[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]As said elsewhere, the last time we made a successful managerial change which actually led to an improvement in our fortunes was when Steve Gritt was shown the door 15 years ago!
Some would argue that that alone is a very good reason fornotchanging the manager.
No. It's an argument for picking the right bloke (but don't ask me who he is!)
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]That's the whole point. No-one can name a replacement who is guaranteed to deliver the sucess we need at the price we can afford.
So, for all the people "saying Parky's not good enough, let's sack him",[i]who is the permanent replacement?[/i][/quote]
That's been done to death in numerous other threads.
The relevent point is do people think that parkinson can deliver promotion this season. Regretably, I've seen nothing to suggest that he can and the club can only run at a loss for so long....
If Parky, (or anybody for that matter) cannot see the fundamental problems in our central midfield as being the main reason we can't win (other than scraping a win), in particular at home, for that reason alone is enough to tell me he ain't good enough. The last 2 years only adds to that - in my opinion. What to do about it is another issue and fortunately, not my problem. I don't envy RM.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]That's the whole point. No-one can name a replacement who is guaranteed to deliver the sucess we need at the price we can afford.
So, for all the people "saying Parky's not good enough, let's sack him",who is the permanent replacement?
That's been done to death in numerous other threads.
The relevent point is do people think that parkinson can deliver promotion this season. Regretably, I've seen nothing to suggest that he can and the club can only run at a loss for so long....
So would you sack him? And if so, what would you then do?
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I picked the three longest-serving managers. These three happen to coincide with the three, generally regarded as the "best" managers in Charlton's past. Although I do not think that is merely a coincidence.
My point is this: the ideal situation to be in is to have a successful manager for a long period of time. You can't achieve that if you sack a manager after two years.
True it is the ideal situation to have a manager for a long time, but do you accept it's not the only choice? As I said, I'm not knocking Parky and I'm happy with us to stick with him for now, but I have a problem with the idea that a manager's position can be justified by loyalty alone. The arguments should be made on Parky's merits in the here and now, particularly as promotion is such a pressing concern at the moment.
Slightly fallacious point about success being correlated with longevity, as success breeds longevity (good managers do well and therefore stay on). My point is you can't automatically assume that longevity breeds success. I firmly believe that Pardew was the wrong man for the job and that wouldn't have changed if we'd given him more time. Parky might well be the right man, but we shouldn't stop monitoring the situation because it's far from proven that he is, and we shouldn't shirk tough decisions if they are forced upon us in the future on the hope that he might be the next Curbs.
I would personally say that if the worst happened and we're flirting with relegation by Christmas, then his position would be untenable. I'd be interested what would be your own personal tolerance level, or do you believe in sticking with the manager by default?
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]Or look at Arsenal. Wenger has now been there 14 years. He won three league titles and three FA Cups in his first 7/8 years. But he now hasn't won anything - or even come second - in five years.[/i]
One thing to note about Arsenal is despite not winning trophies in the last 5 years, they have built a new stadium and generally put themselves in a fantastic financial position, all the while playing entertaining football to keep the majority of their supporters happy.
We however are regressing financially every year we stay in this league, and there hasn't been much good football to keep the supporters content. It'd be a lot easier to have limitless patience with Parkinson if we knew it was a matter of patiently waiting for the club to be built up again and that we'd be stronger next season. But in this league, it looks like the opposite will happen, and that heaps on pressure.
Saying that the most successful managers are the longest serving managers is a lot like saying water is wet. They only get to be long serving managers by being successful.
Yes, an argument can be made that continuity is important to building a strong team.
But staying the course may not necessarily lead to promotion.
The people that are convinced that Parky isn't the answer would rather have change than continued mediocrity.
The people that are convinced that Parky can deliver promotion are pleading for more patience.
And the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, based on the weekend results.
"I picked the three longest-serving managers. These three happen to coincide with the three, generally regarded as the "best" managers in Charlton's past"
I think you have this the wrong way round, you seem to be suggesting that these managers are the most successful because they were the longest serving.
I would suggest that they were the longest serving because they were the most successful.
Can I ask if you have ever thought it right to sack a manager?
Also can you only call for the sacking of a manager if you can suggest a name of someone who is guaranteed to be better?
Following this logic, you can never say that any one player has underperformed in anyone one match unless you can state a player who would have done better.
And further how can you therefore ever criticise anything. How far do we fall before you say enough is enough? Ever?
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I guess the difference between the two groups is that only one of them is able to say who they think the manager should be.
As you well know Chizz there has been enough names suggested over the months/years to fill a book. What happens is that whatever name is suggested as a credible alternative it's then pulled apart, often unfairly, sometimes fairly, in the interests of supporting the continuity view. Some of those suggested over the time Parky has been in charge have gone on to do very well, some not so, but that's the benefit of hindsight isn't it?
The object of this thread was to debate Parky's merits, not those of a potential successor and to be honest there's not been that many who have detailed exactly why he's a good manager in their view prefering to concentrate on other, external, factors like the lack of alternatives.
Chizz deliberately mentioned 'Groups'
There is no clear alternative put forward by the Parky out crowd. Not even a majority choice. Most names are totally unreasonable fantasy appointments which assume we could pay off an existing contract, or that the said target would give up, say, Brighton, to join us.
So by appointing one of these alternatives you will be upsetting all those who dont think he is a good appointment plus those who think we should be taking the 'long term rebuild' route and keep Parky on. More unrest is not what we need. Of course any new appointment who gets our Third division players playing to upper Championship level football consistently would win over the nay sayers. But its not likely, is it?
As for the arguments as to why Parky is seen as a good manager by some of us, there are as many specifics on this thread as there are negatives.
Look at the first page - plenty of reasons there.
Yes there have been simplistic Dont rate him/Good manager posts without back-up.
Yes there have been external factors discussed, but they are relevant to PP's relative strengths too.
If we get promoted this season under Parkinson, is he the man to take us to respectability at Championship level? Does the current squad look like the basis of a decent Championship side?
Yes, yes, I know. I can hear it now ... "Let's worry about the Championship when we get there."
That's not the way to do it in my book. There is no point getting to the Championship if we fall back into League 1 at the first opportunity. So the longer term potential of the squad and the manager are the important things to me.
Phew, just read the whole of this thread..........there's 20 mins of my life I can't get back !
For what it's worth I think we have a squad of players capable of a top 2 finish, but don't think we have a manager with the tactical nous to achieve that.
Have those who have opted for Parkinson so stay for continuity reasons considered the fact that he is out of contract anyway at the end of the season?
Do you think we should be offering him a new contract now to provide that continuity you believe is vital?
If we all agreed on a criteria for the ideal but realistic manager, I guess it would be something like they have good tactical knowledge, man management and motivational skills, a good judge of a player, his teams play entertaining football, has knowledge of League One or at least English football.
Take away all the suggestions of ex players such as Powell, Di Canio etc and unrealistic like Curbs. Either a complete gamble or just not going to happen.
Tactics are often talked about as Parky's weakness. There were managers mentioned who would surely be no improvement in that area such as Martin Allen.
For obvious reasons there are doubts over lower/non league managers. Same with the likes of Ince and Sousa with their average records.
As Floyd said there is no majority choice, not even 3/4 names most would agree on. Middlesbrough fans seemed to want Mowbray, an ex captain. Can't think of anyone like that who is ideal for us.
Dabos said the other day he'd replace Parky only if there was someone clearly better available. After Parky got a reaction at Carlisle that's really how I see it, unless we go on a great or terrible run.
so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]Have those who have opted for Parkinson so stay for continuity reasons considered the fact that he is out of contract anyway at the end of the season?
Do you think we should be offering him a new contract now to provide that continuity you believe is vital?
ssshhhhhh. Don't give them ideas for gawd's sake. The only thing keeping me going is that he will be off come next May.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]I prefer to look at the longer term.
If we get promoted this season under Parkinson, is he the man to take us to respectability at Championship level? Does the current squad look like the basis of a decent Championship side?
Yes, yes, I know. I can hear it now ... "Let's worry about the Championship when we get there."
That's not the way to do it in my book. There is no point getting to the Championship if we fall back into League 1 at the first opportunity. So the longer term potential of the squad and the manager are the important things to me.
Now what do you think about Parkinson?
I've said all along that IF he gets us up, which he won't in my opinion, he certainly isn't the man to keep us up. That's why we should have appointed O'Driscoll or Adkins at the end of last season when Parky failed. Then they could have taken us up and then have kept us up the following season and the one after etc etc.
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
A replacement doesn't have to be perfect, but there would have to be a clear improvement.
If Parky is average, why replace him with someone else who is just as average?
Most of the names were bigger gambles than Parky, unrealistic or had a very mixed record like Parky.
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
Read the comments on page 1 and 2 - as already mentioned, plenty of good arguments 'for; there
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
A replacement doesn't have to be perfect, but there would have to be a clear improvement.
If Parky is average, why replace him with someone else who is just as average?
Most of the names were bigger gambles than Parky, unrealistic or had a very mixed record like Parky.
I agree they would have been bigger gambles but during Parky's caretaker period he demonstrated he wasn't up to it. Better a gamble than a known fail in my opinion.
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
A replacement doesn't have to be perfect, but there would have to be a clear improvement.
If Parky is average, why replace him with someone else who is just as average?
Most of the names were bigger gambles than Parky, unrealistic or had a very mixed record like Parky.
I agree they would have been bigger gambles but during Parky's caretaker period hedemonstratedhe wasn't up to it. Better a gamble than a known fail in my opinion.
You could argue his promotion season at Colchester showed he was capable, and he wasn't far off last season with us.
I'd be happy with O'Driscoll and would have been with Adkins.
However I don't see why we should go for say Ince or Sousa in the hope that he's better than Parky. If he's not that puts us in a worse position. Easier to say as a fan, the board will be the ones who have to spend money on replacing not only a manager but his staff.
I have to sat that while there has been an unusually high quality debate on here, there has been a paucity of compelling reasons at to why Parkinson is considered a quality act as a manager. The main argument of Chizz and others seems to be that he might make a good manager given more time. Which, of course, we haven't got.
It is very unusual for any football manager to run down his contract. Long before that happens, in 99 out of 100 cases they are either sacked or tied up to a longer term contract extension.
So DRF asks a very pertinent question. Do Chizz, Floyd Montana and any other members of the Parky fan club think his contract should be extended now, in the interests of this ''continuity'' which seems to have taken on an almost spiritual desirability in some people's eyes?
Come Jan/Feb , say we're in the bottom half and promotion is looking highly unlikely. Everyone will by then know Parky won't getb his conrtract renewed when it runs out in May. And so we would, in effect, have a lame duck manager for the final 3/4 months of the season.
I think Parky's future is open to question. With his record, it would be strange if it wasn't. I think those who would sack him today regardless of last weekend's famous victory are probably wrong. But I know that those saying he has to stay whatever happens are even more misguided.
we made the biggest mistake in our history appointing him when we did , what little chance we had of survival disappeared when someone who was clearly a part of the regime that was dragging us down under pardew was allowed to continue at the club........
that said cos he was allowed to oversee us crumble away from the championship and continue with the worse run in our history by FAILING tp get us promoted after FAILING to keep us up he then gets a smaller budget (bigger than most in this league) to try and get us up again ....
so the longer he hangs around the spiral continues and the apologists somehow try and justify that we are lucky enough to have this 'nice bloke' in charge during the worse period in our history .......
DRF raises the past.
Many of Parky's current supporters would, I imagine, have been happy to see the back of him after the caretaker period.
Now its a different situation completely, isnt it? (Not least because then he had Pards' wasters)
The future has so many possible scenarios that extending a contract now has little merit IMO , IA
If we are in the bottom half in Feb, but say 9 points off play offs, I would keep him on till the end of the season.
You say we dont have time, but as in so many anti manager arguments it can be seen both ways. If we dont have time (and I am unsure if this makes real sense) do we have time to bed in a new manager?
And if he has a caretaker role and we win most of those games, is that down to the new manager or the squad PP has assembled?
And if they lose those games do we change again?
(BTW I would love to see a correlation table/venn diagram between the current ''Parky out'' crowd and the ''Curbs has taken us as far as he can'' crowd)
Comments
I can tell you who it isn't ;-)
So, for all the people "saying Parky's not good enough, let's sack him", who is the permanent replacement?
So, for all the people "saying Parky's not good enough, let's sack him",[i]who is the permanent replacement?[/i][/quote]
That's been done to death in numerous other threads.
The relevent point is do people think that parkinson can deliver promotion this season. Regretably, I've seen nothing to suggest that he can and the club can only run at a loss for so long....
True it is the ideal situation to have a manager for a long time, but do you accept it's not the only choice? As I said, I'm not knocking Parky and I'm happy with us to stick with him for now, but I have a problem with the idea that a manager's position can be justified by loyalty alone. The arguments should be made on Parky's merits in the here and now, particularly as promotion is such a pressing concern at the moment.
Slightly fallacious point about success being correlated with longevity, as success breeds longevity (good managers do well and therefore stay on). My point is you can't automatically assume that longevity breeds success. I firmly believe that Pardew was the wrong man for the job and that wouldn't have changed if we'd given him more time. Parky might well be the right man, but we shouldn't stop monitoring the situation because it's far from proven that he is, and we shouldn't shirk tough decisions if they are forced upon us in the future on the hope that he might be the next Curbs.
I would personally say that if the worst happened and we're flirting with relegation by Christmas, then his position would be untenable. I'd be interested what would be your own personal tolerance level, or do you believe in sticking with the manager by default?
One thing to note about Arsenal is despite not winning trophies in the last 5 years, they have built a new stadium and generally put themselves in a fantastic financial position, all the while playing entertaining football to keep the majority of their supporters happy.
We however are regressing financially every year we stay in this league, and there hasn't been much good football to keep the supporters content. It'd be a lot easier to have limitless patience with Parkinson if we knew it was a matter of patiently waiting for the club to be built up again and that we'd be stronger next season. But in this league, it looks like the opposite will happen, and that heaps on pressure.
Yes, an argument can be made that continuity is important to building a strong team.
But staying the course may not necessarily lead to promotion.
The people that are convinced that Parky isn't the answer would rather have change than continued mediocrity.
The people that are convinced that Parky can deliver promotion are pleading for more patience.
And the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, based on the weekend results.
I think you have this the wrong way round, you seem to be suggesting that these managers are the most successful because they were the longest serving.
I would suggest that they were the longest serving because they were the most successful.
Can I ask if you have ever thought it right to sack a manager?
Also can you only call for the sacking of a manager if you can suggest a name of someone who is guaranteed to be better?
Following this logic, you can never say that any one player has underperformed in anyone one match unless you can state a player who would have done better.
And further how can you therefore ever criticise anything. How far do we fall before you say enough is enough? Ever?
As you well know Chizz there has been enough names suggested over the months/years to fill a book. What happens is that whatever name is suggested as a credible alternative it's then pulled apart, often unfairly, sometimes fairly, in the interests of supporting the continuity view. Some of those suggested over the time Parky has been in charge have gone on to do very well, some not so, but that's the benefit of hindsight isn't it?
The object of this thread was to debate Parky's merits, not those of a potential successor and to be honest there's not been that many who have detailed exactly why he's a good manager in their view prefering to concentrate on other, external, factors like the lack of alternatives.
There is no clear alternative put forward by the Parky out crowd. Not even a majority choice. Most names are totally unreasonable fantasy appointments which assume we could pay off an existing contract, or that the said target would give up, say, Brighton, to join us.
So by appointing one of these alternatives you will be upsetting all those who dont think he is a good appointment plus those who think we should be taking the 'long term rebuild' route and keep Parky on. More unrest is not what we need. Of course any new appointment who gets our Third division players playing to upper Championship level football consistently would win over the nay sayers. But its not likely, is it?
As for the arguments as to why Parky is seen as a good manager by some of us, there are as many specifics on this thread as there are negatives.
Look at the first page - plenty of reasons there.
Yes there have been simplistic Dont rate him/Good manager posts without back-up.
Yes there have been external factors discussed, but they are relevant to PP's relative strengths too.
If we get promoted this season under Parkinson, is he the man to take us to respectability at Championship level? Does the current squad look like the basis of a decent Championship side?
Yes, yes, I know. I can hear it now ... "Let's worry about the Championship when we get there."
That's not the way to do it in my book. There is no point getting to the Championship if we fall back into League 1 at the first opportunity. So the longer term potential of the squad and the manager are the important things to me.
Now what do you think about Parkinson?
For what it's worth I think we have a squad of players capable of a top 2 finish, but don't think we have a manager with the tactical nous to achieve that.
Really hope I'm wrong...
Do you think we should be offering him a new contract now to provide that continuity you believe is vital?
Take away all the suggestions of ex players such as Powell, Di Canio etc and unrealistic like Curbs. Either a complete gamble or just not going to happen.
Tactics are often talked about as Parky's weakness. There were managers mentioned who would surely be no improvement in that area such as Martin Allen.
For obvious reasons there are doubts over lower/non league managers. Same with the likes of Ince and Sousa with their average records.
As Floyd said there is no majority choice, not even 3/4 names most would agree on. Middlesbrough fans seemed to want Mowbray, an ex captain. Can't think of anyone like that who is ideal for us.
Dabos said the other day he'd replace Parky only if there was someone clearly better available. After Parky got a reaction at Carlisle that's really how I see it, unless we go on a great or terrible run.
Lets look at the (real world) options available and weigh it up then.
Even more reason not to get rid of him at this point of the season
ssshhhhhh. Don't give them ideas for gawd's sake. The only thing keeping me going is that he will be off come next May.
I've said all along that IF he gets us up, which he won't in my opinion, he certainly isn't the man to keep us up. That's why we should have appointed O'Driscoll or Adkins at the end of last season when Parky failed. Then they could have taken us up and then have kept us up the following season and the one after etc etc.
A replacement doesn't have to be perfect, but there would have to be a clear improvement.
If Parky is average, why replace him with someone else who is just as average?
Most of the names were bigger gambles than Parky, unrealistic or had a very mixed record like Parky.
Read the comments on page 1 and 2 - as already mentioned, plenty of good arguments 'for; there
I agree they would have been bigger gambles but during Parky's caretaker period he demonstrated he wasn't up to it. Better a gamble than a known fail in my opinion.
I'd be happy with O'Driscoll and would have been with Adkins.
However I don't see why we should go for say Ince or Sousa in the hope that he's better than Parky. If he's not that puts us in a worse position. Easier to say as a fan, the board will be the ones who have to spend money on replacing not only a manager but his staff.
It is very unusual for any football manager to run down his contract. Long before that happens, in 99 out of 100 cases they are either sacked or tied up to a longer term contract extension.
So DRF asks a very pertinent question. Do Chizz, Floyd Montana and any other members of the Parky fan club think his contract should be extended now, in the interests of this ''continuity'' which seems to have taken on an almost spiritual desirability in some people's eyes?
Come Jan/Feb , say we're in the bottom half and promotion is looking highly unlikely. Everyone will by then know Parky won't getb his conrtract renewed when it runs out in May. And so we would, in effect, have a lame duck manager for the final 3/4 months of the season.
I think Parky's future is open to question. With his record, it would be strange if it wasn't. I think those who would sack him today regardless of last weekend's famous victory are probably wrong. But I know that those saying he has to stay whatever happens are even more misguided.
that said cos he was allowed to oversee us crumble away from the championship and continue with the worse run in our history by FAILING tp get us promoted after FAILING to keep us up he then gets a smaller budget (bigger than most in this league) to try and get us up again ....
so the longer he hangs around the spiral continues and the apologists somehow try and justify that we are lucky enough to have this 'nice bloke' in charge during the worse period in our history .......
happy clappy losers
Many of Parky's current supporters would, I imagine, have been happy to see the back of him after the caretaker period.
Now its a different situation completely, isnt it? (Not least because then he had Pards' wasters)
The future has so many possible scenarios that extending a contract now has little merit IMO , IA
If we are in the bottom half in Feb, but say 9 points off play offs, I would keep him on till the end of the season.
You say we dont have time, but as in so many anti manager arguments it can be seen both ways. If we dont have time (and I am unsure if this makes real sense) do we have time to bed in a new manager?
And if he has a caretaker role and we win most of those games, is that down to the new manager or the squad PP has assembled?
And if they lose those games do we change again?
(BTW I would love to see a correlation table/venn diagram between the current ''Parky out'' crowd and the ''Curbs has taken us as far as he can'' crowd)
Is anyone saying he should stay whatever happens?