| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? 17:10 - Dec 2 with 4000 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
as Town fans? 6 months is it? 9?
Asking for a friend. |  |
| |  |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 08:36 - Dec 3 with 648 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
It depends on budget they have relative to the league they are in |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 08:58 - Dec 3 with 633 views | Keaneish |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 22:06 - Dec 2 by Yallop |
89/90 season under John Duncan we finished 9th.
90/91 season under John Lyall we finished 14th. |
Burley also failed to keep us up, although understandable and easily forgiven considering what he inherited. The point remains though, failure and mediocrity has been evident in some of our most successful managers. |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 09:32 - Dec 3 with 611 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 22:19 - Dec 2 by jayessess |
Look up the meaning of the word "usually" and get back to me. |
So what does that "No appointment in Ipswich Town's history" bit of that sentence mean then? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 09:34 - Dec 3 with 610 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 22:22 - Dec 2 by chrismakin |
I've achieved plenty thank you. I'll continue to change my opinion depending on the circumstances involved. I was you once with PC. After a while 1 thing will frustrate you and before you know it that frustrating leads to annoyance and then you get to the stage your eyes open to his limitations. But hey. We all hope he sorts it out. No one likes a person to lose a job they've tried hard at. |
That's changing your opinion once, though, which you haven't done. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 09:36 - Dec 3 with 609 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 22:29 - Dec 2 by chrismakin |
Also.. football has changed drastically since those days
With financial restrictions at play and the owners needing to see their investments going somewhere it needs progress to be shown in both performance and results.
We need to be able to sell players. To sell players they need to perform. If the manager fails to get them going. It can all go sour very quickly.
These people saying time has shown patience works.
Flip side..
Time showed that Evans financial input didn't take us up. The rest is history.
None of us have a clue what level of patience these new owners have and how long they'd throw money into the club without promotion. |
Time wasn't the issue with Evans. It was poor appointments and not enough investment for the league we were in. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 09:40 - Dec 3 with 600 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 22:45 - Dec 2 by jayessess |
The post which The Flashing Smile called nonsense (are you the same person, did you forget to log out of your sockpuppet?) was about what usually happens with managers.
As is happens I didn't say every finish was above par, but rather than they were all perfectly respectable for a club of Ipswich's size and resources. Which, whilst 14th in 1990 was certainly on the low end of respectable, is still true. |
After finishing 5th, 8th, 8th, 9th you think 14th was respectable?!? If Cook had us 14th after those finishes you'd be saying "Carry on fella, you're doing a great job" would you?! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:08 - Dec 3 with 561 views | mylittletown |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 18:33 - Dec 2 by Keaneish |
Everything everyone asked to be changed last season has been changed. Now people are too impatient to wait for those changes to bring success and are too short-sighted to even remember what they wanted changed in the first place - the same people now demanding, er…change.
When you think about that as a paradigm, you kind of realise either how stupid some ITFC supporters are or how banal and flawed the human condition is.
Cook stays. We learn, we iterate, we build…this is what brings sustained success. |
What a load of rot. Banal and flawed thinking, in fact.
What builds sustained success is having a good management team.
When you make sweeping changes, which in our case were much needed, it is entirely possible to make mistakes. When you make mistakes, it is essential to be realistic about it and sort them out asap.
In my view, keeping Cook on was a mistake, and I am far from convinced by Ashton. |  | | |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:14 - Dec 3 with 556 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:08 - Dec 3 by mylittletown |
What a load of rot. Banal and flawed thinking, in fact.
What builds sustained success is having a good management team.
When you make sweeping changes, which in our case were much needed, it is entirely possible to make mistakes. When you make mistakes, it is essential to be realistic about it and sort them out asap.
In my view, keeping Cook on was a mistake, and I am far from convinced by Ashton. |
Wow, I can understand people being miffed at Cook, but what has Ashton done wrong? I think it's extraordinary how many deals he managed to secure in such a short space of time. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:15 - Dec 3 with 551 views | MaySixth |
No |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:36 - Dec 3 with 541 views | mylittletown |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:14 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Wow, I can understand people being miffed at Cook, but what has Ashton done wrong? I think it's extraordinary how many deals he managed to secure in such a short space of time. |
Admittedly he did some shrewd wheeler dealing at Bristol City, but the fact remains that after 5 years of his reign, with huge funding from Steve Lansdown, they ended up 19th in the Championship last season, almost exactly where they were when he arrived.
Arriving at ITFC and bringing in 19 new players in the summer, was at best a high risk strategy, some might say a foolhardy strategy. We'll see how it pans out, I guess, but so far it is not looking great. I hope that the new players prove me wrong. | | | |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:48 - Dec 3 with 517 views | jayessess |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 09:32 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So what does that "No appointment in Ipswich Town's history" bit of that sentence mean then? |
It's a fairly straightforward sentence.
"No appointment in Ipswich Town's history supports the assertion that good managerial stints usually begin with 9 months of sustained poor form."
Since 1990 we've had 10 permanent managerial appointments. Do their records support the assertion that good managerial stints usually begin with 9 months of poor form? |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:49 - Dec 3 with 512 views | timothyeo |
Is there another set of fans in the world of football who set a fixed length of time for how long you give a manager?
At every other club its generally based on performance. Cook has significantly under delivered for a long time now - he was lucky to keep his job after the awful run last season, underperforming a manager who was sacked for..underperforming. |  | | |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:04 - Dec 3 with 486 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:36 - Dec 3 by mylittletown |
Admittedly he did some shrewd wheeler dealing at Bristol City, but the fact remains that after 5 years of his reign, with huge funding from Steve Lansdown, they ended up 19th in the Championship last season, almost exactly where they were when he arrived.
Arriving at ITFC and bringing in 19 new players in the summer, was at best a high risk strategy, some might say a foolhardy strategy. We'll see how it pans out, I guess, but so far it is not looking great. I hope that the new players prove me wrong. |
Ashton just gets the deals done, he doesn't choose the players or pick the team. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:06 - Dec 3 with 484 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:48 - Dec 3 by jayessess |
It's a fairly straightforward sentence.
"No appointment in Ipswich Town's history supports the assertion that good managerial stints usually begin with 9 months of sustained poor form."
Since 1990 we've had 10 permanent managerial appointments. Do their records support the assertion that good managerial stints usually begin with 9 months of poor form? |
I'm not getting into semantics with you. The facts are our most successful managers in that period (Burley and Lyall) initially had months of sustained poor form. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:12 - Dec 3 with 478 views | chrismakin |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:06 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not getting into semantics with you. The facts are our most successful managers in that period (Burley and Lyall) initially had months of sustained poor form. |
I think taking over a relegation doomed town is slightly different to taking a 7th place side in league 1 chasing playoffs. |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:13 - Dec 3 with 479 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:49 - Dec 3 by timothyeo |
Is there another set of fans in the world of football who set a fixed length of time for how long you give a manager?
At every other club its generally based on performance. Cook has significantly under delivered for a long time now - he was lucky to keep his job after the awful run last season, underperforming a manager who was sacked for..underperforming. |
How on earth can you not see that the few months a manager has at the end of a season (after a takeover and with many players about to be out of contract) isn't in any way comparable to a manager who's had 2 and a half years with these players?
At the extreme, it's like a new manager coming in, losing his first game and then saying he should be fired because he has a 100% loss record.
It seems like you want to give new managers a few months at most and NO transfer windows to bring in new players? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:59 - Dec 3 with 459 views | Churchman |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:12 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
I think taking over a relegation doomed town is slightly different to taking a 7th place side in league 1 chasing playoffs. |
I love this idea that we were chasing the play offs. In real terms we were a mile off. We were given a hiding by Gillingham 4 day in to Cook’s tenure. Does anyone really think the result would have been different if Klopp, Pep and the ghost of Sir Alf had been ‘manager’ that day? Of course not. We had no goals in us.
The team Lyall inherited wasn’t relegation bound. It was mid table hopeless hoofball. Lyall by trying to make us play properly made it worse for a full season before it clicked into place. I know because I was sad enough to see a heck of a lot of Duncan and Lyall’s games in that period.
Burley came in Dec 94. We were hopeless under Burley. Actually we went beyond hopeless. A performance much akin to Lambert’s miserable effort which is why I was in favour of giving Lambert the start of the following season from that disgraceful Championship surrender.
I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule about how long it takes to build a team. The OP asked about how long a manager should be given. I suppose it depends on the manager. Many on here clearly felt they’d seen enough after a few weeks with Cook and the campaign has been building ever since. Everyone had seen enough of Hurst after a month. Lambert? For some six months, others a year. Burley - 3 years. Lyall - 2 years. Duncan - 2 years. Milburn - 1 year. |  | | |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 16:03 - Dec 3 with 446 views | jayessess |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:06 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not getting into semantics with you. The facts are our most successful managers in that period (Burley and Lyall) initially had months of sustained poor form. |
It was "nonsense" a second ago, now it's true but "semantics"? | |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:24 - Dec 3 with 397 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:12 - Dec 3 by chrismakin |
I think taking over a relegation doomed town is slightly different to taking a 7th place side in league 1 chasing playoffs. |
It is, but that's not the point we're making, makin. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:26 - Dec 3 with 382 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 16:03 - Dec 3 by jayessess |
It was "nonsense" a second ago, now it's true but "semantics"? |
No, it's still nonsense. The semantics was just the wording of your sentence, not the idea generally.
Which successful managers have we had in that timeframe who started off successfully as well? I've given our two greatest in that time as my evidence, what's yours to the contrary? [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 17:27]
| |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:51 - Dec 3 with 345 views | jeera |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 14:36 - Dec 3 by mylittletown |
Admittedly he did some shrewd wheeler dealing at Bristol City, but the fact remains that after 5 years of his reign, with huge funding from Steve Lansdown, they ended up 19th in the Championship last season, almost exactly where they were when he arrived.
Arriving at ITFC and bringing in 19 new players in the summer, was at best a high risk strategy, some might say a foolhardy strategy. We'll see how it pans out, I guess, but so far it is not looking great. I hope that the new players prove me wrong. |
Think you're being a bit harsh on Ashton there.
Surely he was given targets and did his job and got them.
I suppose he may well have advised along the way, offering his opinions maybe [?] but he's backed his man and done what was asked of him. |  |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:57 - Dec 3 with 336 views | jeera |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:26 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No, it's still nonsense. The semantics was just the wording of your sentence, not the idea generally.
Which successful managers have we had in that timeframe who started off successfully as well? I've given our two greatest in that time as my evidence, what's yours to the contrary? [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 17:27]
|
Sir Alf. He didn't mess about.
But again it's all harking back in time and just not relevant anymore.
We're in League One and should not be accepting this as our natural home. We should be put out, it wasn't that long ago we felt we were underachieving by living in the Championship so it seems madness that people aren't expecting much more. | |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 18:01 - Dec 3 with 331 views | Yallop |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:57 - Dec 3 by jeera |
Sir Alf. He didn't mess about.
But again it's all harking back in time and just not relevant anymore.
We're in League One and should not be accepting this as our natural home. We should be put out, it wasn't that long ago we felt we were underachieving by living in the Championship so it seems madness that people aren't expecting much more. |
I've not seen anyone accept that. That's why we have a manager at the helm that is used to getting out of this hell hole of a division. He justs needs a bit of time and patience. |  | | |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 18:04 - Dec 3 with 321 views | jayessess |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 17:26 - Dec 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No, it's still nonsense. The semantics was just the wording of your sentence, not the idea generally.
Which successful managers have we had in that timeframe who started off successfully as well? I've given our two greatest in that time as my evidence, what's yours to the contrary? [Post edited 3 Dec 2021 17:27]
|
We've had 5 relatively successful managers in our modern history - McCarthy, Burley, Royle, Lyall and Robson. 3 of them (McCarthy, Royle, Robson) improved our league position relatively quickly. We've had 4 managers (Hurst, Keane, Lambert and Jewell) who got worse rather than better. We've had one, Burley, whose first full season was fine, largely what was expected of him, another, Lyall, whose first season was below par.
Whatever the lesson here is, it isn't "good managerial stints usually start with an extended period of poor form". | |
| |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 18:06 - Dec 3 with 317 views | pointofblue |
| Is there a consensus on how long we give a manager now? on 15:59 - Dec 3 by Churchman |
I love this idea that we were chasing the play offs. In real terms we were a mile off. We were given a hiding by Gillingham 4 day in to Cook’s tenure. Does anyone really think the result would have been different if Klopp, Pep and the ghost of Sir Alf had been ‘manager’ that day? Of course not. We had no goals in us.
The team Lyall inherited wasn’t relegation bound. It was mid table hopeless hoofball. Lyall by trying to make us play properly made it worse for a full season before it clicked into place. I know because I was sad enough to see a heck of a lot of Duncan and Lyall’s games in that period.
Burley came in Dec 94. We were hopeless under Burley. Actually we went beyond hopeless. A performance much akin to Lambert’s miserable effort which is why I was in favour of giving Lambert the start of the following season from that disgraceful Championship surrender.
I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule about how long it takes to build a team. The OP asked about how long a manager should be given. I suppose it depends on the manager. Many on here clearly felt they’d seen enough after a few weeks with Cook and the campaign has been building ever since. Everyone had seen enough of Hurst after a month. Lambert? For some six months, others a year. Burley - 3 years. Lyall - 2 years. Duncan - 2 years. Milburn - 1 year. |
We were two points off the play offs when Cook came in. If we were going to just shrug our shoulders and accept limping to midtable we may as well have kept Lambert in charged and saved a few months of redundancy money. It may have done Cook some good if we had, as we'd only have the weak start to this season to hit him with, instead of the end of last season as well.
I do not buy for one moment that any fan, heading into the Gillingham game, thought to themselves "well, this is pointless, he doesn't have a chance of getting us into the top six" - Cook happily and freely threw the players under the nearest Routemaster when it all went wrong which many fans readily lapped up but now the same thing is happening with this bunch. You yourself we had no goals in us; since Wycombe we've scored two goals in four league games, including cup matches it's seven in eight.
If there was any sign of progession of sustained development instead of flashes of things clicking around a world of, at best, mediocrity then I would agree. If Cook thinks the performances against Oxford, Oldham (to an extent twice), Crewe plus the collapse against Arsenal kids is anywhere near acceptable, on top of the acknowledged disaster versus Rotherham, then I think he's in for a shock - indeed, from the press conference today I think he's starting to realise how far away from expectations we are. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
