[Archived] Mowbray stays as manager

[Dunnfc]

14 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

In fairness most managers end up with the sack.  Mark Hughes was a manager at Ewood who was hugely successful and who I would still rate as a good manager but who has been sacked at a number of clubs.

That I agree with and you do have to usually take each in on their own individual merit but don't be to naive about TM he's got his faults.

[Dreams of 1995]

Well Mark Hughes has been sacked from Man City & QPR, two clubs hardly known for their patience with managers.

2 is a number I guess.

[JHRover]

45 minutes ago, punerover said:

I am not debating that Bowyer should not have been potted. He should have, else he would have taken us down. The new manager bounce of Lambert's appointment probably kept us up that season. The 3 wins and 2 draws immediately come to mind. But after that a series of 1-0 losses and 1-1 draws, hardly a away win, hardly a 0-0 draw. It was surely a bit better but results was nowhere close to promotion. We were not scoring enough, we were not keeping enough clean sheets. Our January transfer window was a disaster even when we got out of FFP.

January transfers under Lambert:

Elliot Bennet - winger
Simeon Jackson - striker
Danny Graham - striker
Tony Watt - striker
Jordi Gomez - attacking midfielder
Matt Grimes - winger

No goalkeepers signed. No defenders signed, No central midfielders signed. This shows that Lambert clearly thought we were good enough in midfield and defense and only needed more attacking options in order to reach playoffs or thereabouts. Looking at this I would not blame anyone to not trust him with a 20 million transfer kitty (even if there was one, which obviously isn't the case.)

End of season, he decides to go.

He was better than Bowyer no doubt. but nowhere as good as the automatic promotion material that some are claiming him to be.

 

Hard to judge a manager on one January transfer window, especially when in the same window he sold our star striker and had clearly been promised substantial cash the following summer.

I very much believe he was keeping his powder dry, signing a few trusted former players (Bennett and Ward) to fill the squad up whilst some quality loans came in to see us through the season until the real work could begin when time and planning was on our side.

Perhaps the most laughable claim I have ever witnessed is that Lambert was backed heavily and Venkys invested in that January window because they sanctioned the loan signings/wages of Graham, Gomez etc which must have cost money.

Beyond belief really when you consider the expenditure and investment at rival clubs along with the outgoing wage of Rhodes and his £10 million transfer fee, that some attempt to credit the owners with investing a small portion of that money on some loans to see us through.

I'm not aware of any manager that blows his budget in January when its clear promotion isn't going to happen and the real work is in the summer.

Unfortunately Lambert wanted two things that most professional, ambitious and serious clubs deliver on - good planning and good backing - e.g. a thought out strategy for recruitment and a proper budget to work with from May onwards rather than throwing a few quid his way for 3-4 loans and free agents at the last minute which doesn't really cut the mustard.

[JacknOry]

Doing enough points wise but agree with many on here that we look to be 'getting away with it' a lot of the time. Had the Rotherham equalizer stood and had Gillinghma had at least one player that had their shooting boots on - we could be looking at a much more difficult situation. I am just hoping that this 'bedding' in period of ours starts to level out and that it leads to much better performances. Favourites at the start of the season, must have the biggest wage bill, we actually invested and spent some transfer fees (shockingly), kept hold of our better players and quite obviously our squad on paper is better than anyones (apart from, arguably, Wigans). Anything less than promotion has to be considered a failure imo.

We seem to struggle at home against teams that park on us - so I guess with so many homes games coming up - we are going to be a lot closer to finding out what our season is likely to end like.

[JHRover]

Just now, JacknOry said:

Doing enough points wise but agree with many on here that we look to be 'getting away with it' a lot of the time. Had the Rotherham equalizer stood and had Gillinghma had at least one player that had their shooting boots on - we could be looking at a much more difficult situation. I am just hoping that this 'bedding' in period of ours starts to level out and that it leads to much better performances. Favourites at the start of the season, must have the biggest wage bill, we actually invested and spent some transfer fees (shockingly), kept hold of our better players and quite obviously our squad on paper is better than anyones (apart from, arguably, Wigans). Anything less than promotion has to be considered a failure imo.

We seem to struggle at home against teams that park on us - so I guess with so many homes games coming up - we are going to be a lot closer to finding out what our season is likely to end like.

All of Burnley's success under Dyche has been based on 'getting away with it' and 'doing just enough'. Consistently getting dominated, outplayed and hanging on to a 1-0 lead, yet they have it down to a fine art.

So I've no problem if that is our approach, as long as it works, but really yes there comes a stage where we need to be performing better, or certainly for longer periods, than we have.

[JacknOry]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

All of Burnley's success under Dyche has been based on 'getting away with it' and 'doing just enough'. Consistently getting dominated, outplayed and hanging on to a 1-0 lead, yet they have it down to a fine art.

So I've no problem if that is our approach, as long as it works, but really yes there comes a stage where we need to be performing better, or certainly for longer periods, than we have.

i would be very surprised if he is trying to copy that model but you never know with TM. I would have thought that we have the players where we dont need to get away with it and can impose ourselves and control games. We have shown to be able to do this on occasion but those performances are far too fleeting.

We need to completely stonk someone at home to truly get the monkey off our back and some real confidence in the players when playing at home.

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, punerover said:

I am not debating that Bowyer should not have been potted. He should have, else he would have taken us down. The new manager bounce of Lambert's appointment probably kept us up that season. The 3 wins and 2 draws immediately come to mind. But after that a series of 1-0 losses and 1-1 draws, hardly a away win, hardly a 0-0 draw. It was surely a bit better but results was nowhere close to promotion. We were not scoring enough, we were not keeping enough clean sheets. Our January transfer window was a disaster even when we got out of FFP.

January transfers under Lambert:

Elliot Bennet - winger
Simeon Jackson - striker
Danny Graham - striker
Tony Watt - striker
Jordi Gomez - attacking midfielder
Matt Grimes - winger

No goalkeepers signed. No defenders signed, No central midfielders signed. This shows that Lambert clearly thought we were good enough in midfield and defense and only needed more attacking options in order to reach playoffs or thereabouts. Looking at this I would not blame anyone to not trust him with a 20 million transfer kitty (even if there was one, which obviously isn't the case.)

End of season, he decides to go.

He was better than Bowyer no doubt. but nowhere as good as the automatic promotion material that some are claiming him to be.

 

Elliot Ward?

[Athlete]

36 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Well Mark Hughes has been sacked from Man City & QPR, two clubs hardly known for their patience with managers.

2 is a number I guess.

City was when they were moving up a gear managerial wise..his QPR reign was fraught from the start

[Athlete]

1 hour ago, Parsonblue said:

Mowbray has had success and failure during his managerial career but could hardly be described as a proven failure.  

hardly a success long time since his Reign at Hibs and then taking WBA up

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, Phil T said:

You mean like MK Dons?

No, they had no goal threat and we only convinced when chapman came on. 

[Tom]

Nominated for manager of the month for September 

[philipl]

Mowbray is measured on a simple binary.

In the Championship 2018/19 = success

In League 1 or 2 2018/19 = failure

 

[DE.]

Can't believe people are still going on about Lambert. He was here for a fairly average six months, and as far as I can tell was basically brought in to get Jordan Rhodes out the door so that Venky's could pocket the cash or throw it into the black hole of debts they've created. Once he realised he wasn't getting a penny of that money back to reinvest, as he had allegedly been promised, he opted to leave after guiding us to an unremarkable mid-table finish. The end.  

[tomphil]

42 minutes ago, DE. said:

Can't believe people are still going on about Lambert. He was here for a fairly average six months, and as far as I can tell was basically brought in to get Jordan Rhodes out the door so that Venky's could pocket the cash or throw it into the black hole of debts they've created. Once he realised he wasn't getting a penny of that money back to reinvest, as he had allegedly been promised, he opted to leave after guiding us to an unremarkable mid-table finish. The end.  

That's it in a nutshell basically, he thought he was going to get carte blanche and they thought they'd throw him a bone of a couple of Prem loans and he'd get us promoted. Both sides failed each other but only the club and fans actually suffer as usual.

[G Somerset Rover]

Going over old ground, but why on earth did he consult the senior players as to whether they wanted to play or not? Absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, they're paid to bloody play games of football for us, and just that, and secondly, all of them should be chomping at the bit to prove to the manager that they're worthy of a place in our 11 moving forward. 

Highlights to me that Tony is far too soft and would explain the non-performances of our 'senior' players in this match, and a few others this season too.

[JBiz]

3 hours ago, DE. said:

Can't believe people are still going on about Lambert. He was here for a fairly average six months, and as far as I can tell was basically brought in to get Jordan Rhodes out the door so that Venky's could pocket the cash or throw it into the black hole of debts they've created. Once he realised he wasn't getting a penny of that money back to reinvest, as he had allegedly been promised, he opted to leave after guiding us to an unremarkable mid-table finish. The end.  

If you genuinely think that the thought process behind hiring PL was to shift JR and plug some gaps.. I'm not sure what to say.

I agree with the rest though, he's barely even worth mentioning in the cacophony of crap that this ownership have served up.

[DE.]

2 minutes ago, Biz said:

If you genuinely think that the thought process behind hiring PL was to shift JR and plug some gaps.. I'm not sure what to say.

I agree with the rest though, he's barely even worth mentioning in the cacophony of crap that this ownership have served up.

I'm half joking, but who knows with this lot? Mad as a box of frogs. Point is that Lambert is an extremely minor footnote in the grand scheme of things, barely even worth remembering.

[JBiz]

2 minutes ago, DE. said:

I'm half joking, but who knows with this lot? Mad as a box of frogs. Point is that Lambert is an extremely minor footnote in the grand scheme of things, barely even worth remembering.

It's another blast from the past, another classic BRFCS paranoid delusion that has coincidental rationale to the obvious scenario. 

Whilst I think PL was initially a good choice, the way he threw his toys out of the pram by march changed my mind. You'd have to be absolutely living under a rock to be oblivious to the scenario he inherited. Obviously sold a pack of lies though..

 

[AllRoverAsia]

23 hours ago, punerover said:

I am not debating that Bowyer should not have been potted. He should have, else he would have taken us down. The new manager bounce of Lambert's appointment probably kept us up that season. The 3 wins and 2 draws immediately come to mind. But after that a series of 1-0 losses and 1-1 draws, hardly a away win, hardly a 0-0 draw. It was surely a bit better but results was nowhere close to promotion. We were not scoring enough, we were not keeping enough clean sheets. Our January transfer window was a disaster even when we got out of FFP.

January transfers under Lambert:

Elliot Bennet - winger
Simeon Jackson - striker
Danny Graham - striker
Tony Watt - striker
Jordi Gomez - attacking midfielder
Matt Grimes - winger

No goalkeepers signed. No defenders signed, No central midfielders signed. This shows that Lambert clearly thought we were good enough in midfield and defense and only needed more attacking options in order to reach playoffs or thereabouts. Looking at this I would not blame anyone to not trust him with a 20 million transfer kitty (even if there was one, which obviously isn't the case.)

End of season, he decides to go.

He was better than Bowyer no doubt. but nowhere as good as the automatic promotion material that some are claiming him to be.

 

"End of season, he decides to go"

Actually and after finally pushing Rhodes onto a bus to Boro he exercised his until then unknown contract clause and resigned, working notice until season end.

A dour boring person with his head up his arse.

[tomphil]

I think Lambert fell into the trap of a few others probably including Coyle & Mowbray by assuming what they were inheriting was better than it actually was and just a few tweaks would fire it all up.

I'd have fancied him with the previous side GB had more or less put together but once the sales had started and the rot set into that lot it was a difficult task for anyone and his signings and approach to it weren't good enough in the end but actually I think he kept us up he at least had the brains to replace Rhodes with someone capable of scoring goals in his system.

All relative anyway because just like keeping Kean in the hotseat if you were looking to nail a relegation you couldn't find anyone better than Coyle who also presided over about ten million quids worth of sales. Lambert wasn't going to stay around to be Venkys scapegoat but clownpants was more than willing as long as he just got out at the right times.

Some crafty moves from somewhere.

[JacknOry]

3 hours ago, tomphil said:

I think Lambert fell into the trap of a few others probably including Coyle & Mowbray by assuming what they were inheriting was better than it actually was and just a few tweaks would fire it all up.

I'd have fancied him with the previous side GB had more or less put together but once the sales had started and the rot set into that lot it was a difficult task for anyone and his signings and approach to it weren't good enough in the end but actually I think he kept us up he at least had the brains to replace Rhodes with someone capable of scoring goals in his system.

All relative anyway because just like keeping Kean in the hotseat if you were looking to nail a relegation you couldn't find anyone better than Coyle who also presided over about ten million quids worth of sales. Lambert wasn't going to stay around to be Venkys scapegoat but clownpants was more than willing as long as he just got out at the right times.

Some crafty moves from somewhere.

He had been out of a job for a while and I dont think he was that naive to what had gone on before. I feel it was a case of win-win for him in many ways. Do well at a crumbling club owned by loons and be heralded for your next job or do badly and you already have the excuses in place. It was his way to get back into managing over here and finding a job so quickly after kind of tells us that his failure here was kind of ignored due to our circumstances.

On top of that he was wise enough to insert 'that' clause.

[TBTF]

On ‎03‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 17:07, JHRover said:

All of Burnley's success under Dyche has been based on 'getting away with it' and 'doing just enough'. Consistently getting dominated, outplayed and hanging on to a 1-0 lead, yet they have it down to a fine art.

So I've no problem if that is our approach, as long as it works, but really yes there comes a stage where we need to be performing better, or certainly for longer periods, than we have.

don't disagree JH, but Mowbray was the one who talked about needing to score 80 goals. they were his words. Yet he doesn't to me look like he has anywhere near the ammunition for that which begs the question about his recruitment. Worse than that, I don't see a manager in Mowbray who sets his team up to attack and look to score that many either.

I will take 1-0 week in week out -buts its not what he banged on about several teams pre season. He seems to have turned Danny Graham into a donkey too which lessens our goal output even more. If Samuel somehow and miraculously gets 25 goals where do the other 55 come from?????

far from convinced by this bloke I have to say.

 

[tomphil]

53 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

He had been out of a job for a while and I dont think he was that naive to what had gone on before. I feel it was a case of win-win for him in many ways. Do well at a crumbling club owned by loons and be heralded for your next job or do badly and you already have the excuses in place. It was his way to get back into managing over here and finding a job so quickly after kind of tells us that his failure here was kind of ignored due to our circumstances.

On top of that he was wise enough to insert 'that' clause.

Aye  I doubt he'd have got the Wolves gig if he hadn't had a stab at the Rovers job which got him back in the media as somewhat a victim of circumstance.

Just another sorry chapter in the Venky charade.

[JacknOry]

Just now, tomphil said:

Aye  I doubt he'd have got the Wolves gig if he hadn't had a stab at the Rovers job which got him back in the media as somewhat a victim of circumstance.

Just another sorry chapter in the Venky charade.

Yup he knew what he was doing and really, despite all his pre-job PR about visiting top European clubs and managers like Pep, he has hardly been good at anything other than talking a good game. A sad state of affairs really, that we (including me) were actually quite excited by his appointment (considering our previous others) when in reality, he has not really performed anywhere.

[Roverthechimp]

10 hours ago, TBTF said:

don't disagree JH, but Mowbray was the one who talked about needing to score 80 goals. they were his words. Yet he doesn't to me look like he has anywhere near the ammunition for that which begs the question about his recruitment. Worse than that, I don't see a manager in Mowbray who sets his team up to attack and look to score that many either.

I will take 1-0 week in week out -buts its not what he banged on about several teams pre season. He seems to have turned Danny Graham into a donkey too which lessens our goal output even more. If Samuel somehow and miraculously gets 25 goals where do the other 55 come from?????

far from convinced by this bloke I have to say.

 

Even including our 2 no shows at the start of the season we are on course for 73 goals (1.6 per game). So not that huge a leap but agree that Graham is worrying as i think many of us (including TM) expected him to bag in this division.