What's new

Next Manager (post Poch)

Your choice for next manager

  • Total voters
    114
nonotnowjim said:
I didnt want Potter sacked, and thought on balance, that Poch should have been given more time.

You can mock all you like, but my position has been consistent - unlike others who flip flop with every good/bad result.

- I have been consistent that I saw this as a long-term project, and that there would be a lot of short-term painful results before we see progress

- I have been consistent that the new manager should be judged on the evolution and progress of the team, moving us away from a slow and passive side that passes around aimlessly between our defenders for 20 mins at a time, to something more progressive.

- I have been consistent that, given the first bullet point,  the manager should not be judged on results, and that if we were seeing enough progress in the style and identity, that I could take poor results for the long term greater good.

- I have been consistent that the results under Potter were not good enough - but that in my opinion, we were seeing enough small signs of progress to justify giving him more time.

- I have been consistent that the results under Poch were also not good enough - and in my opinion, we were not seeing enough signs of progress on the pitch - Despite this,  I thought on balance that, and given a lack of exciting alternatives, that he had just about done enough to stay on.

So - it is all very consistent, balanced and justified. Poch did not show sufficient progress in moving our team on from the slow and ponderous play we have watched for years. He did not show any progress in our ability to defend a cross. He also failed to get the team to control games. He also failed to get the best out of some expensive players.  He also failed to show on a consistent basis that he could change the outcome of a game with tactical tweaks or subs. He also consistently had his team struggle badly in the 2nd half. These are all widely agreed on points, that are difficult to argue.

Perhaps I should act like a self entitled child like some of our fans who demand instant success and change my view on a manager 30 times per season.
Click to expand...
What improvement was that under Potter? Being in 10th place and not being able to score? We won 5 games on the bounce with Pochettino, and absolutely thumped Everton and West Ham. 

There was definitely improvement under Poch, keep masking it all you like, it's clear as day you're biased for one and not the other. 

The correct answer is both of them didn't do a good enough job. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drogba1 said:
Don't think Potter was ever that good but you're spot on about Poch.

We looked great after inverting Cucurella but prior to that, there was every reason to sack him.

As for why the board got rid of Poch once things looked like they were turning around is bizarre to me, especially if we're now gambling on an unproven appointment.
Click to expand...
You know, I can absolutely tolerate people saying Pochettino deserved the sack and wasn't good enough. But to say that then on the other hand defend Potter, you can f**k right off. 

 
Ipswich last season were only 10th in passes completed, which I guess means the football will be pretty direct.

Have any teams using direct styles really had success in the Prem recently? Maybe Conte?




 
Last edited by a moderator:
JM7 said:
“Understand that Kieran McKenna's representatives remain in talks with Chelsea and Brighton, with the Ipswich manager thought to prefer a move to Stamford Bridge at this stage. McKenna is also on Manchester United's shortlist to replace Erik ten Hag if he leaves“

Still don’t believe it 
Click to expand...
I believe he is in talks with Brighton.

 
Victor90 said:
What improvement was that under Potter? Being in 10th place and not being able to score? We won 5 games on the bounce with Pochettino, and absolutely thumped Everton and West Ham. 

There was definitely improvement under Poch, keep masking it all you like, it's clear as day you're biased for one and not the other. 

The correct answer is both of them didn't do a good enough job. 
Click to expand...
See - You are talking about league position and wins on the bounce - which is the same as results. I have been very clear that I think we should not judge on results at this time  - if we are seeing progress elsewhere.

Potter wasnt doing good enough - I accepted that and acknowledged it at the time. I expected more progress in the evolution of the team during his short stint with us, than what we got.

But go back and watch the games. There was more control, more defensive shape and organisation than we have seen this season , and we were moving the ball at times progressively. Go and watch the defeat against villa (which I think was one of his last games), go and watch the games against Milan and Dortmund. We were playing some lovely stuff at times,  only to be outdone by awful finishing.

The problem on here is that some people don't see nuance. They see that I didnt think Potter should be sacked, and automatically think that I was some huge fan who thought he was brilliant. Others see I have criticised Poch for the lack of progress and control, and think I hated him and wanted him sacked....

 
Drogba1 said:
Don't think Potter was ever that good but you're spot on about Poch.

We looked great after inverting Cucurella but prior to that, there was every reason to sack him.

As for why the board got rid of Poch once things looked like they were turning around is bizarre to me, especially if we're now gambling on an unproven appointment.
Click to expand...
We didnt look great after inverting cucurella.  That is fake news that has been spread because we actually got some results....but not because we solved our systemic problems.

- Yes - we won a handful of games, as we struggled to get over the line against bournemouth, forest and brighton.

For context....

- Against Bournemouth we had very little control of the game, and had a last gasp connor tackle and a dom solanke special over the bar, to thank for the 3 pts.  They were battering us at the end.

- Against forest we were absolutely rubbish for most of the game - it was some of the worst football we have seen (just go and read the match thread) and we were fortunate to win, with late goals from sterling and jackson to spare us from a loss.

- against brighton we were ok - but were holding on for dear life at the end.

- we beat spurs 2v0, and looked ok, but perhaps this was because we stopped trying to pass it around at the back. Instead Spurs controlled the game with 62% posession, and had more shots and corners than us....but their shooting accuracy was 15% that game. We played better against spurs and west ham - but you need to look at the context of the form of both of those teams at that time.

- We spanked a hapless westham who had nothing left to play for. so I will give him credit for that.

So out of the last 5 games, we played well against west ham, ok against spurs and brighton, and pretty rubbish against forest and bournemouth. That does not equal "great"

 
timetowaste said:
I think it'll be De Zerbi after all this.
Click to expand...
Maybe its John Mousinho. The guy got Portsmouth promoted to the championship after taking over 15 months ago. Name sounds like a winner too. 

By the time he gets Portsmouth promoted to the PL next season he'll be in demand with City, Real and Barca all lining up for him. The owners know he's the real deal so why wait.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
nonotnowjim said:
We didnt look great after inverting cucurella.  That is fake news that has been spread because we actually got some results....but not because we solved our systemic problems.

- Yes - we won a handful of games, as we struggled to get over the line against bournemouth, forest and brighton.

For context....

- Against Bournemouth we had very little control of the game, and had a last gasp connor tackle and a dom solanke special over the bar, to thank for the 3 pts.  They were battering us at the end.

- Against forest we were absolutely rubbish for most of the game - it was some of the worst football we have seen (just go and read the match thread) and we were fortunate to win, with late goals from sterling and jackson to spare us from a loss.

- against brighton we were ok - but were holding on for dear life at the end.

- we beat spurs 2v0, and looked ok, but perhaps this was because we stopped trying to pass it around at the back. Instead Spurs controlled the game with 62% posession, and had more shots and corners than us....but their shooting accuracy was 15% that game. We played better against spurs and west ham - but you need to look at the context of the form of both of those teams at that time.

- We spanked a hapless westham who had nothing left to play for. so I will give him credit for that.

So out of the last 5 games, we played well against west ham, ok against spurs and brighton, and pretty rubbish against forest and bournemouth. That does not equal "great"
Click to expand...
Can't dispute any of that tbh.

 
I am enjoying all the different journos and YouTube people reporting McKenna is favorite, no sky say maresca is, no the mystery guy is, no the Shed End report Zeta is etc...

Is funny stuff.

 
McKenna is now best priced evens on the main betting sites, with even a touch of odds on at one or two of them. As the saying goes "The bookies rarely get it wrong"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top