Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Surely that proves that new manager bounce is a thing! Not because the new manager is a managerial genius, but rather because it motivates the players to work harder for a few weeks, and perhaps more importantly when a team is struggling, can given the players a short term confidence boost to hear a new voice.
If you have terrible players, a new manager won't change anything, but if you have underperforming players and a manager maybe struggling with the pressure, it can work for a short period to "raise" the team back to its true level. I doubt Mike Jackson is a managerial genius, but he's clearly delivered a short term bounce at Burnley
Has he? Or were Burnley naturally underperforming and always going to run into a bit of form and it so happens to have coincided with the sacking of Dyche?
This is the point, all bad to average teams go through spells in their season where they put good runs of form together and bad runs of form together. We had two of both ourselves.
Let's assume the first was due to a magical new manager bounce, what explains the second?
Or is this just the natural ebb and flow of a 46 game football season and as humans with biases, we are geared towards trying to find relationships and explanations for the things we experience?
Burnley would have recovered a bit of form if they had kept Dyche. But when? Maybe the new manager bounce meant that it happened a couple of games earlier than would have been the case otherwise
If you look at our 2022 form, partially it's based on player availability, but more importantly by the opposition. Our results have been quite predictable in that we usually beat he poorer sides and lose against the better ones. Not always of course, but the better teams usually find a way to beat us.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Surely that proves that new manager bounce is a thing! Not because the new manager is a managerial genius, but rather because it motivates the players to work harder for a few weeks, and perhaps more importantly when a team is struggling, can given the players a short term confidence boost to hear a new voice.
If you have terrible players, a new manager won't change anything, but if you have underperforming players and a manager maybe struggling with the pressure, it can work for a short period to "raise" the team back to its true level. I doubt Mike Jackson is a managerial genius, but he's clearly delivered a short term bounce at Burnley
Has he? Or were Burnley naturally underperforming and always going to run into a bit of form and it so happens to have coincided with the sacking of Dyche?
This is the point, all bad to average teams go through spells in their season where they put good runs of form together and bad runs of form together. We had two of both ourselves.
Let's assume the first was due to a magical new manager bounce, what explains the second?
Or is this just the natural ebb and flow of a 46 game football season and as humans with biases, we are geared towards trying to find relationships and explanations for the things we experience?
Burnley would have recovered a bit of form if they had kept Dyche. But when? Maybe the new manager bounce meant that it happened a couple of games earlier than would have been the case otherwise
If you look at our 2022 form, partially it's based on player availability, but more importantly by the opposition. Our results have been quite predictable in that we usually beat he poorer sides and lose against the better ones. Not always of course, but the better teams usually find a way to beat us.
Totally agree, the fixture list really messed up all the stats. Both times we played most of the top 8 we either had injuries or half a squad, or both.
Would it have looked different if we had started with Crewe, Donny, Wimbledon and Fleetwood, then played them without Stockley and Washington?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
Agree.
Pure revisionism.
No, we didn't sweep teams aside but go back to the post- match comments and you see comments about how hard we worked and how well we played against decent sides.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
Agree.
Pure revisionism.
No, we didn't sweep teams aside but go back to the post- match comments and you see comments about how hard we worked and how well we played against decent sides.
We’ll agree to disagree. I think in hindsight a lot of those positive comments come from a place of optimism. They thought Jackson finally cracked it and had the winning formula. Burton in particular sticks out in my mind as a very poor second half performance where we only held on to the win because MacG had his best 45 minutes of the season.
To end the season (before Ipswich) we went through a nine game stretch of six wins, two draws, one loss. Exactly the same results, with a good win over Rotherham as well as Burton, Cambridge and Shrewsbury.
But why were the comments not as positive? Because we’d just gone through a poor spell with the same manager. There was no longer an illusion about how good a manager Jackson is or could be.
Promotion sides grind out plenty of results too, they go up because they can do it consistently. Powell’s team were excellent defensively and had goals in them across the team. Some great performances but a lot of battling and direct football along the way.
TS seems to want both performances and results. Very difficult to build a team who do both consistently well. Bowyer’s team played better football but when we won it was often by a single goal.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
The rumour I heard was that new contracts are not being discussed as the new manager may not want you. Slightly different but indicates a decision had been made a while ago.
This chap is pretty close to JJ (have a feeling he may even be a realtion?), so the wording of his tweet is pretty damning...
Cousins
Can you Cafc43 or any one confirm the time line of the POTY do on the 1st of May and the sacking which I believe was on the bank holiday Monday ?
Was it definitely a sacking by phone or zoom ?
Why didn't Thomas Sandgaard meet JJ in person on the Monday before flying home ?
Would Roddy have sacked Johnnie if he was still in situ ?
I will remain eternally grateful to Thomas Sandgaard for seeing off Southall, Elliott and Co but owners or sons getting involved with the playing side doesn't normally end well. Thinking Martin Sandgaard which is puzzling the players( that's my ITK from a very reliable source)
I have no problem with an owner saying they want to see good football but I don't care if we score with a route one from the keeper to Washington or who ever is going to replace him as the pacey forward who lobbed the keeper, or a 10 man passing move but the latter looks a long way off. We do need to have better passing in this team but with propose and movement not 20 passes that ends up with a pass back to you own keeper and which is easy to defend against. MK Dons last season were great at the valley with ball retention but over passed when we were at there place and made it easy to defend against even allowing for the man marking on Fraser in the return.
Would be madness not to take advantage of having two of the best headers of a ball in League 1 but from the flanks crossing it back or from a good set piece to find either Stockley or Aneke. Other ITK folk on here must know that Chuks prefers to come off the bench. My source told me that's really unusual unless a guy is at the end of his career and his legs are going !
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
I'll go back to March and make a few tweaks to your post...
Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position [we were 17th, six points from the drop and about to play Gillingham], we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The performances vs Rotherham, Cambridge and Shrewsbury were unrecognisable to what had been seen during the two months before. Cambridge and Shrewsbury was about staying committed and seeing it through, Rotherham a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the season.
I'm not trying to downplay the results during the caretaker period, they were obviously good. I'm trying to make comparisons with the last 10 games of the season and the way I see it, there isn't much of a difference. They both share similar characteristics, grinding out wins and holding on to leads away from home against top six sides.
Teams that tend to finish mid table go through these runs of form - the accumulation of points rarely goes in a straight line. Adkins suffered, and was rightly let go, because we started very poorly. But a good run was due and that came coincidentally with Jackson's appointment. Then we had another terrible run that mirrored the start under Adkins. Then another great run of form that mirrored Jacko's spell as caretaker.
What I'm alluding to is that for three managers straight, the quality of the available playing squad has dictated the results moreso than any manager or formation.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
The part about punishing teams mostly. Washington can't finish to save his life.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
Agree.
Pure revisionism.
No, we didn't sweep teams aside but go back to the post- match comments and you see comments about how hard we worked and how well we played against decent sides.
We’ll agree to disagree. I think in hindsight a lot of those positive comments come from a place of optimism.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
Agree.
Pure revisionism.
No, we didn't sweep teams aside but go back to the post- match comments and you see comments about how hard we worked and how well we played against decent sides.
We’ll agree to disagree. I think in hindsight a lot of those positive comments come from a place of optimism.
As you say "hindsight"
My understanding of hindsight and revisionism aren't the same thing.
With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that that caretaker spell was a false dawn. There were signs that it was unsustainable but we were all caught in the moment. Whereas I take the suggestion of revisionism in the context it was used very differently.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
There are comparisons though. What that doesn't mean, or imply, is they are the same. There are comparisons between me and Brad Pitt as well.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
There are comparisons, but I think ultimately you have to zoom out a lot to make them stick. The zoomed out version is 'both have opinions on how we should play' so sure, that's a comparison, but the reality is that one wants to hire based on a playing style, the other wanted to tell an England international how to full back. I think the detail is significant. But regardless, what I was posting in response to was the 'Sandgaard is Roland with a guitar' type takes, which even the normally very rational Jimmy Stone wrote. That kind of direct comparison I think is unfair and unhelpful
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
There are comparisons though. What that doesn't mean, or imply, is they are the same. There are comparisons between me and Brad Pitt as well.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
There are comparisons, but I think ultimately you have to zoom out a lot to make them stick. The zoomed out version is 'both have opinions on how we should play' so sure, that's a comparison, but the reality is that one wants to hire based on a playing style, the other wanted to tell an England international how to full back. I think the detail is significant. But regardless, what I was posting in response to was the 'Sandgaard is Roland with a guitar' type takes, which even the normally very rational Jimmy Stone wrote. That kind of direct comparison I think is unfair and unhelpful
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Magnificent performance at Sunderland who were 2nd, thoroughly deserved and we held out quite comfortably. Slaughtered Donny could have had a lot more. Great performance against Rotherham and we should have won. Competent win at Burton, played like a promotion team, grinding out an away win. Comprehensively beat Plymouth. Should have been about 4 up at Morecambe, unlucky with their cheating penalty. Rubbish at Shrewsbury. Thoroughly deserved wins against Ipswich & Cambridge. I was at 7 of the games & watched Burton & Shrewsbury on Charlton TV.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
The part about punishing teams mostly. Washington can't finish to save his life.
But does stretch back lines and put teams under pressure to create space for his teammates. We’d be stupid to get rid of him.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
The part about punishing teams mostly. Washington can't finish to save his life.
But does stretch back lines and put teams under pressure to create space for his teammates. We’d be stupid to get rid of him.
Why don't we try and find someone that can run AND score?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
I'll go back to March and make a few tweaks to your post...
Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position [we were 17th, six points from the drop and about to play Gillingham], we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The performances vs Rotherham, Cambridge and Shrewsbury were unrecognisable to what had been seen during the two months before. Cambridge and Shrewsbury was about staying committed and seeing it through, Rotherham a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the season.
I'm not trying to downplay the results during the caretaker period, they were obviously good. I'm trying to make comparisons with the last 10 games of the season and the way I see it, there isn't much of a difference. They both share similar characteristics, grinding out wins and holding on to leads away from home against top six sides.
Teams that tend to finish mid table go through these runs of form - the accumulation of points rarely goes in a straight line. Adkins suffered, and was rightly let go, because we started very poorly. But a good run was due and that came coincidentally with Jackson's appointment. Then we had another terrible run that mirrored the start under Adkins. Then another great run of form that mirrored Jacko's spell as caretaker.
What I'm alluding to is that for three managers straight, the quality of the available playing squad has dictated the results moreso than any manager or formation.
I usually agree with you Callum, but I'm certain you're talking nonsense, having actually attended most of the games being discussed and seeing the rest on Charlton TV.
In JJ's 9 game caretaker role we played and achieved the results of a top 2 team. The last 9 games of the season we played like a mid table team, even if the overall results were better.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Magnificent performance at Sunderland who were 2nd, thoroughly deserved and we held out quite comfortably. Slaughtered Donny could have had a lot more. Great performance against Rotherham and we should have won. Competent win at Burton, played like a promotion team, grinding out an away win. Comprehensively beat Plymouth. Should have been about 4 up at Morecambe, unlucky with their cheating penalty. Rubbish at Shrewsbury. Thoroughly deserved wins against Ipswich & Cambridge. I was at 7 of the games & watched Burton & Shrewsbury on Charlton TV.
I can describe some of the games towards the end of the season in the same way. Great away performance at Rotherham, thoroughly deserved wins over Burton and Shrewsbury etc. Again, not saying we played badly during that caretaker spell (starting to feel like that's where the argument is being taken), only trying to compare it to the run of form we experienced later in the season to demonstrate that the new manager bounce is not real. Still yet to hear an argument that effectively explains that second bounce.
We can go back and forth forever with anecdotal vs empirical evidence.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
The part about punishing teams mostly. Washington can't finish to save his life.
But does stretch back lines and put teams under pressure to create space for his teammates. We’d be stupid to get rid of him.
Why don't we try and find someone that can run AND score?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
I think there’s a bit of revisionism going on here, unnecessarily playing it down. Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position, we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The home performances vs Ipswich, Rotherham and Plymouth were unrecognisable to what had been seen before (and since). Cambridge was about staying committed and seeing it through, Sunderland & Burton a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the remainder of the season. It didn’t, it ended abruptly at that point. But playing down results / performances during that caretaker period is unjust imo
I'll go back to March and make a few tweaks to your post...
Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position [we were 17th, six points from the drop and about to play Gillingham], we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The performances vs Rotherham, Cambridge and Shrewsbury were unrecognisable to what had been seen during the two months before. Cambridge and Shrewsbury was about staying committed and seeing it through, Rotherham a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
It was promotion equivalent form and would have resulted in play offs had it been maintained through the season.
I'm not trying to downplay the results during the caretaker period, they were obviously good. I'm trying to make comparisons with the last 10 games of the season and the way I see it, there isn't much of a difference. They both share similar characteristics, grinding out wins and holding on to leads away from home against top six sides.
Teams that tend to finish mid table go through these runs of form - the accumulation of points rarely goes in a straight line. Adkins suffered, and was rightly let go, because we started very poorly. But a good run was due and that came coincidentally with Jackson's appointment. Then we had another terrible run that mirrored the start under Adkins. Then another great run of form that mirrored Jacko's spell as caretaker.
What I'm alluding to is that for three managers straight, the quality of the available playing squad has dictated the results moreso than any manager or formation.
I usually agree with you Callum, but I'm certain you're talking nonsense, having actually attended most of the games being discussed and seeing the rest on Charlton TV.
In JJ's 9 game caretaker role we played and achieved the results of a top 2 team. The last 10 games of the season we played and achieved the results of a mid table team.
You might not have felt as good about the performances but we got 19 points from the last 10 games. That is the form of a top 2 team, not mid table.
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Magnificent performance at Sunderland who were 2nd, thoroughly deserved and we held out quite comfortably. Slaughtered Donny could have had a lot more. Great performance against Rotherham and we should have won. Competent win at Burton, played like a promotion team, grinding out an away win. Comprehensively beat Plymouth. Should have been about 4 up at Morecambe, unlucky with their cheating penalty. Rubbish at Shrewsbury. Thoroughly deserved wins against Ipswich & Cambridge. I was at 7 of the games & watched Burton & Shrewsbury on Charlton TV.
I can describe some of the games towards the end of the season in the same way. Great away performance at Rotherham, thoroughly deserved wins over Burton and Shrewsbury etc. We can go back and forth forever with anecdotal vs empirical evidence.
If we are still discussing if a new manager bounce exists or not (which I am actually not sure we are but anyway).
If you only change the manager and nothing else it doesn't exist. For the reasons you stated.
What we did get, in addition to that, was a radical change of formation and tactics and actually personnel as well. The change in manager also came about 2 or 3 weeks after the summer signings (that came in the autumn), and Gilbey and Purrington were actually match fit.
Jackson also had the advantage of having seen that some weren't up to it before he had to play them. A luxury not afforded to Nigle.
He also had the advantage of not signing or not signing any of them and could have the attitude of it being a clean slate because we are stuck with each other until Christmas let's make the most of it.
Just changing the manager isn't the only dynamic in play here.
I don’t know the ins and out of JJ’s contract but I’m assuming TS could remove him now at minimal cost.
If he was “given the summer” as so many people feel he should have been, and then results were bad, the cost to remove him would no doubt have gone up.
The last two seasons have been shite and JJ has been a big part of that. If someone with no connections with Charlton had managed us for the second half of the season and had the same results, playing the same style of football, everyone of us would want him out.
Take the emotion out of it and it’s 100% the right decision.
Should he have been told over the phone - no, but that’s a separate argument.
Any truth in the rumour that Martin Sandgaard told Connor Washington two weeks ago that his contract wouldn’t be renewed because he didn’t fit in with the new manager’s plans?
Wants to press, gets rid of the ideal player to trigger the high press and punish teams. Makes sense.
The part about punishing teams mostly. Washington can't finish to save his life.
But does stretch back lines and put teams under pressure to create space for his teammates. We’d be stupid to get rid of him.
Why don't we try and find 7 players that can run AND score?
Since Jacko got the job full time we've averaged 1.22 points per game. Extrapolated over a season that has us finishing on 56 points, which would have been good for 15th/16th this season.
Obviously his period in temporary charge was much better (over 2 points per game), but is there any proof that was anything more than a new manager bounce? I guess your answer to that comes down to how much you like Jacko, but looking at the cold hard data there is nothing to suggest he is the man to get us promoted next season. Of course a good transfer window could have done wonders, but equally there's the chance that it doesn't and the club are left looking for a new manager outside of a transfer window with a squad built to play an ineffective formation/style.
It's a bold move by TS. He will have felt he wasn't decisive last autumn, and that directly led to him having to give Jacko the job despite clearly not being convinced. If he'd have acted sooner he could have got away with a temporary deal to the end of the season, but the longer the good run went on the harder it was to do anything other than make him permanent.
The January window can then be seen in a different light. With the injuries we had and the drop in form the play-offs became almost unattainable. The options then were a) go all out for the play-offs, spending more than you want (January is a terrible time to do business) and handing that cheque book to a manager you don't necessarily trust, or b) keep your powder dry, accept this season was almost certain to end in a mid-table finish, spend just enough to ensure safety and give yourself 4-5 months to really take stock and decide what to do the following season.
TS obviously took option B, and I would hope factored in the possibility that Jacko would/could get the results to convince TS he was the man to take us up next year. 1.22 points per game would only have confirmed TS' original hesitancy and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't start looking for a replacement quite some time ago.
I've never subscribed to the 'new manager bounce' - it's a bit of a myth as Ben McAleer from WhoScored concludes below.
"The 'bounce' that comes when a new manager is appointed is often because things cannot get any worse. An uptick is almost inevitable. The bounce is an illusion and the new manager is the beneficiary"
If we had sacked Jacko in March and gone on to win six of the last 10 under Euell, would that have been reasoned away by a new manager bounce too? Why did we have two spells of awful form followed by two spells of promotion form this season and only one can be explained by a new manager bounce? What delivered the second turn around?
The ultimate conclusion to draw here is that Jackson isn't a messiah that can turn average players into world beaters and that the form may well have turned around under Adkins anyway, meaning he is probably better than we gave him credit. But neither of them were able to turn this squad into a team that is going to consistently deliver promotion form.
Sometimes you have to use your eyes instead of stats. The style of play and effort from the players while he was caretaker was completely different to once he was permanent. A world away in fact.
We picked up some wins in a purple patch towards the end not from good team performances, but from individuals doing something good. It was abysmal football, even with everyone fit.
I contend that the style of play was never very good at any point in the season, although it was perhaps the hardest working spell of the campaign. Looking back at the nine games he had as caretaker, none of them were particularly convincing victories (Doncaster aside).
Sunderland 0-1 Charlton - got dominated, scored with one of our three shots on target and clung on at the end Charlton 4-0 Doncaster - our best win of the season and we played well, regardless of how poor the opposition were Charlton 1-1 Rotherham - probably a game we should have lost, late equaliser from a deflected pot shot Burton 0-1 Charlton - again dominated by the home team and somehow kept the ball out of the net Charlton 2-0 Plymouth - had to grind them down and eventually put the seal on it 84th minute Morecambe 2-2 Charlton - bright start but dominated thereafter Shrewsbury 1-0 Charlton - perhaps the worst quality game I saw all season on both sides Charlton 2-0 Ipswich - again not the best football and took a goal late on to guarantee the win Charlton 2-0 Cambridge - away side made this one really uncomfortable and would've felt disappointed not to take a point
Magnificent performance at Sunderland who were 2nd, thoroughly deserved and we held out quite comfortably. Slaughtered Donny could have had a lot more. Great performance against Rotherham and we should have won. Competent win at Burton, played like a promotion team, grinding out an away win. Comprehensively beat Plymouth. Should have been about 4 up at Morecambe, unlucky with their cheating penalty. Rubbish at Shrewsbury. Thoroughly deserved wins against Ipswich & Cambridge. I was at 7 of the games & watched Burton & Shrewsbury on Charlton TV.
I can describe some of the games towards the end of the season in the same way. Great away performance at Rotherham, thoroughly deserved wins over Burton and Shrewsbury etc. Again, not saying we played badly during that caretaker spell (starting to feel like that's where the argument is being taken), only trying to compare it to the run of form we experienced later in the season to demonstrate that the new manager bounce is not real. Still yet to hear an argument that effectively explains that second bounce.
We can go back and forth forever with anecdotal vs empirical evidence.
Last 9 games
We beat a poor Burton team & JFH said they deserved to win & were better. Possibly a draw was fair. We scraped a win at Donny against a shockingly poor team. Lost at home to Lincoln in a very bad performance. Drew at AFC, looked good for 15 mins & average at best for 75 mins, against a team who hadn't win in 20? Won at Rotherham, an excellent performance, but Rotherham were on a bad run. Lost at home to Morecambe, another dire defensive, relegation level performance. Won at Cambridge, who left out 7 first team players. Made hard work of beating Shrewsbury in another dire performance. Absolutely murdered at Ipswich, lost by 4, should have been 7.
Rotherham was the only decent performance, the other 8 were mid table or lower performances, even if the results were good against 7 poor teams & 2 decent ones.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
There are comparisons though. What that doesn't mean, or imply, is they are the same. There are comparisons between me and Brad Pitt as well.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
There are comparisons, but I think ultimately you have to zoom out a lot to make them stick. The zoomed out version is 'both have opinions on how we should play' so sure, that's a comparison, but the reality is that one wants to hire based on a playing style, the other wanted to tell an England international how to full back. I think the detail is significant. But regardless, what I was posting in response to was the 'Sandgaard is Roland with a guitar' type takes, which even the normally very rational Jimmy Stone wrote. That kind of direct comparison I think is unfair and unhelpful
The comparisons are fair from a business plan perspective, Sandgaard does, essentially, have the same vision for break (or near break even) even, and plans on getting there in more or less the same way.
But that's where it ends.
I'm not one of the Cult of Thomas Sandgaard followers (nor a hater) and even I can see how far far fecking far away he is from being anything like old Roly boy.
It is a bit shocking to me how quickly people compare Sandgaard to Duchatelet. Roland was the worst thing that could have possibly happened to our club. He didn't care, was adamant his way of doing things was the only way, but to the aggressive exclusion of the fans. He actively worked against fans, posting statements against them, ignoring absolutely all input from others, briefing against 'disgruntled ex-employees', allowing his CEO to employ people to physically assault fans with no reprimand and holding the club to the ransom of his big idea. He hired random blokes from the Belgian third division and wanted to bring in some guy who played indoor football to manage the club. I think because it was a while ago and we had Southall and then another bloke whose name I genuinely can't remember and refuse to Google people have forgotten just how desperate things were. The prick even still owns our home and won't give it back. He sold us on to an obvious pack of crooks because as far as he was concerned he either got the money for the asset off them or he didn't; if the stuff around it burned to the ground he didn't give a single one, The Valley and Sparrows lane were still good land he could make use of. Sandgaard has an ego and thinks his way is best, and he does make a concerningly large amount of first draft cock ups but we regularly do see recalibration of his choices and we have real engagement from our owner. It's not some remote nutcase in another country never appearing and remaining silent unless it's to complain about us, nor is it some charlatan sweeping through Crossbars to applause while siphoning all the cash out of the club. On Sunday Sandgaard, who lives in Colorado, presented medals to a team of 16-18 year old girls at The Valley because they won the Reserve South Central league title. He did this at a women's match with an attendance of 710. He does genuinely care, he's just got a lot to learn and a lip that he could do with buttoning. I'll take that every single day over an owner who would deliberately, actively destroy the club if it meant he got the chance to show that his brain is biggest. Sandgaard is not above scrutiny and him saving the club is credit that he has received and is now in the past, but please don't call him Roland mk II because he doesn't fancy watching us hoof the ball out of play for the 37th time that half while Morecambe run rings around us. For the first time since 2014 we have an owner that actually wants us to do well, it's not perfect but Jesus, it's not Roland.
There are comparisons though. What that doesn't mean, or imply, is they are the same. There are comparisons between me and Brad Pitt as well.
Saying Thomas doing y is just similar to Roland doing x doesn't mean you would obviously rather have Roland, does it? Or make everything comparable?
There are comparisons, but I think ultimately you have to zoom out a lot to make them stick. The zoomed out version is 'both have opinions on how we should play' so sure, that's a comparison, but the reality is that one wants to hire based on a playing style, the other wanted to tell an England international how to full back. I think the detail is significant. But regardless, what I was posting in response to was the 'Sandgaard is Roland with a guitar' type takes, which even the normally very rational Jimmy Stone wrote. That kind of direct comparison I think is unfair and unhelpful
That’s a bit selective. If the issue was that TS wanted a particular playing style we’d all be fine. There’s more though isn’t there, not least installing his son at the club because he’s a genius with a very hard shot.
Comments
If you look at our 2022 form, partially it's based on player availability, but more importantly by the opposition. Our results have been quite predictable in that we usually beat he poorer sides and lose against the better ones. Not always of course, but the better teams usually find a way to beat us.
Would it have looked different if we had started with Crewe, Donny, Wimbledon and Fleetwood, then played them without Stockley and Washington?
Pure revisionism.
No, we didn't sweep teams aside but go back to the post- match comments and you see comments about how hard we worked and how well we played against decent sides.
We’ll agree to disagree. I think in hindsight a lot of those positive comments come from a place of optimism. They thought Jackson finally cracked it and had the winning formula. Burton in particular sticks out in my mind as a very poor second half performance where we only held on to the win because MacG had his best 45 minutes of the season.
To end the season (before Ipswich) we went through a nine game stretch of six wins, two draws, one loss. Exactly the same results, with a good win over Rotherham as well as Burton, Cambridge and Shrewsbury.
But why were the comments not as positive? Because we’d just gone through a poor spell with the same manager. There was no longer an illusion about how good a manager Jackson is or could be.
TS seems to want both performances and results. Very difficult to build a team who do both consistently well. Bowyer’s team played better football but when we won it was often by a single goal.
He was told……”you’ll have to discuss it with the manager in due course, whoever that might be.”
Can you Cafc43 or any one confirm the time line of the POTY do on the 1st of May and the sacking which I believe was on the bank holiday Monday ?
Was it definitely a sacking by phone or zoom ?
Why didn't Thomas Sandgaard meet JJ in person on the Monday before flying home ?
Would Roddy have sacked Johnnie if he was still in situ ?
I will remain eternally grateful to Thomas Sandgaard for seeing off Southall, Elliott and Co but owners or sons getting involved with the playing side doesn't normally end well. Thinking Martin Sandgaard which is puzzling the players( that's my ITK from a very reliable source)
I have no problem with an owner saying they want to see good football but I don't care if we score with a route one from the keeper to Washington or who ever is going to replace him as the pacey forward who lobbed the keeper, or a 10 man passing move but the latter looks a long way off.
We do need to have better passing in this team but with propose and movement not 20 passes that ends up with a pass back to you own keeper and which is easy to defend against. MK Dons last season were great at the valley with ball retention but over passed when we were at there place and made it easy to defend against even allowing for the man marking on Fraser in the return.
Would be madness not to take advantage of having two of the best headers of a ball in League 1 but from the flanks crossing it back or from a good set piece to find either Stockley or Aneke. Other ITK folk on here must know that Chuks prefers to come off the bench. My source told me that's really unusual unless a guy is at the end of his career and his legs are going !
I'll go back to March and make a few tweaks to your post...
Off the back of dire form, performances and a relegation threatening position [we were 17th, six points from the drop and about to play Gillingham], we played 9, won 6, draw 2, lost 1.
The performances vs Rotherham, Cambridge and Shrewsbury were unrecognisable to what had been seen during the two months before. Cambridge and Shrewsbury was about staying committed and seeing it through, Rotherham a fantastic defensive rearguard and effort away from home.
I'm not trying to downplay the results during the caretaker period, they were obviously good. I'm trying to make comparisons with the last 10 games of the season and the way I see it, there isn't much of a difference. They both share similar characteristics, grinding out wins and holding on to leads away from home against top six sides.
Teams that tend to finish mid table go through these runs of form - the accumulation of points rarely goes in a straight line. Adkins suffered, and was rightly let go, because we started very poorly. But a good run was due and that came coincidentally with Jackson's appointment. Then we had another terrible run that mirrored the start under Adkins. Then another great run of form that mirrored Jacko's spell as caretaker.
What I'm alluding to is that for three managers straight, the quality of the available playing squad has dictated the results moreso than any manager or formation.
With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that that caretaker spell was a false dawn. There were signs that it was unsustainable but we were all caught in the moment. Whereas I take the suggestion of revisionism in the context it was used very differently.
Slaughtered Donny could have had a lot more.
Great performance against Rotherham and we should have won.
Competent win at Burton, played like a promotion team, grinding out an away win.
Comprehensively beat Plymouth.
Should have been about 4 up at Morecambe, unlucky with their cheating penalty.
Rubbish at Shrewsbury.
Thoroughly deserved wins against Ipswich & Cambridge.
I was at 7 of the games & watched Burton & Shrewsbury on Charlton TV.
In JJ's 9 game caretaker role we played and achieved the results of a top 2 team.
The last 9 games of the season we played like a mid table team, even if the overall results were better.
We can go back and forth forever with anecdotal vs empirical evidence.
If you only change the manager and nothing else it doesn't exist. For the reasons you stated.
What we did get, in addition to that, was a radical change of formation and tactics and actually personnel as well. The change in manager also came about 2 or 3 weeks after the summer signings (that came in the autumn), and Gilbey and Purrington were actually match fit.
Jackson also had the advantage of having seen that some weren't up to it before he had to play them. A luxury not afforded to Nigle.
He also had the advantage of not signing or not signing any of them and could have the attitude of it being a clean slate because we are stuck with each other until Christmas let's make the most of it.
Just changing the manager isn't the only dynamic in play here.
Take the emotion out of it and it’s 100% the right decision.
Should he have been told over the phone - no, but that’s a separate argument.
We beat a poor Burton team & JFH said they deserved to win & were better. Possibly a draw was fair.
We scraped a win at Donny against a shockingly poor team.
Lost at home to Lincoln in a very bad performance.
Drew at AFC, looked good for 15 mins & average at best for 75 mins, against a team who hadn't win in 20?
Won at Rotherham, an excellent performance, but Rotherham were on a bad run.
Lost at home to Morecambe, another dire defensive, relegation level performance.
Won at Cambridge, who left out 7 first team players.
Made hard work of beating Shrewsbury in another dire performance.
Absolutely murdered at Ipswich, lost by 4, should have been 7.
Rotherham was the only decent performance, the other 8 were mid table or lower performances, even if the results were good against 7 poor teams & 2 decent ones.
The comparisons are fair from a business plan perspective, Sandgaard does, essentially, have the same vision for break (or near break even) even, and plans on getting there in more or less the same way.
But that's where it ends.
I'm not one of the Cult of Thomas Sandgaard followers (nor a hater) and even I can see how far far fecking far away he is from being anything like old Roly boy.