| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... 15:13 - Nov 25 with 3228 views | El_Fenix |
The conventional wisdom is that Paul Hurst was the worst manager in the history of ITFC. An alternative view is offered below.
1. Evans made a huge mistake in offering Hurst the job. With hindsight, it is obvious that Hurst lacked the experience needed to manage an experienced (but mediocre) squad that was deeply upset by the departure of its previous manager. Brian Clough encountered comparable circumstances during his 44 day tenure at Leeds.
2. Hurst should not have accepted the job. He over-estimated his ability to manage a squad that remained loyal its previous manager. His naive attempts to impose his authority made the situation worse.
On the other hand:
3. Hurst did NOT 'choose to dismantle the squad'. Webster was already on his way out; Waghorn and Garner wanted out, and the money being offered for them was too good to turn down; and in any case, Evans has the final say for all transfer market transactions. Net income from player sales was around £10 million, and the amount made available to Hurst was around £5 million. This suggests a reduction in squad talent of around £5 million.
4. Hurst brought in several players who had talent and/or potential, e.g. Edwards, Harrison, Jackson, Nolan, Nsiala, Donacien, Jordan Roberts and Jordan Graham. He overpaid for some of them. This was because other teams knew that he had a budget and an urgent need to bolster his squad.
5. Hurst signed several useful players on loan. These included Chalobah, Pennington and Jonathon Walters. Pennington was arguably the ITFC player of the year, and Jonathon Walters could have had a major impact had he not got injured.
6. Hurst identified and started to address, weaknesses in the areas of the conditioning, strength and fitness of the squad, and the quality of the sports medicine.
7. Hurst reportedly engaged well with the younger players.
8. Hurst could not have foreseen that Bialkowski's form would take a huge dip, and Chambers would be dealing with personal issues, during the season.
9. Prior to his last two games in charge, when he was a dead man walking, Hurst's record was W1 D7 L5, or 0.833 points per game. Although this was poor, the team had not lost contact with the relegation pack. With Lambert in charge, the team obtained 21 additional points from 31 additional games, or 0.667 points per game.
Last season, playing in a lower division, Lambert ended on a run of W1 D1 L6, or 0.5 points per game. Can anyone explain why Evans fired Hurst, but gave Lambert a five year contract extension?
This story has all the elements of a Greek tragedy. However, Marcus Evans and Paul Lambert, not Paul Hurst, are the central characters.
|  |
| ITFC shall rise like a phoenix from the ashes of its long decline! |
| |  |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:17 - Nov 25 with 2428 views | BlueBadger |
An awful lot of that though, Hurst brought upon himself. Garner only wanted out because he'd had time to see what an awful t0sser Hurst was. Likewise Waghorn. Webster was sold to finance the purchase of Nolan and Nsiala.
Chalobah was highly inconsistent, likewise Pennington.
He overpaid for pretty much every single player he brought out.
He couldn't have foreseen that Bart's form would dip, because it was his motivational 'techniques' that caused it.
And as for losing touch, it was only a matter of time. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:18 - Nov 25 with 2402 views | homer_123 |
Yeah, no. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:19 - Nov 25 with 2398 views | boroughblue |
All fair and well made points.
Think as I've seen a couple of people say, PH had the character to see and try to change a lot of things that were wrong with the club, it just didn't work out for various reasons. Could you argue we'd be in a better position now with him after (lets face it, with either manager we would have been relegated that season) being relegated? who knows.
But the one of the big issues with Hurst was his man management skills, shown by the Bialkowski incident on derby day, and apparently a few similar issues that we're yet to hear about. As well as the issue of the 'bad egg' the was Chris Doidge.
I don't disagree with what you're saying though, some good points |  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:20 - Nov 25 with 2388 views | Steve_M |
Nah, Hurst was disastrous for the club. Came in, started arguments with the senior players, pushed out experienced Championship players and overpaid for too many lower division players. He tried to make two seasons worth of change in one Summer and it went dreadfully wrong.
We may never recover from his time here. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:25 - Nov 25 with 2356 views | Darth_Koont |
Think that’s a little too positive an assessment. The shorter, bottom-line assessment is he inherited a squad that had built up its value (including a relatively significant transfer budget) and he didn’t just fail to capitalise but sent us off towards relegation with a squad now with more players but less value. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:25 - Nov 25 with 2353 views | wkj |
Point 4 is the biggest incitement of Paul Hurst's ability as a manager. He was the living embodiment of how to play "Football Manager" badly, yet he did it in person with real consequences.
Mick didn't leave us with a terrible squad either, the degree of dismantlement was astonishing and it was plain to see we were before the first game of the season that we were in for some kind of roller coaster ride.
Yes, a good manager can find gems in the lower league, but not manager in history could build the spine of an entirely new team in 1 transfer window from the lower leagues and expect any form of success. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:30 - Nov 25 with 2324 views | Herbivore |
I honestly think that had we kept faith with Hurst then we (a) wouldn't have done any worse than we ultimately did that season, Lambert yielded no improvement, and (b) probably would have made a better stab at promotion last season. I am starting to think that Lambert, remarkably, may be even more of a disaster than Hurst. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:33 - Nov 25 with 2318 views | Dyland |
Well that's one way of spinning it.
He was an absolute disaster.
I agree with this bit though!
"With Lambert in charge, the team obtained 21 additional points from 31 additional games, or 0.667 points per game.
Last season, playing in a lower division, Lambert ended on a run of W1 D1 L6, or 0.5 points per game. Can anyone explain why Evans fired Hurst, but gave Lambert a five year contract extension?" |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:05 - Nov 25 with 2139 views | bluefunk |
Utter garbage Pretty much from point 3 onwards
Those departures were caused by Hursts approach
Incoming players, none bar the possible exception of Edwards have shown they are superior League 1 players let alone Championship standard
Loan players, just what we needed young inexperienced players after he had lost several experienced players, Walters too little too late
Addressed areas like fitness? So why have we had non stop injuries if he managed to do that?
Younger players? Maybe
Couldn’t have foreseen Bialkowskis dip in form? Really, didn’t expect him to react badly to being repidiculed by Doig and dropped without explanation - right.....
Points per game - nite that .883 points per game results in 38 points and relegation
The fact that Lambert is just as sh1t (or worse) doesn’t make Hurst anything other than a complete failure
Forgive me I’m still angry from last night but I do feel a little better now [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 17:05]
|  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:18 - Nov 25 with 2100 views | El_Fenix |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:17 - Nov 25 by BlueBadger |
An awful lot of that though, Hurst brought upon himself. Garner only wanted out because he'd had time to see what an awful t0sser Hurst was. Likewise Waghorn. Webster was sold to finance the purchase of Nolan and Nsiala.
Chalobah was highly inconsistent, likewise Pennington.
He overpaid for pretty much every single player he brought out.
He couldn't have foreseen that Bart's form would dip, because it was his motivational 'techniques' that caused it.
And as for losing touch, it was only a matter of time. |
You offer some interesting points and opinions. FWIW, here are some responses:
Yes, Garner wanted out because he saw what was happening. Waghorn likewise. However, Evans was never going to turn down £5 million, and Waghorn was never going to turn down a big pay increase. Evans, not Hurst, had the final say over all transfer moves.
Webster was sold for £3.5 million rising to £8 million. Evans was never going to turn this money down; and Hurst received only a fraction to reinvest. And Evans, not Hurst, had the final say over all transfer moves ...
Chalobah was inconsistent, but still talented enough to be a regular starter. Pennington was not inconsistent. He was very steady under difficult circumstances, but was injured towards the end of the season.
Bart's form may have dipped because of Hurst's poor management skills. However, people have also speculated that his huge contract extension reduced his motivation, or that he was unsettled by his participation in the World Cup. Many professional athletes can rise above their personal disdain for a manager. Bart may have simply been too upset by the treatment that Mick McCarthy had received.
'And as for losing touch, it was only a matter of time.' I agree, but we will never know for sure.
There are always shades of grey ... | |
| ITFC shall rise like a phoenix from the ashes of its long decline! |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:26 - Nov 25 with 2075 views | Dubtractor |
Actual ROFL at this.
"4. Hurst brought in several players who had talent and/or potential, e.g. Edwards, Harrison, Jackson, Nolan, Nsiala, Donacien, Jordan Roberts and Jordan Graham. He overpaid for some of them. This was because other teams knew that he had a budget and an urgent need to bolster his squad."
The very best of those are bang average league one performers, some of them are somewhat worse than that. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:32 - Nov 25 with 2044 views | PJH |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:26 - Nov 25 by Dubtractor |
Actual ROFL at this.
"4. Hurst brought in several players who had talent and/or potential, e.g. Edwards, Harrison, Jackson, Nolan, Nsiala, Donacien, Jordan Roberts and Jordan Graham. He overpaid for some of them. This was because other teams knew that he had a budget and an urgent need to bolster his squad."
The very best of those are bang average league one performers, some of them are somewhat worse than that. |
Yes they were signed because they were supposedly top class or good third or fourth division players who could hopefully step up to Championship level.
It was soon found that none of them could step up to Championship level and since we have been down here the belief that they were top class third division players has been shown to be false.
As you say, average league one at best.
I originally thought that Harrison was the least poor of them ans on last seasons evidence I would say that Jackson was/is the best of a quite ordinary bunch. |  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:37 - Nov 25 with 2029 views | Keaneish |
Good post.
The point about players not wanting to play for a manager as they have allegiances with the predecessor is an interesting one I have first hand experience of. I was given my chance at semi-pro level and offered the opportunity to form a central midfield partnership with someone else equally as young. The manager got pelters at the time for it but we took the opportunity, did well and because of that we were fiercely loyal.
He was sacked after three seasons largely for political reasons and a new man came in. The incumbent had played at the highest level and was tipped to be the new Bryan Robson when playing for England under 16s - I learnt a lot about the game. His replacement was really inexperienced and made some bewildering decisions which reverberated around the changing room - the gulf in class and knowledge between them was chasmic.
I think this scenario was symptomatic of what happened at Town between Mick and Hurst; the dressing room disharmony grows very quickly. Your points are all good but in my experience, and if the players felt and thought like I did, the appointment was disastrous for player belief, confidence and motivation for there is no doubt, McCarthy is a far wiser and better manager than Hurst. [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 18:08]
|  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:37 - Nov 25 with 2028 views | jayessess |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:18 - Nov 25 by El_Fenix |
You offer some interesting points and opinions. FWIW, here are some responses:
Yes, Garner wanted out because he saw what was happening. Waghorn likewise. However, Evans was never going to turn down £5 million, and Waghorn was never going to turn down a big pay increase. Evans, not Hurst, had the final say over all transfer moves.
Webster was sold for £3.5 million rising to £8 million. Evans was never going to turn this money down; and Hurst received only a fraction to reinvest. And Evans, not Hurst, had the final say over all transfer moves ...
Chalobah was inconsistent, but still talented enough to be a regular starter. Pennington was not inconsistent. He was very steady under difficult circumstances, but was injured towards the end of the season.
Bart's form may have dipped because of Hurst's poor management skills. However, people have also speculated that his huge contract extension reduced his motivation, or that he was unsettled by his participation in the World Cup. Many professional athletes can rise above their personal disdain for a manager. Bart may have simply been too upset by the treatment that Mick McCarthy had received.
'And as for losing touch, it was only a matter of time.' I agree, but we will never know for sure.
There are always shades of grey ... |
Pennington was absolutely dire. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:43 - Nov 25 with 1995 views | PJH |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:37 - Nov 25 by jayessess |
Pennington was absolutely dire. |
Possibly but still our best player that season, in my opinion. | | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 18:20 - Nov 25 with 1911 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Christ.
Hurst was sh*t. Just cos Lambert was sh*t too, doesn’t mean hurst was any better. Both are very bad appointments.
Likewise, just because Lambert and hurst were sh*t, that doesn’t mean Mick leaving wasn’t the best thing at the time. It had to happen. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 18:29 - Nov 25 with 1881 views | jayessess |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:43 - Nov 25 by PJH |
Possibly but still our best player that season, in my opinion. |
Responsible for more goal-causing mistakes than anyone but Bialkowski that season, IIRC. | |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 18:32 - Nov 25 with 1875 views | TieDyedIn95 |
It's worth noting that the likes of Didz, Bru, Hyam and co. were out the door before he arrived. Didz aside, they weren't the best players ever but you couple that with Webster, Waghorn and Garner being sold and you have already said goodbye to an average at best Championship squad to replace it with players from the bottom 3 tiers of English football. Any owner that would sanction that is an idiot. |  |
| Football League First Division / Premier League
Champions (1): 1961—62 - Runners-up (2): 1980—81, 1981—82
Football League Second Division / EFL Championship
Champions (3): 1960—61, 1967—68, 1991—92 - Play-off winners (1): 1999—2000
Football League Third Division / EFL League One Champions (2): 1953—54, 1956—57 - Southern League Champions (1): 1936—37
FA Cup Winners (1): 1977—78 - Texaco Cup Winners (1): 1972—73
UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League Winners (1): 1980—81 | | Poll: | Would you attend a socially distanced training ground protest? |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 19:10 - Nov 25 with 1775 views | woiii |
regarding point three - we actually had a reduction in squad talent of far greater than five million.
I'm basing that on the players we bought being worth no more than the sum of their parts and Webster going a year later for £20M+
Also, we should have taken the money for McGoldrick when we had the chance (and we're making the same mistake with Downes) [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 19:12]
|  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 19:38 - Nov 25 with 1695 views | Pilgrimblue |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:33 - Nov 25 by Dyland |
Well that's one way of spinning it.
He was an absolute disaster.
I agree with this bit though!
"With Lambert in charge, the team obtained 21 additional points from 31 additional games, or 0.667 points per game.
Last season, playing in a lower division, Lambert ended on a run of W1 D1 L6, or 0.5 points per game. Can anyone explain why Evans fired Hurst, but gave Lambert a five year contract extension?" |
no thats the mystery |  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 20:09 - Nov 25 with 1627 views | El_Fenix |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 17:37 - Nov 25 by Keaneish |
Good post.
The point about players not wanting to play for a manager as they have allegiances with the predecessor is an interesting one I have first hand experience of. I was given my chance at semi-pro level and offered the opportunity to form a central midfield partnership with someone else equally as young. The manager got pelters at the time for it but we took the opportunity, did well and because of that we were fiercely loyal.
He was sacked after three seasons largely for political reasons and a new man came in. The incumbent had played at the highest level and was tipped to be the new Bryan Robson when playing for England under 16s - I learnt a lot about the game. His replacement was really inexperienced and made some bewildering decisions which reverberated around the changing room - the gulf in class and knowledge between them was chasmic.
I think this scenario was symptomatic of what happened at Town between Mick and Hurst; the dressing room disharmony grows very quickly. Your points are all good but in my experience, and if the players felt and thought like I did, the appointment was disastrous for player belief, confidence and motivation for there is no doubt, McCarthy is a far wiser and better manager than Hurst. [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 18:08]
|
Your comments are spot-on.
A significant fraction of my work experience has been in the area of corporations. Twice during my career, I reported to managers who were so inept, insecure,dishonest, divisive or vindictive that I quit the company (as did several colleagues). In each case, after higher levels of management became aware of the problems, it took them two more years to make appropriate changes. In my opinion the responses of Waghorn and Garner (moving on, without making a public fuss) were appropriate and professional. Continuing to accept a fat paycheck, while producing sub-par performances, would have been an understandable, but less admirable, response. | |
| ITFC shall rise like a phoenix from the ashes of its long decline! |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 20:32 - Nov 25 with 1578 views | LeoMuff |
Hurst was a shocker who made the disastrous decision to dismantle a half decent squad and replace with players with nil experience at champ level. He also completely alienated the squad by the sounds of it.
He did however seem to have it right that something was fundamentally wrong at the club and huge changes were needed, he went after the senior players and questioned their attitude, which obviously went down very very badly as Bart has since informed us. however not sure how wrong he was as results and performances are still very poor considering the big names and money for this level and maybe he was onto something there, just went about it in completely the wrong way. |  |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 20:51 - Nov 25 with 1538 views | El_Fenix |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 15:25 - Nov 25 by wkj |
Point 4 is the biggest incitement of Paul Hurst's ability as a manager. He was the living embodiment of how to play "Football Manager" badly, yet he did it in person with real consequences.
Mick didn't leave us with a terrible squad either, the degree of dismantlement was astonishing and it was plain to see we were before the first game of the season that we were in for some kind of roller coaster ride.
Yes, a good manager can find gems in the lower league, but not manager in history could build the spine of an entirely new team in 1 transfer window from the lower leagues and expect any form of success. |
"The degree of dismantlement was astonishing."
Not so much as people think. Webster, Waghorn and Garner went for good money in moves that were approved by Marcus Evans. The decision to release McGoldrick was made before Hurst arrived. The remaining 'dismantlement' was due to the return of loan players, such as Carter-Vickers, Celina, Connolly and Iorfa to their home clubs. There was a net loss of 8 players from the squad, but 5 of these were nothing to do with Paul Hurst, who was forced to scramble to augment the squad. Hurst brought in some loan players, and went fishing in the pool he knew (Leagues 1 and 2). His acquisitions were decent but not great.
The loan players that Lambert brought in during January of the relegation season were not noticeably better: the window between them getting fit enough to play and suffering a season-ending injury tended to be rather short ... | |
| ITFC shall rise like a phoenix from the ashes of its long decline! |
| |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 22:43 - Nov 25 with 1410 views | reusersfreekicks |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 20:51 - Nov 25 by El_Fenix |
"The degree of dismantlement was astonishing."
Not so much as people think. Webster, Waghorn and Garner went for good money in moves that were approved by Marcus Evans. The decision to release McGoldrick was made before Hurst arrived. The remaining 'dismantlement' was due to the return of loan players, such as Carter-Vickers, Celina, Connolly and Iorfa to their home clubs. There was a net loss of 8 players from the squad, but 5 of these were nothing to do with Paul Hurst, who was forced to scramble to augment the squad. Hurst brought in some loan players, and went fishing in the pool he knew (Leagues 1 and 2). His acquisitions were decent but not great.
The loan players that Lambert brought in during January of the relegation season were not noticeably better: the window between them getting fit enough to play and suffering a season-ending injury tended to be rather short ... |
Revisionism of gigantic proportions. He was awful. |  | | |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 23:14 - Nov 25 with 1351 views | wkj |
| A Reassessment of the Paul Hurst Era ... on 20:51 - Nov 25 by El_Fenix |
"The degree of dismantlement was astonishing."
Not so much as people think. Webster, Waghorn and Garner went for good money in moves that were approved by Marcus Evans. The decision to release McGoldrick was made before Hurst arrived. The remaining 'dismantlement' was due to the return of loan players, such as Carter-Vickers, Celina, Connolly and Iorfa to their home clubs. There was a net loss of 8 players from the squad, but 5 of these were nothing to do with Paul Hurst, who was forced to scramble to augment the squad. Hurst brought in some loan players, and went fishing in the pool he knew (Leagues 1 and 2). His acquisitions were decent but not great.
The loan players that Lambert brought in during January of the relegation season were not noticeably better: the window between them getting fit enough to play and suffering a season-ending injury tended to be rather short ... |
Webster, Waghorn and Garner went for good money
and they went in one transfer window with no real championship experience from a manager with no championship experience - the transfer fees we received were not worth the consequences we suffered under Project Hurst. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
