Jump to content

Ask Carlos


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

No they didn't


Some did and got giddy

Some questioned the signings as to whether they were needed, wanted, or value for money


Mixed bag 

He shouldn't state that everyone thought they were good signings - it's simply not true

This. Plenty questioned us buying Rhodes, which says a lot given he is well proven at this level. The signing just didn't make sense.

If Carlos' point there is that they were sound, sensible signings then the buck stops with him anyway for not getting them fit or motivated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the first few responses from the self centered piece of sheite and couldn't help thinking how his own phooking ego has helped destroy the club. We achieved   NOTHING under his management and ebded up with a shocking aged squad of players.

Why we keep feeding his ego. .I'll never know.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stoop said:

Also 200 defenders watched and the best he could come up with was Joost Van Aken, a defender who can’t defend

 

That is a sackable offence in itself

 

And who by Carlos' own estimation, wasn't even fit for first team fooball! FFS!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Southie_Owl said:

Carlos was my favourite manager since Big Ron.  But started having doubts after 18 months in particular the lack of signing a proper winger to play in his 442 system. Maybe it was Chansiri failing to get the players Carlos wanted but then there are the injury issues and rushing players back too soon, and isolating the rest of the squad. But I’d probably welcome Carlos back to cheer the place up again 

Think that was down to his tactical approach mate Don’t say I agreed with it, but he needed his wide players to play narrow, creating a block in midfield  It wasn’t pretty, but you could argue that it was effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Think that was down to his tactical approach mate Don’t say I agreed with it, but he needed his wide players to play narrow, creating a block in midfield  It wasn’t pretty, but you could argue that it was effective


It wasn’t effective.

 

Thats why he had to change the system mid-game time after time.

 

To change mid-game occasionally when Plan A isn’t working is brilliant management. To change mid-game match after match because Plan A isn’t working means you’ve stuck by the wrong plan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the squad available the top 6 was par for the course in his first season (in my opinion) 

 

With the squad available and the money he had to spend a title challenge should have been expected - it never materialised and the majority of initial squad got us to 4th with solid if not entertaining performances 

 

The third season his shocking signings began to really cost the club and sadly we are still paying for it 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what its worth my opinion of Carlos is:

 

Season one was the toughest championship season in a long time (and certainly tougher than any since). We where by far and away the weakest squad of those that made the playoffs. We did it playing great football and caught a lot of sides out. The Hull team that beat us on paper where far better than us. Personally believe the squads Brighton, Derby and Hull had would win the championship now. Hutchinson for Lopez was a big mistake in the final but it was an understandable tactical move. Who knows had we played Lopez we could have lost by many more. The team simply didn't turn up and Westwood kept it respectable (only saw it at Wembley never watched it back so could be wrong).

 

Season two teams gave us more respect and we had to work harder for wins. Golden opportunity to go up via the playoffs. No way could we catch Newcastle and Brighton. Reading and ourselves made the playoffs playing similar football (they finished 3rd). Away draw at Huddersfield was a decent result all teams would take that in the first leg of a playoff. Personally felt we should have gone at them at Hillsborough and it was a massive chance blown. Having said that they equalised with a very fortunate goal. 

 

Season three he had lost interest. Constantly fluttering his eyelashes at the league above. Everything went stale. I will say it again though the signings of Abdi and Jones on paper where excellent. Both recent premier league experience and consistent performers at clubs we hoped to emulate. Replacing with Jos was a big mistake but again i got the logic he had a history of success in similar situations in Germany. As someone mentioned earlier if Bruce had replaced Carlos the story would have been different (i think).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Holmowl said:


It wasn’t effective.

 

Thats why he had to change the system mid-game time after time.

 

To change mid-game occasionally when Plan A isn’t working is brilliant management. To change mid-game match after match because Plan A isn’t working means you’ve stuck by the wrong plan.

Do you not think that was part of his plan? He wanted to make us hard to beat, so he created a box in central midfield, that just shuffled from side to side That block of 4 central midfielders, plus another, Hooper, who operated as a link between midfield and the striker, stifled teams. If we hadn’t taken the lead, with 15 mins to go, thats when Carlos threw on the cavalry, sometimes ending with 4 strikers on the pitch in a last ditch attempt to snatch the points. 
As I said, I didn’t like it and thought we had the players to be a bit more adventurous. However, my perspective was largely from an entertainment point of view, it’s debatable whether we would have made 4th place playing a more adventurous style. 
The thing about Carlos, whether you like him or not, he thought about the game, and was prepared to devise new tactics to try and find success. You need good players of course, but as Wilder has proved, you can achieve a great deal with a bit of tactical innovation.

Edited by gurujuan
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Do you not think that was part of his plan? He wanted to make us hard to beat, so he created a box in central midfield, that just shuffled from side to side That block of 4 central midfielders, plus another, Hooper, who operated as a link between midfield and the striker, stifled teams. If we hadn’t taken the lead, with 15 mins to go, thats when Carlos threw on the cavalry, sometimes ending with 4 strikers on the pitch in a last ditch attempt to snatch the points. 
As I said, I didn’t like it and thought we had the players to be a bit more adventurous. However, my perspective was largely from an entertainment point of view, it’s debatable whether we would have made 4th place playing a more adventurous style. 
The thing about Carlos, whether you like him or not, he thought about the game, and was prepared to devise new tactics to try and find success. You need good players of course, but as Wilder has proved, you can achieve a great deal with a bit of tactical innovation.


Maybe it was his plan. But it was totally flawed.

 

In the 15/16 season it was the mid December to mid Feb period that got us into the play-offs. Look at the line-up that won those games, playing scintillating high-scoring football. Two wingers and two proper strikers. Carlos then schat his pants and reverted back to playing narrow with FF up front alongside Hooper. Horrible turgid football with no cutting edge. We stopped scoring and winning. The few we won were when he ditched that approach.

 

In the Final he reverted to type. We had no threat. First 20 Hull showed us some respect but thereafter realised we had no punch and cruised away.

 

You could argue that had he gone for the more attacking (and far more successful) line-up...

 

Wallace Lee Bannan Forestieri

Hooper Nuhiu/Joao

 

...we might have lost more heavily. We’ll never know. Many say “we didn’t turn up” that day. We did, but with a line-up that had not worked all season. Why would it work against the very strong Hull?

 

Even if you disagree with this analysis of the reason why we fell short in 15/16, what about 16/17? Between Feb and the end of March we had fallen to bits playing Carlos’s “safe and solid” line-ups. Couldn’t buy a goal or a win. Then, thru injuries Carlos fell upon an approach that saw us win six in six. 
 

We made the play-offs and lo and behold what did he do?

 

Did he stick by the six in six side?

 

or

 

Did he resort back to the tried and failed?

 

And this was not against a powerful Hull. This was against a very ordinary Huddersfield.

 

Carlos was no tactical master. He was a negative fool.

Edited by Holmowl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likeable bloke, but a weak leader. Players didn't have respect for him and I suspect the likes of Loovens and Semedo kept the dressing room in order. 

 

My opinion of Carlos is that of a substitute teacher; great fun at the start, no homework, going home early etc....but when it's time for the exams, unprepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Carlos had in spades was charisma and confidence.

 

More than anything that's what's needed here.

 

The worst profile for a SWFC manager is dour and drab, which we've ended up with again...and which is why he will continue to fail.

 

We need someone with presence and personality - the players, the fans and the club as a whole will all respond to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, striker said:

Likeable bloke, but a weak leader. Players didn't have respect for him and I suspect the likes of Loovens and Semedo kept the dressing room in order. 

 

My opinion of Carlos is that of a substitute teacher; great fun at the start, no homework, going home early etc....but when it's time for the exams, unprepared.

 

A great leader ensures leaders exists at all levels of an organization.

 

When he was around you could say many negative things, but lacking leadership wasn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Holmowl said:


Maybe it was his plan. But it was totally flawed.

 

In the 15/16 season it was the mid December to mid Feb period that got us into the play-offs. Look at the line-up that won those games, playing scintillating high-scoring football. Two wingers and two proper strikers. Carlos then schat his pants and reverted back to playing narrow with FF up front alongside Hooper. Horrible turgid football with no cutting edge. We stopped scoring and winning. The few we won were when he ditched that approach.

 

In the Final he reverted to type. We had no threat. First 20 Hull showed us some respect but thereafter realised we had no punch and cruised away.

 

You could argue that had he gone for the more attacking (and far more successful) line-up...

 

Wallace Lee Bannan Forestieri

Hooper Nuhiu/Joao

 

...we might have lost more heavily. We’ll never know. Many say “we didn’t turn up” that day. We did, but with a line-up that had not worked all season. Why would it work against the very strong Hull?

 

Even if you disagree with this analysis of the reason why we fell short in 15/16, what about 16/17? Between Feb and the end of March we had fallen to bits playing Carlos’s “safe and solid” line-ups. Couldn’t buy a goal or a win. Then, thru injuries Carlos fell upon an approach that saw us win six in six. 
 

We made the play-offs and lo and behold what did he do?

 

Did he stick by the six in six side?

 

or

 

Did he resort back to the tried and failed?

 

And this was not against a powerful Hull. This was against a very ordinary Huddersfield.

 

Carlos was no tactical master. He was a negative fool.

 

Carlos was a tactical master, until it came to the games that mattered...then he seems to lose his risk aversion.

 

Same happened at Swansea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SallyCinnamon said:

To be honest I have a degree of sympathy with Carlos. Not for one minute do I believe all the strange signings we made were actually players he wanted. I think maybe his downfall was accepting these players anyway. Whether he had a say in that or not I don’t know. 

 

I think the Urby one is actually quite well explained...we didn't get the player we wanted, so we were left with a choice...sign no-one, or sign a risk player. Tbf, ensuring you have someone is better than no-one.

Link to comment
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...