Monks gone?

[gurujuan]

Nothing of what I’ve seen so far, has convinced me, maybe Monk is the man to take us forward. In my opinion, sticking to the 

4-2-3-1 system, Including harnessing the talents of Westwood and Hutchinson, would have seen us there or thereabouts 

Then more imaginative use of the loan market in January, we could have pushed on. Instead, bloody chaos

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 hour ago, 83owl said:

Owlstalk posters - Why hasnt Penney signed a new contract yet? There’s only 6 months left and we are in danger of losing him on a free.

 

Owlstalk posters - I can’t believe monk told the players whose contracts are expiring in 6 months that their contracts won’t be renewed. That’s bad man management telling them that.

 

 

Or he could just offer contracts to key players he knows he wants to keep early and then keep the door open for the others even if he privately knows he’ll probably let them go. It’s called incentivising people to perform in their role. The players would accept that as that’s how it is in football. Absolutely no benefit in telling someone they’re going at the end of the season with 20 games left, it’s bad management 

[nickswfc]

A lot of the excuses being made for Monk are similar to the ones being made for Jos. Bruce proved this squad is capable of a lot, lot more and losing him was a massive blow. 

 

There's a lot of factors as to why we're so poor and it's certainly not all down to Monk. But his man management, demeanor and baffling team selections are certainly large factors in my opinion and he has to take a portion of the blame.

[gurujuan]

17 minutes ago, nickswfc said:

A lot of the excuses being made for Monk are similar to the ones being made for Jos. Bruce proved this squad is capable of a lot, lot more and losing him was a massive blow. 

 

There's a lot of factors as to why we're so poor and it's certainly not all down to Monk. But his man management, demeanor and baffling team selections are certainly large factors in my opinion and he has to take a portion of the blame.

Indeed, and I’m sure those issues were there for Bruce as well, but he has the experience, and more importantly, the personality to work with those issues, changing things when he could. Credit also to Bullen, who realised the need to keep things on an even keel, following the shock departure of Bruce. It was what was needed, and for a while, it looked as if Monk had grasped that. 
However, as so often happens with Monk, his lack of man management skills, meant that we lurched into a totally avoidable crisis. This, as usual, has been compounded by his inability to accept any responsibility

Edited April 1, 2020 by gurujuan

[DJMortimer]

13 hours ago, Owls Loyal said:

Meanwhile DJ Mortimer posted the following:

 

A change of manager can of course bring about the kind of change desired, but most of the time it doesn't for long because it fails to address at least some of the foundational causes. And in our case at the moment, I think that is most certainly true.

 

Well the tone of that sounds very definitive as did DJ Mortimer's defence of Luhukay right up until the end of his time at SWFC.

 

That's three times you've mentioned DJ Mortimer already. Seems like you've developed a bad case of 'must win on the internet'. DJ Mortimer will take it as a back-handed compliment.

 

Unfortunately, many people succumb to this compulsion to reduce every argument to one of two simplistic, polarised opposites. And as DJ Mortimer obviously doesn't support the 'everything the manager has ever done is wrong and he must be sacked' option, then the only possible alternative view DJ Mortimer could hold is the 'everything the manager has ever done is right and he must be knighted' option. You're not likely to paint many nuanced masterpieces if you've only got two colours and the sort of brush they used to put roadside billboards up with.

 

Ner, ner, ner-ner, ner.

 

[83owl]

10 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Or he could just offer contracts to key players he knows he wants to keep early and then keep the door open for the others even if he privately knows he’ll probably let them go. It’s called incentivising people to perform in their role. The players would accept that as that’s how it is in football. Absolutely no benefit in telling someone they’re going at the end of the season with 20 games left, it’s bad management 

The players will know they are going at the end of the season if they haven’t been offered a new contract. Their agents will be in contact with a representative of the club and if they aren’t in talks to extend then they know they will be leaving. There’s nothing a manager can do to incentivise them. 
 

I can’t believe the number of people that don’t seem to understand this and keep bringing the same point up.

[83owl]

10 hours ago, nickswfc said:

A lot of the excuses being made for Monk are similar to the ones being made for Jos. Bruce proved this squad is capable of a lot, lot more and losing him was a massive blow. 

 

There's a lot of factors as to why we're so poor and it's certainly not all down to Monk. But his man management, demeanor and baffling team selections are certainly large factors in my opinion and he has to take a portion of the blame.

Bruce took over last season we were in 14th and finished in 12th.

We are currently in 15th, hardly a huge difference.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

16 minutes ago, 83owl said:

The players will know they are going at the end of the season if they haven’t been offered a new contract. Their agents will be in contact with a representative of the club and if they aren’t in talks to extend then they know they will be leaving. There’s nothing a manager can do to incentivise them. 
 

I can’t believe the number of people that don’t seem to understand this and keep bringing the same point up.

That’s just not how it works though is it.. there are countless examples of players signing new contracts after the end of the season. They don’t have to know they’re staying or going until the end. 
 

There are good reasons why this is the case. Teams don’t always know what their budget for the next season will be or even what division they’ll be in sometimes when there are games left to play. Players know this is how football is so they wouldn’t automatically think they’ve no chance of staying unless explicitly told. And why would any manager do that when you’re still trying to get performances out of them 
 

Do you think Bruce told Boyd and Matias that they had no chance of a new deal despite being involved in most of the games towards the end of last season? I don’t.. I think he dangled them the carrot of it being possible if they performed. He used the situation as motivation 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

18 minutes ago, 83owl said:

Bruce took over last season we were in 14th and finished in 12th.

We are currently in 15th, hardly a huge difference.

This is statistical manipulation tbh.. Bruce got 8 wins, 8 draws and 4 losses from 20

games. The league position is a bit of an irrelevance because all you can do is win your games and see where you finish. Monks record is far worse than that.. we’ve lost more games than we’ve won under him.

By your logic he took over a team in 9th and took them down to 15th. Poor manager 

[Big Jack]

14 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Still miles better than Dawson who lets in 2-3 goals a game with the exception of a 6 game spell just before Xmas, never been championship standard. Westwood was back to his best end of 2018-2019 so its likely he was just on a poor run of form

And let's not forget the defending has been worse than a pub team.

[83owl]

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

That’s just not how it works though is it.. there are countless examples of players signing new contracts after the end of the season. They don’t have to know they’re staying or going until the end. 
 

There are good reasons why this is the case. Teams don’t always know what their budget for the next season will be or even what division they’ll be in sometimes when there are games left to play. Players know this is how football is so they wouldn’t automatically think they’ve no chance of staying unless explicitly told. And why would any manager do that when you’re still trying to get performances out of them 
 

Do you think Bruce told Boyd and Matias that they had no chance of a new deal despite being involved in most of the games towards the end of last season? I don’t.. I think he dangled them the carrot of it being possible if they performed. He used the situation as motivation 

It’s very rare a player isn’t in negotiation to extend before the end of the season.
 

The club doesn’t want to leave it that late as if talks break down there’s no time to renegotiate before someone else signs them up.

 

Agents/players don’t want to leave it late as if they get a serious injury towards the end of the season then they are without income for the foreseeable future.

 

Boyd and Matias will have known they were leaving, you seriously think they would believe Bruce if he said “you’ve barely played for 3 years but you might get a new deal if you play these last 5 games” Footballers are generally stupid, but not that stupid.

[83owl]

15 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

This is statistical manipulation tbh.. Bruce got 8 wins, 8 draws and 4 losses from 20

games. The league position is a bit of an irrelevance because all you can do is win your games and see where you finish. Monks record is far worse than that.. we’ve lost more games than we’ve won under him.

By your logic he took over a team in 9th and took them down to 15th. Poor manager 

Compare it like for like then. Bruce’s first 20 games compared to monks first 20. Barely any difference.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

7 minutes ago, 83owl said:

It’s very rare a player isn’t in negotiation to extend before the end of the season.
 

The club doesn’t want to leave it that late as if talks break down there’s no time to renegotiate before someone else signs them up.

 

Agents/players don’t want to leave it late as if they get a serious injury towards the end of the season then they are without income for the foreseeable future.

 

Boyd and Matias will have known they were leaving, you seriously think they would believe Bruce if he said “you’ve barely played for 3 years but you might get a new deal if you play these last 5 games” Footballers are generally stupid, but not that stupid.

I think it depends.. we used to do it all the time under Milan. I can remember a season where we released the retained list and there must have been half a dozen players we offered new deals to after the end of the season. Likes of Johnson, Prutton, Coke etc. Obviously if you have a key player you want to keep then you can agree earlier.. I’m just saying it’s not unusual for it to be done last minute. And it’s certainly not wise to say in December you’re leaving in May.. it’s not going to motivate anyone

 

And yes I do actually think that’s how Bruce will have played it. I wasn’t sure myself that he was definitely going to release them because they’d been involved a lot under him. Obviously you can suspect one way or the other... it’s just that it doesn’t make sense to close the door on things early even if there’s only a relatively small chance. There’s nothing to lose by keeping options open so I don’t get why decisions would be made and communicated so far in advance. There’s no benefit to the club in doing that 

[dorian gray]

On 31/03/2020 at 12:06, Owls Loyal said:

As Sir Brian Clough once said::

 

"Injuries happen"

 

Is dorian gray really suggesting that the absence of a 33 year old centre forward caused us to lose 5-0 at home to Blackburn Rovers or 3-0 at home to Reading.

 

I might also point out to dorian gray that Fletcher was playing in the total 5-0 capitulation away at Brentford.

 

Monk is finished at SWFC because he is a completely useless football manager but unfortunately it looks like we are going to drag it out as we are far too indecisive.

IF you don't understand what you saw, then i'm not going to explain what is obviously a level of football that's above you, but i can understand that people have differing levels in different subjects.

when do you think 'monk is finished'?

when will your prediction spring into action?

[Owls Loyal]

I have to say that is a patronising response from dorian gray.

 

I have an opinion but I am never sarcastic or patronising about others' views.

 

Swansea, Middlesborough and Birmingham all got rid of Monk pretty quickly.

 

Perhaps dorian gray could provide one tangible piece of evidence indicating that Monk will succeed at Sheffield Wedndsday?

 

[dorian gray]

13 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Of course it can't all be down to Monk but he is the manager and it is his responsibility to manage the team and part of that involves dealing with whatever is thrown at him and whatever may happen behind the scenes that has an effect on the team.

 

It is clear that he hasn't been able to adequately deal with whatever happened in that respect and the pattern of results generally is following what happened in a few of his other jobs, all of which ended after a year or so after initial promise.

 

 

The squad is unbalanced but the financial constraints are nothing new and we have brought in a few new players over the past year or so. Monk knew what he was walking into and others have managed to get some results out of this squad without relying solely on Steven Fletcher.

 

If the season does get finished it looks probable that we could well finish bottom of the table for results over the second half of the season, a complete collapse that the manager has to take significant responsibility for but you think it is understandable that we are performing far worse than every team in the division baar Hull because Fletcher has been injured.

 

What difference did Fletcher make when we were 3-0 down at half-time in the last 2 matches? 

let me try and help you here. 

as i've pointed out in a previous post it's well known amongst our fan base that...

a) our squad in general was built for one style of play, it got sussed at wembley, and as time went on was sussed by more and more, until in the third season we were very close to entering into a relegation struggle.

b) it was built to win promotion within two years, IT FAILED, and in the subsequent seasons the 'stars' brought in were 'over the hill'.

c) gambling additions like winnall and rhodes FAILED, and both failed miserably, rhodes at vast expense.

d) fletcher was recruited, and despite him being injury prone (and us having an appallingly poor record when it came to injury blighted players) it turned out well, he led the line but needed proper assistance up top to be at his best, we had nothing to give him, he had to tow his nuts off on his own.

e) the monies spent whilst moving very little on meant the ffp rules were now restricting wednesday in any further player recruitment, and thus the quality of squad fell away  further over time.

f) slight squad improvements were made from the time of bruce, but little and (by those amongst our fan base who knew a bit) way short of what was needed to suggest we were promotion hopefuls, perhaps with some luck, some saw us as possible play-off hopefuls.

g) THEN we hit a 'golden period where the pisspoor monk gerts our very limited side into 3rd. place, and were it not for points lost late on in a number of games (due to our aging and limited squad) we'd be in at least the top 2.

h) THEN, the only forward we have who is not 3rd. division calabre gets a serious injury, we have no 'outball' whatsoever, so it's continual pressure on us throughout games with little in attack despite all being tried. in the Christmas window next to **** all is done about the problem.

footnote; our aging and passed it squad cannot play 2 games per week, or 3 in 8 days, unless we try to be tight at the back, and raid.

well as with all things in football (and we ought to know better than most looking back 4/5 years) IF you have just one idea you'll get sussed in the end.

so sides realise that when playing wednesday they're only likely to score once in a game (if they're  lucky), so if you can make it a high scoring game of 4, 5, 6 or more goals you'll be on a winner, and guess what? opposition scouts, coaches and management have a bit more understanding of football than some of our fans, and results turn badly.

you could add to that there seems to be somewhat of a 'rebellion' amongst some of our players, who it appears may not be entirely new to 'rebellion'.

[dorian gray]

12 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Indeed, and I’m sure those issues were there for Bruce as well, but he has the experience, and more importantly, the personality to work with those issues, changing things when he could. Credit also to Bullen, who realised the need to keep things on an even keel, following the shock departure of Bruce. It was what was needed, and for a while, it looked as if Monk had grasped that. 
However, as so often happens with Monk, his lack of man management skills, meant that we lurched into a totally avoidable crisis. This, as usual, has been compounded by his inability to accept any responsibility

let's be fair gurujuan you wanted 'uncle coco', or a coco clone since the start. 

[gurujuan]

3 hours ago, dorian gray said:

let's be fair gurujuan you wanted 'uncle coco', or a coco clone since the start. 

Yes, I never wanted Monk, and feared it might turn out like this, but........ For the sake of continuity, I hoped that this might be the job where we were to see a different side of Monk. I don’t like unnecessary upheaval, so would have preferred Monk to have made a go of this.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, dorian gray said:

let me try and help you here. 

as i've pointed out in a previous post it's well known amongst our fan base that...

a) our squad in general was built for one style of play, it got sussed at wembley, and as time went on was sussed by more and more, until in the third season we were very close to entering into a relegation struggle.

b) it was built to win promotion within two years, IT FAILED, and in the subsequent seasons the 'stars' brought in were 'over the hill'.

c) gambling additions like winnall and rhodes FAILED, and both failed miserably, rhodes at vast expense.

d) fletcher was recruited, and despite him being injury prone (and us having an appallingly poor record when it came to injury blighted players) it turned out well, he led the line but needed proper assistance up top to be at his best, we had nothing to give him, he had to tow his nuts off on his own.

e) the monies spent whilst moving very little on meant the ffp rules were now restricting wednesday in any further player recruitment, and thus the quality of squad fell away  further over time.

f) slight squad improvements were made from the time of bruce, but little and (by those amongst our fan base who knew a bit) way short of what was needed to suggest we were promotion hopefuls, perhaps with some luck, some saw us as possible play-off hopefuls.

g) THEN we hit a 'golden period where the pisspoor monk gerts our very limited side into 3rd. place, and were it not for points lost late on in a number of games (due to our aging and limited squad) we'd be in at least the top 2.

h) THEN, the only forward we have who is not 3rd. division calabre gets a serious injury, we have no 'outball' whatsoever, so it's continual pressure on us throughout games with little in attack despite all being tried. in the Christmas window next to **** all is done about the problem.

footnote; our aging and passed it squad cannot play 2 games per week, or 3 in 8 days, unless we try to be tight at the back, and raid.

well as with all things in football (and we ought to know better than most looking back 4/5 years) IF you have just one idea you'll get sussed in the end.

so sides realise that when playing wednesday they're only likely to score once in a game (if they're  lucky), so if you can make it a high scoring game of 4, 5, 6 or more goals you'll be on a winner, and guess what? opposition scouts, coaches and management have a bit more understanding of football than some of our fans, and results turn badly.

you could add to that there seems to be somewhat of a 'rebellion' amongst some of our players, who it appears may not be entirely new to 'rebellion'.

 

Other managers have managed to get results without Fletcher. 

It is obvious to anyone that our squad was built to get promoted in two years and a better job should have been done in terms of churning players over but it is what it is now, Monk knew that when he took over.

 

Yes he got us to 3rd place but just as he has done at previous clubs, his initial good start has faded. His tactics in us continually conceding late goals before the new Year have to take some of the blame with the players. His substitutions at that time were called into question many a time. His substitutions since the turn of the year have largely been made at half-time as a result of his opening line-ups not being up to scratch. 

 

Having 1 way of playing effectively is an issue but we shouldn't fall off a cliff just because Fletcher got injured. I agree it was a major blow but we shouldn't go from one of the best defensive records in the country to one of the worst just because a forward got injured.

Since Fletcher returned we have won 1 thanks to him but have been 3-0 down at half-time in the last two league games. 

There are sides with worse squads than ours in the division but some managers are able to find an effective way of playing to the extent that they are at least not out of the game before the half-time whistle goes.

 

I was open minded about Monk but what I have seen to date backs up the reasons why no club have seen fit to give him an extended stay and he hasn't had any notable success. 

 

[dorian gray]

On 02/04/2020 at 14:31, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Other managers have managed to get results without Fletcher. 

It is obvious to anyone that our squad was built to get promoted in two years and a better job should have been done in terms of churning players over but it is what it is now, Monk knew that when he took over.

 

Yes he got us to 3rd place but just as he has done at previous clubs, his initial good start has faded. His tactics in us continually conceding late goals before the new Year have to take some of the blame with the players. His substitutions at that time were called into question many a time. His substitutions since the turn of the year have largely been made at half-time as a result of his opening line-ups not being up to scratch. 

 

Having 1 way of playing effectively is an issue but we shouldn't fall off a cliff just because Fletcher got injured. I agree it was a major blow but we shouldn't go from one of the best defensive records in the country to one of the worst just because a forward got injured.

Since Fletcher returned we have won 1 thanks to him but have been 3-0 down at half-time in the last two league games. 

There are sides with worse squads than ours in the division but some managers are able to find an effective way of playing to the extent that they are at least not out of the game before the half-time whistle goes.

 

I was open minded about Monk but what I have seen to date backs up the reasons why no club have seen fit to give him an extended stay and he hasn't had any notable success. 

 

a good number of parts in your post merely support my points.

firstly who were these 'other managers'?

of course monk knew when he took over who in general our playing staff was, but he wouldn't know the only one capable of hitting a cow's arse with a banjo was a slow old premier league warhorse and nuhiu for 15 minutes a game.

he didn't concede late goals, our aging and spent side did.

i don't know you, nor you i, but i have been on, and read a number of pages on here where people (our fans) were never 'open minded about monk' they were gritting the teeth at having to wait so long to stab him in the back as we went up the division, but the opportunity was never lost to mention that had our aged side hung on in every game we'd be much better off than 3rd. and monk was to blame for that. 

they were full in the knowledge that when his replacement came all our problems would be sorted by our back line suddenly turning into ball players, and us taking a minimum or 3 minutes to get it from the keeper to the halfway line.

having fletcher as the only forward of any merit is a very good reason for our form falling off a cliff when he was injured for a long period.

our defensive prowess fell apart as without an outball, our defence knew that it has to hold out for the side to gain a point, and the opposition knows this too, and the opposition also know that it can attack with greater numbers against a side with no attacking response, whilst also assured that some in the s6 crowd are and have been ready to turn nasty at the first sign of problems.

there maybe sides with 'worse' squads, but are there sides with such unbalanced squads?, are the clubs with as many players in it who are incapable of performing in this division? are there squads who have only the one forward? are there clubs where the competent playing staff are as old? i think all 4 answers might well be NO!