Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2020 at 14:03, gurujuan said:

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.

hahahahahah! who would you have in then?................

a) absolutely anyone you dare to name (let's pretend we aren't a ****ing shambles, with a chronic squad, and the club is in a fantastic financial position) you know, what you dream of.

and b) reality, like when alan irvine came in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, dorian gray said:

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!

 

 

So at the start of the season you would have expected us to perform worse than every side bar one in the division for a 3rd of the season due to our squad being more unbalanced than everyone else? You saw this coming did you? 

 

Even Jos Luhukay's last 14 games in charge weren't as bad as our current form. 

 

Losing games by half-time and failing to compete against the bottom 6 clubs consistently is unacceptable.

Edited by hirstyboywonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As hirstyboywonder says about Monk:

 

"Losing games by half-time and failing to compete against the bottom 6 clubs consistently is unacceptable."

 

Even in the darkest days of the 1970's and boy were they were dark I cannot remember being hammered by half time as has happened on a number of occasions under Monk.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by hirstyboywonder

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People suggesting that we need to let Monk bring in his own players, let’s not forget that Bruce brought in 7 new players last summer. Most would have said that number would have been sufficient to address our lack of balance. How many new signings do people think we need to complete the job? 
I’d back Bruce to make a better job of recruitment than Monk, but it’s debatable whether his signings have made us significantly better. Now some fans suggest a clear out, and bringing some new blood in. 
With Monk’s January signings, we have ten new players added to the squad since last season, almost a whole new team. How many times do we have to keep rolling the dice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, gurujuan said:

People suggesting that we need to let Monk bring in his own players, let’s not forget that Bruce brought in 7 new players last summer. Most would have said that number would have been sufficient to address our lack of balance. How many new signings do people think we need to complete the job? 
I’d back Bruce to make a better job of recruitment than Monk, but it’s debatable whether his signings have made us significantly better. Now some fans suggest a clear out, and bringing some new blood in. 
With Monk’s January signings, we have ten new players added to the squad since last season, almost a whole new team. How many times do we have to keep rolling the dice.

Monk needs removing now !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2020 at 14:03, gurujuan said:

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.

Monk is still the manager and will be next season. So we will see how he performs following the coming clear out.

 

Then we can judge if he is up to the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Asio otus said:

Monk is still the manager and will be next season. So we will see how he performs following the coming clear out.

 

Then we can judge if he is up to the mark.

No such luxury was afforded Jos, and rightly so, as there was no evidence that he might get things right. Monk’s current record is worse than that of Jos. Based on that, and his January signings, no way should he be in charge of a rebuild in my opinion

Edited by gurujuan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

No such luxury was afforded Jos, and rightly so, as there was no evidence that he might get things right. Monk’s current record is worse than that of Jos. Based on that, and his January signings, no way should he be in charge of a rebuild in my opinion

You can keep banging that drum but Monk will be in post next season because DC is not going to sack him. Your arguments are somewhat academic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While agreeing that the mood music suggests we are going to have to suffer Monk at the start of the next season it seem to me that the unknown is season ticket sales.

 

If season ticket sales go through the floor as I suspect that they will DC may well have a change of heart.

 

In terms of Year on Year business comparisons there was a real feel good factor under Bruce at the end of the last season which has completely disappeared and ticket sales may well be ravaged.

 

Indeed fresh in the memory are the performances under Monk such as:

 

SWFC 0 Blackburn 5

Luton 1  SWFC 0  (so pitiful it should have been at least 5-0 to the Championship's bottom club)

SWFC 0  Reading 3

SWFC 1  Derby County 3

Brentford 5 - SWFC 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...