When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made 11:52 - Oct 28 with 1540 views | GlasgowBlue | Did we miss a trick by not appointing him as DOF? It has become increasingly apparent that despite people's perceptions of his style of football, right up until his last season he was finding players like Waghorn at bargain prices. We could have still had our young up and coming manager with new exciting football that everybody was crying out for but Mick would have seen the players Hurst wanted were not up to the job and could have recruited those who were. | |
| | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 11:55 - Oct 28 with 1521 views | tractorboy1978 | As if he'd have taken that. | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 11:57 - Oct 28 with 1511 views | Garv | Not a job he wants. Wants to be on the training ground and manager's office. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 11:59 - Oct 28 with 1500 views | Coastalblue | The gap between Mick and supporters had grown too big, it would never work. I can't think many managers would relish working under him either. | |
| |
on 12:04 - Oct 28 with 1477 views | _ | | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:04 - Oct 28 with 1474 views | Guthrum | Would McCarthy be able to have been sufficiently hands off when it came to the job of management? Would Hurst have accepted his transfer targets being overruled (and would it have been fair to do so in any case)? | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:06 - Oct 28 with 1471 views | Pinewoodblue | Mick wouldn't have wanted that, although if he is still not back in management in 12 months he might consider it then but not here. Once Evans had made up his mind about Mick he should have sought an experienced figure as DoF, and then together looked for an up and coming first team coach. Hurst was his own worst enemy, or rather Evans was giving him the freedom to break up the team and bring in players of a lower quality. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:11 - Oct 28 with 1442 views | GlasgowBlue |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:04 - Oct 28 by Guthrum | Would McCarthy be able to have been sufficiently hands off when it came to the job of management? Would Hurst have accepted his transfer targets being overruled (and would it have been fair to do so in any case)? |
I know it with the benefit of hindsight but Hurst may still be in a job had he had someone like Mick to overrule his transfer targets. I't not a position I would put an experienced manager like Lambert under, but a newbie like Hurst going to a bigger club probably needed someone like Mick to guide him. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:16 - Oct 28 with 1428 views | Herbivore |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:11 - Oct 28 by GlasgowBlue | I know it with the benefit of hindsight but Hurst may still be in a job had he had someone like Mick to overrule his transfer targets. I't not a position I would put an experienced manager like Lambert under, but a newbie like Hurst going to a bigger club probably needed someone like Mick to guide him. |
All well and good but as has been pointed out it's not a role Mick would have been interested in and even if he had been the relationship with the fans was too far gone for it to be tolerated. That's before even getting into the difficulties of someone moving upstairs after nearly 6 years and leaving behind a set of players who need to respect the new manager first and foremost. Agree that a DoF would have been a good way to go, but not Mick for all of the above reasons. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:27 - Oct 28 with 1392 views | tractorboy1978 |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:11 - Oct 28 by GlasgowBlue | I know it with the benefit of hindsight but Hurst may still be in a job had he had someone like Mick to overrule his transfer targets. I't not a position I would put an experienced manager like Lambert under, but a newbie like Hurst going to a bigger club probably needed someone like Mick to guide him. |
I'm not particularly sure that is true. Hurst seemed pretty intent on doing things his own way and by several accounts not really too interested in the opinions of those outside his circle (Doig, Winder). It was his first job at this level but he'd managed over 500 games before including getting Shrewsbury to the play off final in the league below us - we aren't talking about someone that was in Magilton's position when he took the job. Hurst just made a complete mess of it, several have taken the step up and not done so, Lambert being one of them. | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:31 - Oct 28 with 1382 views | GlasgowBlue |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:16 - Oct 28 by Herbivore | All well and good but as has been pointed out it's not a role Mick would have been interested in and even if he had been the relationship with the fans was too far gone for it to be tolerated. That's before even getting into the difficulties of someone moving upstairs after nearly 6 years and leaving behind a set of players who need to respect the new manager first and foremost. Agree that a DoF would have been a good way to go, but not Mick for all of the above reasons. |
I just hope Lambert has the same ability to find good players for very little outlay. Losing Mick as a manager from a playing style point of view may seemed like a great idea at the time but we lost far more from a recruitment side of things by parting company with him. The bloke did a marvelous job with very little financial backing. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:56 - Oct 28 with 1322 views | Guthrum |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:11 - Oct 28 by GlasgowBlue | I know it with the benefit of hindsight but Hurst may still be in a job had he had someone like Mick to overrule his transfer targets. I't not a position I would put an experienced manager like Lambert under, but a newbie like Hurst going to a bigger club probably needed someone like Mick to guide him. |
That's where I think Gerard was very sensible in appointing someone experienced as his assistant. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 13:11 - Oct 28 with 1289 views | Herbivore |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:31 - Oct 28 by GlasgowBlue | I just hope Lambert has the same ability to find good players for very little outlay. Losing Mick as a manager from a playing style point of view may seemed like a great idea at the time but we lost far more from a recruitment side of things by parting company with him. The bloke did a marvelous job with very little financial backing. |
Although Mick's head scout, Dave Bowman, is still at the club so arguably we've not lost a key element of what enabled Mick to succeed on a small budget. The issue is Hurst seemingly not being interested in the opinions of those outside his circle. | |
| |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 13:13 - Oct 28 with 1279 views | No9 |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 11:59 - Oct 28 by Coastalblue | The gap between Mick and supporters had grown too big, it would never work. I can't think many managers would relish working under him either. |
Completely right & does anyone seriously think he would have 'let the manager manage'? | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 13:24 - Oct 28 with 1255 views | braveblue | No. | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 13:41 - Oct 28 with 1231 views | No9 |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 12:31 - Oct 28 by GlasgowBlue | I just hope Lambert has the same ability to find good players for very little outlay. Losing Mick as a manager from a playing style point of view may seemed like a great idea at the time but we lost far more from a recruitment side of things by parting company with him. The bloke did a marvelous job with very little financial backing. |
Reputedly MM brought in 78 players to UTFC during his time as manager Considering how many of that number made it to 1st team action and how few became established as 1st team players his record is not very good at all. Scounting has been a problem for a long while Look how many of the 78 were not very good | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 14:01 - Oct 28 with 1210 views | PhilTWTD |
Indeed, he'd not want it or be particularly suited to it. All transfer/contract negotiation stuff, the sort of thing a sporting director/director of football would be doing, were done by ME during his time here and a lot of the liaising with agents etc by Dave Bowman, who is the director of football in title but has effectively been the chief scout, although was rather sidelined under Paul H. | | | |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 14:11 - Oct 28 with 1187 views | Dubtractor |
When the mutual decision to part company with Mick was made on 14:01 - Oct 28 by PhilTWTD | Indeed, he'd not want it or be particularly suited to it. All transfer/contract negotiation stuff, the sort of thing a sporting director/director of football would be doing, were done by ME during his time here and a lot of the liaising with agents etc by Dave Bowman, who is the director of football in title but has effectively been the chief scout, although was rather sidelined under Paul H. |
Phil, you must have some juicy gossip on the Hurst era you can share on here to help increase traffic? | |
| |
| |