Glasner Out

ASCPFC said:
The two previous posts about Glasner are not really the whole truth. When he was in a strop, he made strange selections, would not change anything and used either none or bizarre/ pointless substitions. All apparently to make a point. Therefore, we probably lost some points due to his behaviour. We have also lost development of many of our young players.
We may beat Burnley next and Wolves: that still won't change the fact that Glasner contributed to our run of poor results as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Glasner clearly didn't behave perfectly and allowed frustration to get the better of him, but the primary cause of our drop in form is very obviously not him.

We can speculate about how many points we might've won under a different manager, but we went into the Forest game with a bench of Benitez, Matthews, Canvot, Clyne, Marsh, Rodney and Uche - there's a very reasonable argument none of them (bar Benitez) are Premier League standard. That is negligent and impossible conditions for any manager to be successful in.

It's certainly not a fact that Glasner contributed to our poor form as much as anyone - I think the board/recruitment team are considerably more responsible.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Glasner clearly didn't behave perfectly and allowed frustration to get the better of him, but the primary cause of our drop in form is very obviously not him.

We can speculate about how many points we might've won under a different manager, but we went into the Forest game with a bench of Benitez, Matthews, Canvot, Clyne, Marsh, Rodney and Uche - there's a very reasonable argument none of them (bar Benitez) are Premier League standard. That is negligent and impossible conditions for any manager to be successful in.

It's certainly not a fact that Glasner contributed to our poor form as much as anyone - I think the board/recruitment team are considerably more responsible.
Click to expand...
What about the other 11 games he failed to win? Do you think he had sufficient talent available to beat Macclesfield. If lacking some players to play a back three do you think maybe he could have played 4 at the back? If you have to play a lot of games do you think rotating the squad might be a good idea?

Yes our squad lacked depth but OG has a lot of responsibility for the bad results
 
JHB said:
As has been said a lot. When he has everything just right he can get the team playing great. But as soon as a few things aren’t perfect he really, really struggles. So you get runs of great football, lots of points and cups but then dreadful runs where he has shown no ability to scrap, get points and doesn’t take accountability (publicly at least).
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, when you say 'a few things aren't perfect', you really mean 'you have a squad completely unsuitable to the expectations placed on you'.

It's complete fantasy that we were ever going to win games at this level with Clyne and Devenny in the starting line up, and 2 keepers sat with a bunch of kids on the bench.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Glasner clearly didn't behave perfectly and allowed frustration to get the better of him, but the primary cause of our drop in form is very obviously not him.

We can speculate about how many points we might've won under a different manager, but we went into the Forest game with a bench of Benitez, Matthews, Canvot, Clyne, Marsh, Rodney and Uche - there's a very reasonable argument none of them (bar Benitez) are Premier League standard. That is negligent and impossible conditions for any manager to be successful in.

It's certainly not a fact that Glasner contributed to our poor form as much as anyone - I think the board/recruitment team are considerably more responsible.
Click to expand...
Dear oh dear, well lets see how he gets on at Real Madrid next season. 😛
 
JHB said:
What about the other 11 games he failed to win? Do you think he had sufficient talent available to beat Macclesfield. If lacking some players to play a back three do you think maybe he could have played 4 at the back? If you have to play a lot of games do you think rotating the squad might be a good idea?

Yes our squad lacked depth but OG has a lot of responsibility for the bad results
Click to expand...

If you want me to name the benches for most of those games, we can do it - I don't think it's going to prove what you think it will.

I find the suggestion that you can lose players like Munoz and Sarr, replace them with Clyne and Devenny, and just go to a back four and you'll be fine, to be completely illogical.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Just to be clear, when you say 'a few things aren't perfect', you really mean 'you have a squad completely unsuitable to the expectations placed on you'.

It's complete fantasy that we were ever going to win games at this level with Clyne and Devenny in the starting line up, and 2 keepers sat with a bunch of kids on the bench.
Click to expand...
What Macclesfield, and some teams of Plumbers, Painters and COBBLERS.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Just to be clear, when you say 'a few things aren't perfect', you really mean 'you have a squad completely unsuitable to the expectations placed on you'.

It's complete fantasy that we were ever going to win games at this level with Clyne and Devenny in the starting line up, and 2 keepers sat with a bunch of kids on the bench.
Click to expand...
No I mean a few things aren’t perfect. Awful run at the start of last season and an awful run before the Brighton game. Did I think we’d take 15 points from that run? No. Do I think 2 points was good enough. No.

Also as I say if he has a system completely dependant on one or two key players then maybe rotate them a bit.

When losing at Sunderland maybe make a sub.

Yes the squad lacked depth but there is a lot, lot more Glasner could have done
 
CPFCSaturn said:
If you want me to name the benches for most of those games, we can do it - I don't think it's going to prove what you think it will.

I find the suggestion that you can lose players like Munoz and Sarr, replace them with Clyne and Devenny, and just go to a back four and you'll be fine, to be completely illogical.
Click to expand...
I find the idea that a manager is paid £4.5m a year to apparently be utterly helpless when the team has some injuries to be equally illogical but I can see we aren’t going to agree on this one
 
If we went back to the beginning of December and let’s say Roy was still in charge, would we have won more points during the period up to yesterday, and would we have lost to Macclesfield?

My feeling is that OG is a great manager when things are aligning but not so sure if he can deal with adversity as well as some other managers. David Moyes comes to mind as a manager who can squeeze the best out of what’s available. Not sure if he would win the FA cup though and there’s the dilemma.
 
JHB said:
No I mean a few things aren’t perfect. Awful run at the start of last season and an awful run before the Brighton game. Did I think we’d take 15 points from that run? No. Do I think 2 points was good enough. No.

Also as I say if he has a system completely dependant on one or two key players then maybe rotate them a bit.

When losing at Sunderland maybe make a sub.

Yes the squad lacked depth but there is a lot, lot more Glasner could have done
Click to expand...
I think if you look at the really bad games on the recent winless run then two stick out as unacceptably poor performances from the players. Leeds away and Macclesfield. All teams have a ' bad day at the office ' on occasion. Of those two, for Macclesfield it really shouldn't have mattered what team we put out or who managed it - we should have enough quality to win that game.

The Sunderland game was the one where I think the manager could have and should have done better.

The other games were largely nip and tuck. I don't think it's unfair to say that with a stronger squad to choose from we would have got a few more points on the board.

Glasners outbursts have clearly upset some people to the point that if anything now goes wrong it's his fault.

But take a look around. Hurzeler is under pressure at Brighton who are on a poor run of their own. Howe at Newcastle - their permanently deluded fans are starting to question him. And of course Thomas Frank at Spurs. Then look at the reasons for their disquiet....poor transfer windows, lack of investment , the managers tactics....ring any bells ?

At least we have reason to hope that the worst is behind us. The squad has been strengthened and key players returning from injury. Those three clubs I mentioned don't have similar cause for optimism.

Still plenty of hard work ahead and one win is a platform and no more. But it's more than we had a week ago.
 
It’s more or less a fact of football life, if your best line up is severely depleted by injuries, the results suffer. Yes the manager in this day and age comes under pressure from the terraces, and the media. At this moment in time , Spurs, Newcastle, Brighton, Palace, have had or are having the problem. Managers just don’t get the best results with weakened squads . Even Peps , win rate dips when he is coping with injuries. I doubt any manager going would have got more out of the group Glasner had for some weeks now, the level of experience , barring half a dozen in the squads wasn’t even Championship level
 
JHB said:
I find the idea that a manager is paid £4.5m a year to apparently be utterly helpless when the team has some injuries to be equally illogical but I can see we aren’t going to agree on this one
Click to expand...

A manager is helpless when the players they have to choose from are not good enough for the level they’re playing at - it’s pretty straightforward logic.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
A manager is helpless when the players they have to choose from are not good enough for the level they’re playing at - it’s pretty straightforward logic.
Click to expand...
It's also quite logical to work out the best players you do have available and tweak tactics and approach in order to get the most out of what you have. It's not ideal, granted, but it's not always going to be an ideal situation - no matter which club a manager is at.
The most basic approach would be to try to grind out a draw - for example. Makes the same point to the ownership but without the hissy fits. I didn't see any evidence of just even trying to grind out any kind of result. We rolled over a few times. That's not good enough.
We'll likely improve until the end of the season but there are several areas which could have been managed better. Set pieces is an obvious one. Substitutions are another. But just basic having some flexibility is surely worthwhile. Getting the most points possible is surely the most logical thing a manager can do.
Managers have systems etc, etc. It doesn't mean we all have to agree with that.
 
ASCPFC said:
It's also quite logical to work out the best players you do have available and tweak tactics and approach in order to get the most out of what you have. It's not ideal, granted, but it's not always going to be an ideal situation - no matter which club a manager is at.
The most basic approach would be to try to grind out a draw - for example. Makes the same point to the ownership but without the hissy fits. I didn't see any evidence of just even trying to grind out any kind of result. We rolled over a few times. That's not good enough.
We'll likely improve until the end of the season but there are several areas which could have been managed better. Set pieces is an obvious one. Substitutions are another. But just basic having some flexibility is surely worthwhile. Getting the most points possible is surely the most logical thing a manager can do.
Managers have systems etc, etc. It doesn't mean we all have to agree with that.
Click to expand...

I agree with the principle, but it obviously has a limit - getting the most out of what you have is obviously the job of all managers, but I don’t think there’s much more to be had out of our squad over the last month or two.

Your argument works on the assumption that Glasner wasn’t already preparing the team as best he saw fit for them to pick up points - I understand when there’s a bad run, the desire is just to see something different, but there’s nothing to really support the idea that if we had changed approach, or just played a different vastly inferior player, it would’ve helped - it’s just the thing we didn’t do so it’s easy to assume it would’ve made the difference.

You then also consider that if Mateta had just performed as an average finisher over that time, we would have had a perfectly palatable points return, I struggle to understand why we’re so convinced Glasner should shoulder so much of the blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top