Is stability really the best policy?

[pauld]

malpas has even managed to turn mcnamee from a confident skillfull player into a player low on confidence

Seem to remember when Macca first signed, he was low on confidence and his flashes of skill were fitful at best. And plenty of people at the time slated him as being shit, and Malpas as an idiot for signing him. So if he did then become a confident skillful player does Malpas not get the credit for that as well as the blame for subsequently, by your argument, ruining his confidence and skill? Or maybe he's always been a bit inconsistent and hence the reason we were able to sign him at all.

[leefer]

When the going gets tuf.....Macca dosnt get going.......will be a force if we ever get the confidence back into the team.

[Don Rogers Shop]

My confidence would go if i was being replaced on the wing by timlin tbh though paul

[pauld]

When the going gets tuf.....Macca dosnt get going.......will be a force if we ever get the confidence back into the team.

Oh, absolutely. Wasn't having a go at Macca - I liked him from the moment we signed him and spent several months telling my seat-neighbours he was a decent player who'd come good, then several months after that being smug about it. I was just making the point that in some instances people are using the same arguments against Malpas both ways. And they don't need to - it's about results and performances. If they turn round, he'll stay and we'll all be happy (erm, assuming quite a big turnround there, obviously); if they don't he'll go. Simple as. All this bollocks about second-guessing whether a player would have been better/worse with one manager or another, or crap leaked from the dressing room by players with an axe to grind is just irrelevant. Results and performances. That's it.

[pauld]

My confidence would go if i was being replaced on the wing by timlin tbh though paul

If any Swindon manager EVER played you on the wing, I'd be calling for his head immediately

[Don Rogers Shop]

Haha i would do as good a job as some of them at the moment

[Simon Pieman]

I may of misunderstood but i would imagine the compo would pay for new managment. Cant remember the last time a manager left purely due to his contract ending. Fwiw i think stfcere has a good point

The problem with changing managers is the changing of personnel on the pitch that comes with it. You get into situations where you're limited by budget because the likes of Pook are still under contract. How did Sturrock finance the playing budget? He sold two of our supposed rising stars. Many would argue that if you keep your talented players you will go places anyway.

FWIW, I don't think we need a big name manager, we just need someone who is decent at organising a team and making them play. I'd actually look a league or two below to get a decent manager and they'd probably stay off the radar for a season or two.

[Batch]

I'd actually look a league or two below to get a decent manager and they'd probably stay off the radar for a season or two.

I wouldn't, well not an unproven from the conference anyway. Too risky in our situation. Look at the Gills.

I know cost and availability may be prohibitive right now but assuming Malpas doesn't turn it around, we need someone to step in who the players and fans believe in. Unfortunately "Sturrocks" don't grow on trees.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

Is Stimson still at the Gills? The reason i asked is because it was a bit like Iffy for us when he took over a shite team but they seem to be doing well in League 2.

[Colin Todd]

To be honest I agree with the original post.

At a club like Swindon the only way you can maintain stability is by mediocre performances on the pitch.  If the team achieves anything the chances of the manager leaving increase massivly, if the team does badly the manager gets sacked.

I'm not bothered about a big name manager, I'd just like a competant one who had a track record of achieving something ie. promotion(s). I'd also look at teh context of the managers achievements. I dont really classify Calderwood getting Forest out of L1 at the 2nd attempt as much of an achievement to be honest given their spending power and wage budget. Any half decent manager should have achieved that, better ones would have managed it at the 1st time of asking.

[flammableBen]

Depends what you mean by "Big Name" I suppose. Anybody with a decent record is going to be a sort of name and command a higher fee. I think people sometimes talk across each other a bit with different meanings of big/proven, but your not going to get a cheap proven manager and any "big" name which is cheap (someone pointed out Ince at Macclesfield in a different thread) is just as much a risk as an unknown appointment.

People say we should just appoint this guaranteed successful manager who they don't mind using the club as a stepping stone as if you can just go and get one off a shelf. We've been rather fortunate so far:

Colin Todd would have been more of a disaster if we hadn't got lucky with him going to Derby and had had to sack him and pay him of.

Roy Evans couldn't hack it without the luxury of a big budget (a risk with a "big" name I guess) and resigned, which is free.

There was no guarantee that Dennis Wise was going to work out well, in fact more than a few were fairly sceptical if I remember correctly. It's easy to look back with hindsight and say yeah lets just appoint someone like that again, but Wise could have been an expensive disaster. He certainly didn't guarantee success.

As far as any manager was guaranteed to make us progress then I guess it was Sturrock. But then it's not like you can just get a manager like that off the shelf. His take the first job offer attitude was pretty helpful too.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just a case of appointing a certain type of manager and we're guaranteed to get in this cycle of compensation when they move on. It sounds nice but it's an overly simple way of looking at things. And even if you could just pick these managers of the shelf then there's still a risk that they'll fuck up and the club will have to pay them off, at a higher cost that you'll likely to get with people like Malpas.

[tans]

we have to accept we will be a stepping stone for managers and players, if Malpas turned it round starting tomorrow and we get promoted he would fuck off to a better team if a offer came in, but he wont, he will get sacked after yet 2 more home defeats

you just made me spit coffee over the screen with that comment, nice one

[tans]

If MM goes King will be back... 

[EB1]

I think what is needed is a good management TEAM.  Most of our successful managers in recent years have had good assistants or coaches to support them.  Examples being Sturrock, Hoddle, Macari/Ardilles and, with the risk of being crucified by the TEF mafia, even Andy King was reasonable when Crosby was his assistant.

[Colin Todd]

Depends what you mean by "Big Name" I suppose. Anybody with a decent record is going to be a sort of name and command a higher fee. I think people sometimes talk across each other a bit with different meanings of big/proven, but your not going to get a cheap proven manager and any "big" name which is cheap (someone pointed out Ince at Macclesfield in a different thread) is just as much a risk as an unknown appointment.

People say we should just appoint this guaranteed successful manager who they don't mind using the club as a stepping stone as if you can just go and get one off a shelf. We've been rather fortunate so far:

Colin Todd would have been more of a disaster if we hadn't got lucky with him going to Derby and had had to sack him and pay him of.

Roy Evans couldn't hack it without the luxury of a big budget (a risk with a "big" name I guess) and resigned, which is free.

There was no guarantee that Dennis Wise was going to work out well, in fact more than a few were fairly sceptical if I remember correctly. It's easy to look back with hindsight and say yeah lets just appoint someone like that again, but Wise could have been an expensive disaster. He certainly didn't guarantee success.

As far as any manager was guaranteed to make us progress then I guess it was Sturrock. But then it's not like you can just get a manager like that off the shelf. His take the first job offer attitude was pretty helpful too.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just a case of appointing a certain type of manager and we're guaranteed to get in this cycle of compensation when they move on. It sounds nice but it's an overly simple way of looking at things. And even if you could just pick these managers of the shelf then there's still a risk that they'll fuck up and the club will have to pay them off, at a higher cost that you'll likely to get with people like Malpas.

Obviously nothing is guaranteed.  But you have to say that the probability of someone with a decent track record being sucessful here is greater than that of someone with a poor / unproven record.

All managers have to start somewhere, and we have a better record than most in the last couple of decades for giving mangers their 1st opportunity and it working out well. But I dont think that now is the time for appionting a rookie.