[Archived] Bowyer Sacked

[Mattyblue]

Results, results, results. 'Style' can be a nice add on.

We had neither with Bowyer.

[FGS5635]

The atmosphere in ewood makes the football seem duller in my view. Bit more singing etc and peoples perception of the game may change.

This creates the chicken and egg debate though about which comes first, decent football to cheer or cheer to help the team play better.

Hopefully if all the rumors come true in next few days, the fan base gets a good lift, therefore generating a feel good factor and better atmosphere inside ewood.

Thus in turn hopefully helping the team play a bit better and so on

[den]

To a point you're right about the style of football being less important than the results. After all Howard Kendall's team seemed to specialise in 1-0 wins. Having said that if you get the football right usually the results will follow.

What I want to see is a team out there consistently playing to the best of their ability, whatever the level of ability that is. A team that has a coherent, thought out, pattern of play where you can see why players are playing in the positions they are in. Were their abilities are suited to the roles they are given. No more square pegs in round holes. A team that wants to win more than the opposition. A team that will run further, harder and longer than the opposition. A team that isn't consistently out enthused by lesser teams.

That will do for a start. Once that happens we can start out footballing other teams.

Yeah.

Looking back on all the managers we've had since I've bee watching rovers, the more successful ones could all be identified with a certain style, a certain way of playing. It was reasonably clear how those managers wanted their sides to play, they knew what they wanted. Jack Marshall, Gordon Lee, Bobby Saxton, Hughes, Allardyce, Dalglish etc, etc. We knew what they were trying to do.

Then we had the Bryan Kidds and Paul Inces. Both of them basically coaches at best. Both of them pretty well brought in players of lesser abilities and believed they could improve them - which is what coaches do. This might upset one or two of Bowyers fans on here, but I'd put him in that bracket. He's a man who focuses on the individual and the basics of play, rather than being able to put together any kind of team, that possesses any kind of real backbone.

Incidentally, I might be wrong here, but wasn't the last manager to lose twice against Burnley John Pickering, - also a coach?

Am I sad to see him go? No. No matter what the Parsons of this world might tell us about rovers past loyalties to their managers, my recollections are that we always sacked the bad ones, but with a bit more class than we do now.

[Black Burn]

Am I sad to see him go? No. No matter what the Parsons of this world might tell us about rovers past loyalties to their managers, my recollections are that we always sacked the bad ones, but with a bit more class than we do now.

Sam Allardyce being the huge exception.

Yeah, unfortunately Bowyer had neither results nor styles, so that's a double whammy for him. A pity, because when the team attacked, like we did at Leeds, or against Charlton and Ipswich at home, we really swept them away.

Or so I've heard...I didn't watch the Leeds game. Time difference and no streams.

[RoverNev]

I agree with Matty on Bowyer. A good bloke to have as a coach by that's where it ends. We gave him the opportunity to make himself into a reputable manager and, unfortunately (or fortunately) he wasn't able to do that.

Football is a results business at the end of the day, and the mentality and form of Win, Lose, Draw will get you nowhere. It is all about beating the majority at home and grinding out results on the road, something we let slip too many times under Bowyer.

I'm not one of these to bark at him in the stands, after all, you can't blame him for not walking cause it may be unlikely he'll get another managerial post, and fair play, he gave it everything he had. just wasn't good enough.

But like the consensus, let's get behind the new man, I think I can see a little light at the end of this dark tunnel

[bluebruce]

Fortunately, that will be classed as "decent" management. Neither "poor" nor "excellent" but definitely decent. And I wouldn't have swapped him for the 15 or 16 managers who finished under him in those seasons.

No offence, but this 'the 15 or 16 managers who finished under him are all worse' thing that keeps being trotted out is simplistic bunkum. Managers are to be judged on how they do with their teams relative to that team's innate strengths. So, the squads the manager inherits, the budget, the wage bill, the fanbase, the training facilities. Arguing that every manager who finishes lower than him is worse than him (or even that every manager who finishes higher is better) is a very narrow way of looking at it. It is also like saying Brad Friedel can't have been world class whilst he was with us because we never finished higher than sixth, and that Jens Lehman must have been miles better, because look at all those trophies.

[Black Burn]

No offence, but this 'the 15 or 16 managers who finished under him are all worse' thing that keeps being trotted out is simplistic bunkum. Managers are to be judged on how they do with their teams relative to that team's innate strengths. So, the squads the manager inherits, the budget, the wage bill, the fanbase, the training facilities. Arguing that every manager who finishes lower than him is worse than him (or even that every manager who finishes higher is better) is a very narrow way of looking at it. It is also like saying Brad Friedel can't have been world class whilst he was with us because we never finished higher than sixth, and that Jens Lehman must have been miles better, because look at all those trophies.

I get what you mean, but if you put it that way, judging Bowyer based on results is also simplistic. That's what I was trying to say with Mick McCarthy and Ian Holloway. You can't write managers off as "terrible" or "poor" just by looking at their league standings. McCarthy got promotion with a few clubs, he's doing well at Ipswich considering the circumstances, as for Holloway...well, he got two clubs promoted. At the other end of the spectrum, they also have relegations on their CVs BUT I don't think that's their fault, nor do I think that makes them bad managers.

It's the same for Bowyer, he had his ups and downs, he's probably somewhere in middle or slightly above middle in terms of managerial/coaching ability. I apologize for the simplistic analogy, but I wasn't sure how else to illustrate an example that shows a more balanced viewpoint.

At the end of the day, he didn't deliver the results, and he got sacked. He wasn't an excellent manager, but he wasn't a terrible manager either.

[garnersfags]

A very "poor" manager who got us 8th and 9th the past 2 seasons, so what does that make the managers who finished under us? Terrible? Did those teams waste their 2 seasons as well?

Yes, Bowyer's results have been very poor this season, but let's scale down our expectations and be a bit more realistic instead of thinking we would have gone up those 2 seasons had Bowyer not been in charge. Hell, Bowyer finished above Mick McCarthy in his first season in charge, and even now McCarthy still hasn't gotten Ipswich promoted despite the claims of many on here that hiring him will guarantee promotion. Does that make McCarthy a poor manager? Nope. He's still a good manager, and Ipswich is doing well, especially this season where they are much better than us (but we still beat them at home! Hah!).

I think most people are being overly harsh on Bowyer, their perceptions clouded by their overwhelming desire for promotion or playoff spots. Yes, the squad we have is good, and according to some, "promotion material" - but who built the squad in the first place?

I don't know if any other manager will do better or worse, but I want to point this out: If Paul Lambert comes in here, and we don't get promoted in the next 2 seasons, I really, REALLY hope that people don't call for his head and slate him off the same way they are doing Bowyer now. Give the new manager time, whoever he is, and don't start having unrealistic expectations like "oh, he's gotten teams promoted before, there's no reason why he can't get us promoted instantly!". If Lambert or the new manager pulls it off, great, I'll be over the moon and cheering my lungs out to celebrate, but I'm not going to be bitter, disappointed and start ranting and raving how some other manager like David Moyes or Nigel Pearson would have done a better job if Lambert doesn't manage to pull it off, even by next year.

I don't know why I'm going for the bait but your total defence of all aspects of our current adminstration demands it:

The reason many of us have used terms such as 'poor' and 'failure' is that after a year of consolidation and cost-cutting, GB managed to assemble a squad for season 14/15 which was a match for any squad in the Championship. This was a successful element of the work done by GB & the club.

Despite this, and even with the 2 most prolific strikers in the division, we still failed to trouble the top 8, and only managed to salvage some false pride by rallying towards the end of the season (as in 13/14) when we had only a remote chance of reaching 6th or 7th place.

We conceded an average of 2 goals per game despite an apparent overall approach and gameplan of holding onto what we had whether at nil nil, one one, or two two.

GB failed to motivate the team, tactically or mentally, to achieve anywhere near their potential, which most of us believe was top 4.

This, in the opinion of those of us that watched the majority of games, was poor and a failure to achieve our potential. This view was formed by watching football at Ewood and beyond over 4 - 6 decades, and is the view, imo, of around 15,000+ Rovers supporters.

We like Gary, we appreciate his honesty and his efficient recruitment record, but we were disappointed and frustrated by his inability to wring the very best from the available resources.

Please discontinue from reminding us that other managers have performed equally poorly, as we are aware of all the stats available as we all live and breathe this beautiful game.

[Black Burn]

I don't know why I'm going for the bait but your total defence of all aspects of our current adminstration demands it:

I'm not even doing a total defense of all aspects of our current administration. As with the case with Bowyer, it's yet another exaggeration.

Did Bowyer deserve to get sacked? Yes. Was his results this season poor? Yes. I agree. Not sure how this constitutes a total defense, but whatever.

As for whether last season was a complete failure and waste - and I honestly was disappointed when we didn't make it to the playoffs - let's just say we'll have differing opinions on that.

[RoverNev]

I'm not even doing a total defense of all aspects of our current administration. As with the case with Bowyer, it's yet another exaggeration.

Did Bowyer deserve to get sacked? Yes. Was his results this season poor? Yes. I agree. Not sure how this constitutes a total defense, but whatever.

As for whether last season was a complete failure and waste - and I honestly was disappointed when we didn't make it to the playoffs - let's just say we'll have differing opinions on that.

I think he deserved to be sacked because it needed a change of ideas. I'm far from Bowyer's biggest fan but the results in the last three games (points wise) hasn't been a 'sackable' run of form. I've seen people keep their jobs for much worse.

[Black Burn]

I think he deserved to be sacked because it needed a change of ideas. I'm far from Bowyer's biggest fan but the results in the last three games (points wise) hasn't been a 'sackable' run of form. I've seen people keep their jobs for much worse.

3 wins in 16 games. I think that's what led to the Venkys pulling the trigger. That and our league position of 16, 4 points above the relegation zone.

[RoverNev]

3 wins in 16 games. I think that's what led to the Venkys pulling the trigger. That and our league position of 16, 4 points above the relegation zone.

Granted, it is a results game, and that's whats done for him. But we have looked better than we had at the start of the season. I couldn't see them ever sacking Bowyer and it did start to look a little more tolerable than the drivel at the start of the campaign. For me, they've decided he wasn't the man for the job after the Brighton game and results before that have been terrible. All i'm saying is that I don't think he's been sacked based on the last month's games.

[Black Burn]

Granted, it is a results game, and that's whats done for him. But we have looked better than we had at the start of the season. I couldn't see them ever sacking Bowyer and it did start to look a little more tolerable than the drivel at the start of the campaign. For me, they've decided he wasn't the man for the job after the Brighton game and results before that have been terrible. All i'm saying is that I don't think he's been sacked based on the last month's games.

Yeah, most likely they were looking at the big picture.

[gumboots]

I was never a fan of allardyce, but his style got us results more often than not. You can put up with a lot if you win more than you lose, defend well when you need to and are finishing comfortably in the table with enough points to know you're not going down before the last month of the season. The problem with Bowyer was you put up with the boredom but you didn't ever feel comfortable or reassured. We need to get tough to beat and able at the same time to get the ball to our strikers by a means that suits them- ie it's no use putting the ball up for Rhodes to run onto cos he doesn't have the pace or the physique to worry big championship players. If Lambert or whoever can give us that I'll be happy

[bluebruce]

I get what you mean, but if you put it that way, judging Bowyer based on results is also simplistic. That's what I was trying to say with Mick McCarthy and Ian Holloway. You can't write managers off as "terrible" or "poor" just by looking at their league standings. McCarthy got promotion with a few clubs, he's doing well at Ipswich considering the circumstances, as for Holloway...well, he got two clubs promoted. At the other end of the spectrum, they also have relegations on their CVs BUT I don't think that's their fault, nor do I think that makes them bad managers.

It's the same for Bowyer, he had his ups and downs, he's probably somewhere in middle or slightly above middle in terms of managerial/coaching ability. I apologize for the simplistic analogy, but I wasn't sure how else to illustrate an example that shows a more balanced viewpoint.

At the end of the day, he didn't deliver the results, and he got sacked. He wasn't an excellent manager, but he wasn't a terrible manager either.

You seem to still be missing the basic point I was making. You CAN judge managers on their results. You just have to put it all in context. Yes, McCarthy and Holloway have relegations on their CVs. But with teams that were very poor relative to their leagues. Holloway was a particularly bad fit for Millwall (personality wise, probably spot on, but his footballing mantra is antithetical to Millwall's). You should never expect a promoted team to stay up, and getting relegated back down is hardly ever a failure. Relative to his resources, I feel Bowyer did well in his caretaker spells, and did reasonably well in his first full season. When that season ended I was optimistic for the next one. Unfortunately he completely underachieved and underwhelmed in his second full season. We finished 9th but we were well off the pace, like a one-legged man chasing Usain Bolt. We never got close.

I would agree with the assessment however, that Bowyer was neither excellent nor terrible. He was pretty much bog standard. We can do better, and it was long past time for us to try that.

[T J Hooker]

Bowyer out

[booth]

Actually, you just made my point for me.

Just because McCarthy didn't get Ipswich promoted doesn't make him a bad manager - isn't that what I've been saying all this while?

Well, I'm not sure about the Freedman versus Holloway thing, but I recall Freedman had Crystal Palace on automatic promotion spots, Holloway came in and they kind of slid down, barely making it through playoffs. And yeah, I think Freedman did a bad job at Bolton, but I think you will definitely jump at having him to replace Bowyer since you seem to think Bowyer is the worst of the worst. And Holloway got sacked when Crystal Palace fell toward relegation.

But does that make Holloway a bad manager? I doubt it.

What makes you think I don't already work for the government?

No, you were justifying Bowyer by highlighting the shortcomings of managers that have far more ability.

Bowyer wasn't the worst of the worst, you've added those words yourself. Bowyer was a coach given an impossible mission. He did a good job to keep us safe in his first season as manager. In his second season he showed his failings but many felt he had potential and would learn by his mistakes. Last season it was clear he had failed to learn and fulfil any potential he had. It was the best chance he and the club ever had of getting into the playoffs and he blew it.

[Craigman]

Is Gary's dad still employed as a scout ?

[Black Burn]

I would agree with the assessment however, that Bowyer was neither excellent nor terrible. He was pretty much bog standard. We can do better, and it was long past time for us to try that.

Yeah, that was actually my main argument. Sorry for all the weird analogies and examples. I didn't mean McCarthy or Holloway were bad, and I agree, they did what they could with the resources at hand and can't be blamed for relegation of their respective clubs.

No, you were justifying Bowyer by highlighting the shortcomings of managers that have far more ability.

Bowyer wasn't the worst of the worst, you've added those words yourself. Bowyer was a coach given an impossible mission. He did a good job to keep us safe in his first season as manager. In his second season he showed his failings but many felt he had potential and would learn by his mistakes. Last season it was clear he had failed to learn and fulfil any potential he had. It was the best chance he and the club ever had of getting into the playoffs and he blew it.

Whoops, I misunderstand. Sorry. I wasn't trying to justify Bowyer, I was trying to play down the exaggerations.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Maybe in the short term he may be remembered for such things but in years to come looking at the record books it will not look very good.

(ps personally id remove Duffy and Spurr from that list)

I disagree, I think in the future his reign will be judged more favourably than not. The stats will show a winning record, some good bargain buys and a decent nucleus handed over that didn't require a Furphy-style complete clearout. I think he will sit comfortably along with the likes of Bobby Saxton in the history books.

[joey_big_nose]

Yeah.

Looking back on all the managers we've had since I've bee watching rovers, the more successful ones could all be identified with a certain style, a certain way of playing. It was reasonably clear how those managers wanted their sides to play, they knew what they wanted. Jack Marshall, Gordon Lee, Bobby Saxton, Hughes, Allardyce, Dalglish etc, etc. We knew what they were trying to do.

Then we had the Bryan Kidds and Paul Inces. Both of them basically coaches at best. Both of them pretty well brought in players of lesser abilities and believed they could improve them - which is what coaches do. This might upset one or two of Bowyers fans on here, but I'd put him in that bracket. He's a man who focuses on the individual and the basics of play, rather than being able to put together any kind of team, that possesses any kind of real backbone.

I'd agree about Bowyer. Once or twice he has started to get the team to play in a certain way which has worked to a limited extent- particularly a direct style using Gestede effectively last year or when we started playing the high pressing style after Fulham this season. But each time he couldn't sustain it, and while one part of the system would work well other crucial parts would suffer. For example using Gestede worked well in the attacking sense and we scored a lot of goals but for some reason we started to concede loads throwing away leads. This season when we pressed we began to play much better football and concede few goals but we couldn't score. And depressingly over the last few games the pressing game has unraveled, and against Brentford we looked clueless again.

If we do get Lambert it is encouraging that he has spent time in Germany etc. It suggests he is looking to come in at a club with a defined way to play and then implement it. You have to be flexible to an extent to accommodate the players you inherit, but really the manager should be imposing his system on the team. Not the team on the manager*

*(Unless you are lucky enough to be a Swansea or Southampton who have managed to develop strong club style of play which permeates every level of the organisation and the manager can just slot in. We sadly do not have that. Would love for us to get there, but you need years of development and quality management from the board level)

[garnersfags]

I'm not even doing a total defense of all aspects of our current administration. As with the case with Bowyer, it's yet another exaggeration.

Did Bowyer deserve to get sacked? Yes. Was his results this season poor? Yes. I agree. Not sure how this constitutes a total defense, but whatever.

As for whether last season was a complete failure and waste - and I honestly was disappointed when we didn't make it to the playoffs - let's just say we'll have differing opinions on that.

Fair enough.

[1864roverite]

Bowyers gone let it go.

Yes he steadied the ship and put us on a steady course.

This season everything has gone wrong from the very first kick off. Wrong team set up wrong tactics and well,,,, everything was just wrong.

[DE.]

Still no public words from Bowyer?

[tomphil]

He'll be waiting for the festival to finish before he gets his NDA and reads the fine print.