Sam Hutchinson

[mattitheowl]

12 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

No, I'm unhappy to speculate. It's a shame we need to at all.

 

We know the job of management is a tough one - but that's precisely the job that Monk has. We can all offer him all the sympathy in the world, and console him when he tells us just how difficult it is, but ultimately, it's Monk's competence as a manager that's at issue here - not whether the job is a difficult one.

 

Monk's decision to exclude Hutchinson is something that might have been a reasonable course of action. It also may not have been. I could generate a scenario of circumstances to support either view if I wanted, and I'm sure we all could. But whatever the true set of circumstances here, it's what happens subsequently that is perhaps the most valid way to judge Monk's ‘solution’. If subsequent to the exclusion of all these players, results and performances would've all of a sudden picked up, then hardly anyone would be querying the absence of any of the excluded players.

 

For Monk to have done all this for the greater benefit of the squad, that has to have been demonstrable in some way. It just hasn't been at all. In fact, it's got worse.

 

OK, so what if you had 15 players who said they would down tools if these 2 weren't punished for whatever they may or may not have done?  You can't play with only 2 players.  Granted those 15 players might not be great, they do form the majority of your squad.  You've then got 5/6 players who are good friends with those punished and aren't happy with the punishment.  All of a sudden you're in a very difficult situation.

[Ronio]

9 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said:

There's a select set of fans that think chucking Westwood, Hutchinson and probably Megson into the club would have us working reyt hard and in the play offs all thriving in a die hard team that sprints through Grenoside woods before the start of each game and goes to bed in their kit. 

 

I say those people are mental. 

Mental they may be.  

 

It certainly would be an improvement on what we are being served up at the minute,  

[ChinaOwl]

5 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

McGugan did not only fall out with the chairman , he fell out with every single person that ever crossed paths with him during his career 
 

 

 

That's either an oxymoron or a self-contradictory statement.

 

I can't figure out which.

 

Sorry, I missed the word "only" 

Edited March 8, 2020 by ChinaOwl

[Guest]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

 

He's literally one out of a list of players Kivo mentioned

 

 

I’ve discussed rest to death,  first time I’ve seen him mention McGugan 

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

There’s no guarantee of anything but the current selections are almost guaranteeing defeats before we even kick off. Last season when they came back in it made an immediate difference and we went from conceding loads to barely conceding.. it was night and day difference

 

would rather we gave it a go than watch us just lose another 9 games and get relegated

 

Them coming back in happened with Jos left.  That meant you had 25 players putting themselves in the shop window for Bruce!  It wasn't simply because the prodigal sons returned!

 

Here's one for you, what if the players are refusing to play?  What if they have made themselves unavailable for selection?  It wouldn't be the first time if what you read is even 10% true!

[cowl]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

OK, so what if you had 15 players who said they would down tools if these 2 weren't punished for whatever they may or may not have done?  You can't play with only 2 players.  Granted those 15 players might not be great, they do form the majority of your squad.  You've then got 5/6 players who are good friends with those punished and aren't happy with the punishment.  All of a sudden you're in a very difficult situation.

 

I'd fully expect those 15 players to play to the absolute best of their ability for me for the rest of the season then, but again, we come back to Monk's judgement of how to manage a situation that's presented itself to him. The success of his solution is what's at issue here.

[Lord Tight Arse]

Another thread on Hutchinson!!!! People need to get a grip....

[Ronio]

3 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Here's one for you, what if the players are refusing to play?  What if they have made themselves unavailable for selection?  It wouldn't be the first time if what you read is even 10% true!

Speculative garbage.  

 

You can neg this post as well.  

[mattitheowl]

1 minute ago, cowl said:

 

I'd fully expect those 15 players to play to the absolute best of their ability for me for the rest of the season then, but again, we come back to Monk's judgement of how to manage a situation that's presented itself to him. The success of his solution is what's at issue here.

 

You don't seem to put any weight on the gravity of what they might have done.

 

And if the 15 players are 8/9 of the current starting line up, they might be doing their best, but it's simply not good enough.  You've then got your other 2/3 in the starting line up who've got the face on because they mate's have been hard done to and are being fed all kinds of negativity from them about the manager and how clueless he is.  And how all the other lads are idiots and have caused all this.

[daveyboy66]

6 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

That's either an oxymoron or a self-contradictory statement.

 

I can't figure out which.

 

Sorry, I missed the word "only" 

Or anyone who had a drink with him in SOYO...full weightbellend

[Guest]

Just now, daveyboy66 said:

Or anyone who had a drink with him in SOYO...full weightbellend

 
me or McGugan !!? Haha 

[Hirstys Salopettes]

5 minutes ago, Lord Tight Arse said:

Another thread on Hutchinson!!!! People need to get a grip....

exactly ... what about 

 

 

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

You don't seem to put any weight on the gravity of what they might have done.

 

And if the 15 players are 8/9 of the current starting line up, they might be doing their best, but it's simply not good enough.  You've then got your other 2/3 in the starting line up who've got the face on because they mate's have been hard done to and are being fed all kinds of negativity from them about the manager and how clueless he is.  And how all the other lads are idiots and have caused all this.

 

Equally, you seem to be starting from the assumption that Monk must have had a good reason to exclude them and that it it must therefore be a good reason.

 

And like I've said already, it's not difficult to generate scenarios that would fully account for Monk's decision to exclude them as well as justify. We could ping them back and forth to each other all evening if you want, but it keeps coming back to the question of whether Monk's decision to exclude these players was the best thing to do. For the most part, all we've got to go on as a way to assess it have been the results, and they've been woeful. If the results would've been good, we wouldn't have been having this debate.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

14 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Them coming back in happened with Jos left.  That meant you had 25 players putting themselves in the shop window for Bruce!  It wasn't simply because the prodigal sons returned!

 

Here's one for you, what if the players are refusing to play?  What if they have made themselves unavailable for selection?  It wouldn't be the first time if what you read is even 10% true!

You must be joking.. so if they hadn’t come back in we would have still tightened up defensively? I don’t believe it. Was almost totally down to having proper players back in the team

 

i doubt they’ve made themselves unavailable.. that would beg the question why are we paying them because they would be in breach of contract which would enable us to terminate with immediate effect. So that’s not the case is it or we’d have done that. It’s more likely that they’re unable to train everyday and wanted to pick and choose to manage ongoing injuries which Monk didn’t like so he took the decision to get rid. It’s all on Monk tbh

[daveyboy66]

12 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

 
me or McGugan !!? Haha 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, LondonOwl313 said:

You must be joking.. so if they hadn’t come back in we would have still tightened up defensively? I don’t believe it. Was almost totally down to having proper players back in the team

 

i doubt they’ve made themselves unavailable.. that would beg the question why are we paying them because they would be in breach of contract which would enable us to terminate with immediate effect. So that’s not the case is it or we’d have done that. It’s more likely that they’re unable to train everyday and wanted to pick and choose to manage ongoing injuries which Monk didn’t like so he took the decision to get rid. It’s all on Monk tbh

Why would any manager like that ?? Unless your Carlos and just gave them a free pass 

 

same would have happened with Bruce a few months down the line , wonder if they would’ve been this meltdown if it had been him that booted them off training ground 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, Royal_D said:

Why would any manager like that ?? Unless your Carlos and just gave them a free pass 

 

same would have happened with Bruce a few months down the line , wonder if they would’ve been this meltdown if it had been him that booted them off training ground 

Because it’s all about winning games. Bruce must have known about these issues yet he was still happy to give Westwood a two year contract. Ledley King had a similar set up at Spurs for years

 

its not about liking or not liking it.. it’s about managing people. Some people like Carlos and Bruce have people skills, and others like Jos and Monk do not

[Hirstys Salopettes]

2 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

Why would any manager like that ?? Unless your Carlos and just gave them a free pass 

 

same would have happened with Bruce a few months down the line , wonder if they would’ve been this meltdown if it had been him that booted them off training ground 

it’s all hypothetical .... but as you asked 
 

no I don’t believe there would

 

but then again he wouldn’t have needed to, because nobody, not even close allies, could pay attention to anybody not subscribing to Mrs Doubtfire’s methods, given his/her record as a championship manager

 

[vulture_squadron]

3 people at fault here perhaps:

 

Hutch - won't respect a manager he doesn't rate.

 

Monk - Can't/won't handle a player with a big ego.

 

Chansiri - appointing a manager who has previously frozen out players to manage a squad with players in that have previously been frozen out.

 

I'd suggest that maybe we decide which path we're going down and stick to it? If we're having a load of experienced players on the squad who are big characters, let's get a big character manager with a decent cv who can handle them. Or we decide on some principles and we stick to them, going with younger less established coaches working with mouldable younger players.

[stanningtonowl]

4 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

You can't play Hutchinson though

He's literally GONE as in not here anymore

Has he been paid off?