Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
USER POLL; Garner - Kept or Released?
AFKABartram
Posts: 57,836
Week on, now the dust has settled would you kept Garner on as managed, or if given the opportunity would you have released?
USER POLL; Garner - Kept or Released? 472 votes
Kept
84%
400 votes
Released
15%
72 votes
0
Comments
-
Releasednot necessarily his fault as he seems to have been let down by lack of investment in the summer/should have been replaced by someone decent, however he seemed to have lost the dressing room so probably for the best.0
-
KeptDidn't get anything from Thomas who expected miracles on a firmly closed budget purse..
1 -
KeptDidn’t warm to the fella and thought he was talked up incessantly in a thinly veiled and grating attempt to justify Sandgaard’s “brilliance” but still can’t see any point in sacking him.2
-
KeptWasn't supported in the transfer window.
Ended up with a worse squad than the 3 managers before him and asked to do a better job.3 -
ReleasedI didn’t think he knew what he was doing, so him going doesn’t bother me, but I felt that way about Adkins and Jackson. I didn’t rate either of them. It’s the fact we’ve had to sack another manager that is the real issue. Just highlights TS’ incompetence0
-
ReleasedHe wasn't great, but had no real backing. But the defence has been a disaster this season and Stockley has gone from a decent L1 striker to being hopeless under Garner.
Ultimately if we had a budget in the summer Garner would never have been on the list in the first place0 -
KeptKept.
Spoke up for himself and the team and we have played some great football at times. If we had signed even one striker I think we would have been much closer to the top six or even in there.2 -
KeptI’ve not been blown away, but I never think it’s fair sacking a bloke when you’ve so many players unavailable. Don’t know how much input he had in the summer recruitment, so I definitely would have seen how the picture was early Jan before making a decision7
-
KeptAt times we have played our best football for years, when Egbo etc were fit.4
-
KeptKept. He should've been backed by TS and wasn't....unfair on Garner!3
-
Sponsored links:
-
1
-
KeptHe should have been backed properly. Kept.0
-
KeptCertainly he's not flawless but I don't think there's a realistic option for anyone to have done much better in the same situation.0
-
KeptGiven a threadbare squad that is lacking in key areas, many injuries that meant playing kids in defence, a striker that doesn't fit the system he wanted to play and the other striker can't play more than 45 minutes.
He was hired because we're led to believe TS liked the way he played, but he only had one transfer window and you absolutely cannot shape a squad to fit your style of play in less than 6 months. Ridiculous sacking.1 -
Kept. Didnt get backed enough0
-
ReleasedThought Garnerball was alien to our players and could not see them winning enough games from it. However, he persisted with it and failed to find an alternative system which could have more closely matched our squad`s strengths.
I also found Garnerball so boring to watch and a dangerous method of play (for us). Our defenders appeared nervous and uncomfortable trying to play it with any consistently.
I strongly agree that he was not fully support by TS and had major gaps in the squad which made his job more difficult.
I wish him well and hope he establishes himself in the game in the longer term.
0 -
ReleasedThe League position says it all - can argue he wasn't backed but am sure he knew what was available to him player wise before signing up0
-
Released
odd thought I had..AFKABartram said:0 -
ReleasedRelease as possible catalyst for wider changes.
Would have liked to have seen his work with better quality tools at his disposal and would be for re-hiring in the future if he'd be interested.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
KeptWho’s going to do any better with what’s available?7
-
Releasedrefused to make best use of the resources at his disposal - or didn't recognise who's good and bad at what roles - arrogance or ineptitude add up to the same thing = inadequacy
he wasn't the squad's only problem but he was a major one and critically one that skintgaard can actually do something about
Garner was as badly managed, and badly treated, as he managed the team but that doesn't make retaining him any less wrong
skintgaard, true to form, is compounding his mistakes by repeating them in full, there's clearly no succession planning in place
telling that Scott Marshall declined the chance to step up as caretaker and thereby serve an extended interview for the top job, loyalty to BG would be laudable if unambitious, my two penn'th on Marshall being as pissed with skintgaard as the rest of us0 -
KeptUnproven one way or the other so would have kept until it was clear what way. Nobody could make it work with the lack of backing he had.1
-
KeptStability, stability stability.
Plus cash.2 -
KeptKept.
Honestly not given enough time or backing.1 -
Kept
Me too, but I've just done it again.razil said:
odd thought I had..AFKABartram said:0 -
KeptKept
Unlike JJ he was headhunted by the Sandgaard's.
Why couldn't they have given him a chance?1 -
ReleasedAll depends who comes in .....0
-
KeptNot an easy poll. I went kept on balance as he has not been backed but he could have done better with what he had so not a totally clear cut vote for me3
-
ReleasedIf the vote is based on feeling sorry for Garner due to the lack of time and support then clearly he was not deserving of the sack.If the vote is about what's best for the club then in my opinion he leaves.The club wins that argument for me.3
