Gary Rowett

[Guest LondonOwl313]

35 minutes ago, Chris Apolon said:

I back Monk, I'm very anti the chop and change culture at clubs and would like to see us with a recognised and established person at the helm which I think Monk could possibly be. 

 

What we really need is some kind of statement over mid to long term plans over the club. What is the ethos of the club moving forward, what are our realistic ambitions, what will be our transfer focus, will we prioritise youth. This can all be stated without what may come from the investigation.

 

All we know at present is the mire we are in and focus on negativity will always bring around more negativity.

 

Align the coach alongside a vision for the future and I believe Monk will not only be given more time but potentially a little more bandwidth from the fans

This line of argument is basically pick a guy, anyone, then say they need time because the club needs to give someone time.

 

Of course we need a long term manager and some strategic planning but it has to be the right man or its worse than chop and changing.

 

Monk has failed at pretty much any metric you'd set for your manager to achieve. Results - failed, 2 wins in 14. Entertainment - failed, 2 first half home goals all season. Man management - failed, excluded key players mid season. Transfer market - limited evidence but little success either. Track record - failure everywhere.

 

God knows how from that you conclude that he could be 'a recognised and established person at the helm'. The guys a joke

[Chris Apolon]

15 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

This line of argument is basically pick a guy, anyone, then say they need time because the club needs to give someone time.

 

Of course we need a long term manager and some strategic planning but it has to be the right man or its worse than chop and changing.

 

Monk has failed at pretty much any metric you'd set for your manager to achieve. Results - failed, 2 wins in 14. Entertainment - failed, 2 first half home goals all season. Man management - failed, excluded key players mid season. Transfer market - limited evidence but little success either. Track record - failure everywhere.

 

God knows how from that you conclude that he could be 'a recognised and established person at the helm'. The guys a joke

 

My point was that Sheffield Wednesday football club is, objectively, a project that needs the club to come out and state exactly what the project entails otherwise we are basing everything on our own expectations of where we should be which vary wildly across the fanbase.

 

Using 6 months of a tenure to base decisions on how this project has run is impossible as we have no idea what the expectations are as a club regardless of the metrics you've supplied (which are in of itself, missing a fair amount of information)

 

I've never been one to cause arguments and I respect what you feel regarding Monk.

 

Each to their own, I personally feel as a fan base cannot determine a measure of success without having some kind of baseline from the club to measure him against otherwise it's always going to be arguments between fans!

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, Wednesday_Jack said:

 

 

 

Such short sighted views...mainly built around 3 months worth of results. Here are my reasons why he should be given time:

 

1. Monk took over only a few games into the season, when Bruce decided he didn't fancy it any more. He hasn't had a preseason to install "his ways"...when he took over he probably hadn't had time to think what he was having for tea let alone much else.

2. Managers are usually appointed and allowed to bring in their own backroom staff. Not here...for one reason or another he as been forced to keep the majority of the backroom staff that hasn't really delivered under the last couple of managers.

3. Despite the recent poor results, Monk still has a win % on his CV of around the 40% mark. Enough evidence to show he can get results.

4. He's also proved with Leeds and Birmingham that he can get the best out very little. Birmingham especially!!

5. He as taken over at our place just at a time where there is a huge amount of uncertainty i.e. embargo, points deduction, potential split in camp.

6. Most importantly lets not forget that monk as only had around 6 weeks of transfer windows to change things (4 of those in January). I suspect he cant wait for contracts to run out so he can get rid of quite a lot of players.

 

I can't be bothered to look back but i suspect a lot of these fans calling for him to go where also saying we where going up at Christmas!!! 

 

Some fair points there, but although it’s true Monk didn’t have a pre season, it was Bullen who steered us through that difficult period, also without his own coaching set up. He actually made a decent fist of it, getting us off to a steady start, largely continuing the work started by Bruce. When Monk arrived, as you say, without a pre season, he needed perhaps 10 weeks to take stock. At first, that’s what he seemed to be doing, following on the good work of Bruce and Bullen, and the results were decent. However, once he started to introduce his own ideas, and players, things fell away alarmingly. 
I wasn’t keen on his appointment, but considering the limitations of the squad, there was an opportunity, if he could avoid rocking the boat, to stabilise us near the top of the table. Sadly, that’s not Monk’s way, and confrontation is never far away. So now we have the upheaval you were hoping to avoid. 

[Danish]

We're in such a mess, Monk needs backing and time to turn things around.

 

This won't be a quick fix I fear, our playing squad needs a massive clear out and we need to develop a style of play to suit the players we will have playing for us.

 

 

[room0035]

I disagree for me Rowett should have been first choice not Monk, Rowett even offered his service on Sky and DC never came calling.

 

Rowett has done well at Burton, Birmingham and now Millwall and each time he has left he has gone straight into a new role, yes didn't do great at Stoke but since Pullis who has.

 

Monk on the other hand has been at 4 clubs all where he had money to spend or where good squad were assemble before he arrived. With us he has had a chairman who has proved he does not have a clue what he is doing but continues to blame everyone and anyone who questions this. He had a solid top 10 championship squad that had been together for a long time, a coaching staff that had worked with the players for years and when he arrive a team in the top 6. 

 

Initial on his arrive games came thick and fast and he said he had had little time to work with the team but a solid backbone of Westwood, Borner, Iorfa, Hutch, Bannan, Fletcher got to team performing and up to 3rd by Xmas, since then Monk has had fall outs with numerous players, dropped senior players, chopped and changes formation tactics and personnel and the team has manager only 9 points in the last 15 games and before Co-Vid sliding into a relegation dogfight.

 

Game after game after Xmas Monk has picked a formation and team, by half time has had to change the team or formation because he has got his tactics wrong, players previous playing well in Borner, Hutch, Murphy etc have been dropped for no reason and strange selection of Fessi and Pelupessy at Wingbacks when full backs being fit were not played. For me this sparks of a man without ideas searching for a win but too stubborn to go back to solid experience championship performers to get a few wins on the board.

 

For me monk should have been gone 9 points from 45 is not acceptable - there is too many favourite in the first 11 who play when fit no matter their form and ultimately if Monk is still here at the end of the season we have to pray we beat the EFL charge or we will be relegated.

 

[vulva]

Vast majority of people didn’t want Rowett. 

[room0035]

23 minutes ago, Chris Apolon said:

 

My point was that Sheffield Wednesday football club is, objectively, a project that needs the club to come out and state exactly what the project entails otherwise we are basing everything on our own expectations of where we should be which vary wildly across the fanbase.

 

Using 6 months of a tenure to base decisions on how this project has run is impossible as we have no idea what the expectations are as a club regardless of the metrics you've supplied (which are in of itself, missing a fair amount of information)

 

I've never been one to cause arguments and I respect what you feel regarding Monk.

 

Each to their own, I personally feel as a fan base cannot determine a measure of success without having some kind of baseline from the club to measure him against otherwise it's always going to be arguments between fans!

I do agree the issues we have.

 

A chairman who's only target is promotion this season.

 

The fans are paying top 4 prices

 

The football on offer currently is lower mid table at best

 

The players are over paid and under performing, but no attempt has been made by the club, chairman and manager to get rid either, loans, frees, transfer even though offers have come in, they have all been turned down. 

 

We now have an under performing squad, where too many players walk into the team no matter their level of performance, we have others who know they will never play, then half the first team squad are out of contract, but with no incentive to win a new deal, as they won't get one. Nuihu, Fessi, Hutch, Winnall, Lee all big players who would normally step up all know they will not barely play. Other players like Odubajo told he is not wanted - not going to exactly make him want to run through walls for the manager is it. 

 

Doris the tea lady could run the first team better than the current lot but she has probably been furloughed.

[Wednesday_Jack]

58 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Some fair points there, but although it’s true Monk didn’t have a pre season, it was Bullen who steered us through that difficult period, also without his own coaching set up. He actually made a decent fist of it, getting us off to a steady start, largely continuing the work started by Bruce. When Monk arrived, as you say, without a pre season, he needed perhaps 10 weeks to take stock. At first, that’s what he seemed to be doing, following on the good work of Bruce and Bullen, and the results were decent. However, once he started to introduce his own ideas, and players, things fell away alarmingly. 
I wasn’t keen on his appointment, but considering the limitations of the squad, there was an opportunity, if he could avoid rocking the boat, to stabilise us near the top of the table. Sadly, that’s not Monk’s way, and confrontation is never far away. So now we have the upheaval you were hoping to avoid. 

 

To be fair though there as been a lull in player performances under every manager since the first season under Carlos...even he lost the players relatively quickly when you consider things. Jos then had what appeared to be a similar situation with player performances/commitment...under Bruce we will never know as he wasn't around for long enough. A similar thing as happened/is happening again with Monk...for this to happen under 3 different managers, i would start to look elsewhere to be honest rather than just running through managers one a season.

 

One thing that as crossed my mind recently (slightly different topic)...maybe DC's approach to selling players as a negative effect all round?? These current players know they are safe on their large contracts because DC is a soft touch who isn't willing to sell. Maybe the players think, sod it were going nowhere because the chairman as stated so on so many occasions. Our managers literally have no power to get rid of players as things stand (or it would seem that way).

[Dutch McLovin]

1 hour ago, LondonOwl313 said:

This line of argument is basically pick a guy, anyone, then say they need time because the club needs to give someone time.

 

Of course we need a long term manager and some strategic planning but it has to be the right man or its worse than chop and changing.

 

Monk has failed at pretty much any metric you'd set for your manager to achieve. Results - failed, 2 wins in 14. Entertainment - failed, 2 first half home goals all season. Man management - failed, excluded key players mid season. Transfer market - limited evidence but little success either. Track record - failure everywhere.

 

God knows how from that you conclude that he could be 'a recognised and established person at the helm'. The guys a joke

This is spot on its all about picking the right man ! Monk is certainly the wrong one

[Dutch McLovin]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

I disagree for me Rowett should have been first choice not Monk, Rowett even offered his service on Sky and DC never came calling.

 

Rowett has done well at Burton, Birmingham and now Millwall and each time he has left he has gone straight into a new role, yes didn't do great at Stoke but since Pullis who has.

 

Monk on the other hand has been at 4 clubs all where he had money to spend or where good squad were assemble before he arrived. With us he has had a chairman who has proved he does not have a clue what he is doing but continues to blame everyone and anyone who questions this. He had a solid top 10 championship squad that had been together for a long time, a coaching staff that had worked with the players for years and when he arrive a team in the top 6. 

 

Initial on his arrive games came thick and fast and he said he had had little time to work with the team but a solid backbone of Westwood, Borner, Iorfa, Hutch, Bannan, Fletcher got to team performing and up to 3rd by Xmas, since then Monk has had fall outs with numerous players, dropped senior players, chopped and changes formation tactics and personnel and the team has manager only 9 points in the last 15 games and before Co-Vid sliding into a relegation dogfight.

 

Game after game after Xmas Monk has picked a formation and team, by half time has had to change the team or formation because he has got his tactics wrong, players previous playing well in Borner, Hutch, Murphy etc have been dropped for no reason and strange selection of Fessi and Pelupessy at Wingbacks when full backs being fit were not played. For me this sparks of a man without ideas searching for a win but too stubborn to go back to solid experience championship performers to get a few wins on the board.

 

For me monk should have been gone 9 points from 45 is not acceptable - there is too many favourite in the first 11 who play when fit no matter their form and ultimately if Monk is still here at the end of the season we have to pray we beat the EFL charge or we will be relegated.

 

Excellent post 

[Owls Loyal]

Yes DC and/or his Advisor got the wrong Gary.

 

Shame as Rowett was desperate for the job.

 

Rowett has had good success at Burton Albion, Birmingham and now Millwall.

 

Whereas as Momk was fired by Swansea, fired by Boro anf fired by Brum.

[oldishowl]

22 hours ago, Owls Loyal said:

Yes DC and/or his Advisor got the wrong Gary.

 

Shame as Rowett was desperate for the job.

 

Rowett has had good success at Burton Albion, Birmingham and now Millwall.

 

Whereas as Momk was fired by Swansea, fired by Boro anf fired by Brum.

With “ impartial “ reporting like that you could get a job at the BBC.

 

Rowett walked out on Derby after spending a lot and failing and failed at Stoke.

 

Monk got Leeds to their highest position and more points for something like 6 years and did a great job at Birmingham with a very small squad. Talk to the fans of Leeds and Brum and they liked Monk . Brum obviously slightly tainted since ,with his fall out with Clotet.
 

I would have taken Rowett  but I think DC was put off by Rowett walking out on Derby and it’s parallels with Bruce and us.

DC is naive and respects loyalty.

 

[Jim]

As anyone ever thought the reason he wasn’t allowed to bring in his own back room staff apart from Ryan Needs is because the arrangement is purely a short term one until the end of the season?

 

For instance the man Chansiri really wanted was not available until this summer and the only manager he could attract on a short term basis was Monk. He obviously felt he couldn’t give the job to Bullen for the season and as I’ve said before the press conference to introduce Monk was as flat a press conference to introduce a new manager that I’ve ever seen?

[pazowl55]

23 minutes ago, Jim said:

As anyone ever thought the reason he wasn’t allowed to bring in his own back room staff apart from Ryan Needs is because the arrangement is purely a short term one until the end of the season?

 

For instance the man Chansiri really wanted was not available until this summer and the only manager he could attract on a short term basis was Monk. He obviously felt he couldn’t give the job to Bullen for the season and as I’ve said before the press conference to introduce Monk was as flat a press conference to introduce a new manager that I’ve ever seen?

If this was the case why not sack Monk over lockdown. Nobody knew if this season was going to resume or not and if it did he could have let Bullen take the 9 games. 

 

I think Monk got the job because he convinced Chansiri he could do the job under the restrictions of an embargo as he had done it previously. 

[steelcityowlsfan]

On 11/06/2020 at 09:23, Dutch McLovin said:

Just been on sky sports. Listened to how he views the game and his positive attitude, also how he has brought the best out of that Milwall Squad.

 

I wanted us to go for him after Bruce left but now it is even more apparent that we should have as were left with the inept Monk.

 

Cant believe Chansiri wouldnt even talk to him.

We got the wrong Gary. 
 

[Miffed]

On 11/06/2020 at 13:05, vulva said:

Vast majority of people didn’t want Rowett. 

Yep, and you can pretty much guarantee that if we’d have appointed Rowett the same posters would be saying we got the wrong Gary and should have got Monk. 

It would have been the same players, the same performances and the same constrains and even the same complaints from the fans... only a different manager. 

 

I think even Bruce realised the size of the job involved when he said he needed 4 transfers minimum to sort the squad out. For me , that speaks volumes 

[Miffed]

On 11/06/2020 at 09:23, Dutch McLovin said:

Just been on sky sports. Listened to how he views the game and his positive attitude, also how he has brought the best out of that Milwall Squad.

 

But a different squad of players with a different attitude? 

[Tommy Crawshaw]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

As anyone ever thought the reason he wasn’t allowed to bring in his own back room staff apart from Ryan Needs is because the arrangement is purely a short term one until the end of the season?

 

For instance the man Chansiri really wanted was not available until this summer and the only manager he could attract on a short term basis was Monk. He obviously felt he couldn’t give the job to Bullen for the season and as I’ve said before the press conference to introduce Monk was as flat a press conference to introduce a new manager that I’ve ever seen?

 

I keep reading Monk needs to bring his own backroom staff in. Who is he going to bring in ? He fell out with Clotet his assistant at all the teams he has managed. Beattie his who has also been coach with him everywhere is happy sitting at home still getting paid by Birmingham.

 

I'm not sure he has many mates left to bring in.

[Tommy Crawshaw]

55 minutes ago, Miffed said:

Yep, and you can pretty much guarantee that if we’d have appointed Rowett the same posters would be saying we got the wrong Gary and should have got Monk. 

It would have been the same players, the same performances and the same constrains and even the same complaints from the fans... only a different manager. 

 

I think even Bruce realised the size of the job involved when he said he needed 4 transfers minimum to sort the squad out. For me , that speaks volumes 

 

I don't think Rowett would have frozen experienced players out, ostracised others by telling them halfway through the season they didn't have a future at the club (Odubajo). Ignored one of our best attacking players (Forestieri) for most of the season, then played him at wing back against a relegation team.

 

We could have had a different looking set up and tactics.

[Road Runner]

Watching Millwall on the TV and speaking to a family friend who has a season ticket at Millwall. The players will run through a brick wall for Rowett. 

 

But that is what Millwall do regardless. 

 

By contrast look at the Wednesday players, you wouldn't want them on the front line with you. 

 

It's not a coincidence that every manager has failed with this squad, it all starts well when the honeymoon period is alive and kicking but when the feet are under the table the same lack lustre performance kicks in. 

 

Rowett would be in the same position it doesn't matter who the manager is. 

 

Until the club moves 95% of the squad/coaching staff on then it will happen again and again. 

 

Monk came in with no staff, the same set of players and hardly any room for change. Nobody would succeed as its been proven time after time. 

 

Chansiri has to take blame for this too, he gave the high contracts and refuses to sell. 

 

Give Monk his own team and staff then judge him on his merits of recruitment and style of play. 

 

If you keep changing managers while keeping the same squad there is only one way you are going - the way we are now.