rebuilding process with the fans. They need to recruit a good manager, back him with funds, hold on to most of our best players and most importantly, give us a clear definition of their plans for the club.

Time will tell, but I don't trust them to get it right.

Agreed with everything on here, however, sadly all of the information I have is to not expect to be blown away by the appointment. And there are very few "funds" available due to the Thais backing both Clarke's judgement last summer and also bestowing him with additional players, so basically any money we saved from dispensing with Pogrebnyak, Drenthe, HRK, karacan, Federici, Pearce and Kelly (all of whom were on lucrative contracts to varying degrees) was shoved into the pockets of loanees and failed foreign mercenaries. And you can also expect the likes of Gunter, Williams and Norwood to be sold.

Clear definition of plans for the club?

So not all bad then.

Aye Every Cloud an' all that. Before you know it Federici will be back.

[John Smith]

Yes, that's what McDermott achieved out of a possible 18 (Eighteen) at the end of the season.

And that's the facts. Whilst everyone loves McDermott he wasn't doing a good job.

[Top Flight]

Yes, that's what McDermott achieved out of a possible 18 (Eighteen) at the end of the season.

And that's the facts. Whilst everyone loves McDermott he wasn't doing a good job.

You wouldn't know how to judge John Smith. And No Fixed Abode is a Chelsea fan who is enjoying watching the carnage at RFC.

[AthleticoSpizz]

NFA is a bigger Reading fan than a lot of Reading fans

Why else be so knowledgeable and concerned about us on here?

He has a few log-ons

[Maneki Neko]

theyre all chelsea fans though

[Ian Royal]

I don't see much difference between Clarke at the end of last season and McDermott at the end of this. Yet Clarke was given a summer and decent backing, while McDermott got the sack. In answer to the OP, that's why McDermott deserved his chance.

The Thais' next move is crucial to begin some sort of rebuilding process with the fans. They need to recruit a good manager, back him with funds, hold on to most of our best players and most importantly, give us a clear definition of their plans for the club.

Time will tell, but I don't trust them to get it right.

Agreed with everything on here, however, sadly all of the information I have is to not expect to be blown away by the appointment. And there are very few "funds" available due to the Thais backing both Clarke's judgement last summer and also bestowing him with additional players, so basically any money we saved from dispensing with Pogrebnyak, Drenthe, HRK, karacan, Federici, Pearce and Kelly (all of whom were on lucrative contracts to varying degrees) was shoved into the pockets of loanees and failed foreign mercenaries. And you can also expect the likes of Gunter, Williams and Norwood to be sold.

Clear definition of plans for the club?

Gunter - YAY!
Williams - Yeah, if good money that's fine.
Norwood - BOOOOOO

You almost had me back in the happy camp then.