Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
where exactly did Garner go wrong?
Manic_mania
Posts: 2,262
Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
4
Comments
-
He accepted working under TS20
-
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.6 -
He should have played a system that suited the players he had. I don’t really agree with his sacking, but watching us trying to get League One duffers playing like Manchester City was crazy.Manic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.5 -
By joining our club.0
-
Inexperienced manager out of his depth in L1 working under TS.3
-
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.7 -
That's what baffles me... so was that on him? or was he being a bit of a chancer? He comes across very well and very smart in interviews - did he just get found out?se9addick said:
He should have played a system that suited the players he had. I don’t really agree with his sacking, but watching us trying to get League One duffers playing like Manchester City was crazy.Manic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.1 -
i think it's this tbhhoof_it_up_to_benty said:Inexperienced manager out of his depth in L1 working under TS.1 -
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.0 -
He was playing manager press speak in the transfer window. He knew it was blindingly obvious we needed a centre forward, but no manager ever says it as they know the price goes up.DOUCHER said:
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
He came across as very naive at times.Manic_mania said:
i think it's this tbhhoof_it_up_to_benty said:Inexperienced manager out of his depth in L1 working under TS.1 -
Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here4 -
Joining the club in the first place...
I don't buy the method was alien to the players, bar one or two of them they would have played it a academy level, at least.
The reality is some of them aren't good enough, some of them aren't suitable and there are 2 or 3 massive holes in the squad.
My guess is we will go with someone a bit more pragmatic for the rest of the season then go back to more 433, high press etc next summer. Rinse and repeat. Assuming Thomas is still here.0 -
I don’t think he’s a chancer, I actually think he has a lot of qualities that could make him a good manager in the future. I think however he has a philosophy that he wants to stick with regardless of the facts on the ground and the facts on the ground at Charlton are that we have a lopsided, fairly limited, squad.Manic_mania said:
That's what baffles me... so was that on him? or was he being a bit of a chancer? He comes across very well and very smart in interviews - did he just get found out?se9addick said:
He should have played a system that suited the players he had. I don’t really agree with his sacking, but watching us trying to get League One duffers playing like Manchester City was crazy.Manic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.1 -
I was surprised how well he got us playing at times but I disagreed with his view there is only one way to play the game. I think it is a bit naive to have Inniss and Lavelle passing it out from the back. If you need goals, you are barking up the wrong tree playing Morgan but whilst I have issues, he hasn't had a proper run at it. Injuries made things harder but we started the season too short in key positions and with too few goalscorers and didn't fix it in the window. I suspect he was told he would be supported but wasn't and his recent comments back that up. I am left thinking, maybe he had something but he had too poor a hand dealt to him. We will never know now.1
-
I get what you are saying, but i'm trying to look at this from a different POV - there is enough threads to criticise TS on here (and I agree) my question is where did JG go wrong with what he had.sam3110 said:Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here
0 -
If you play a long ball game, you need players to put the ball in the net still.0
-
really? that's a plausible theory but i don't agree - centre forward was a priority from day 1 and he brought in loads of midfielders - i know the next answer - 'yes, thats because strikers cost more... ' well that again is another convenient explanation but again i don't agree - get your priority positions sorted first then see what you have left - piss poor football management to end up with the striker situation we have got nowRC_CAFC said:
He was playing manager press speak in the transfer window. He knew it was blindingly obvious we needed a centre forward, but no manager ever says it as they know the price goes up.DOUCHER said:
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.1 -
He bought players that couldn’t get promoted from league two to try and get promoted from league one6
-
Part of being a good manager is the ability to adapt and to recognise that your 'philosophy' may not work with the resources available.se9addick said:
I don’t think he’s a chancer, I actually think he has a lot of qualities that could make him a good manager in the future. I think however he has a philosophy that he wants to stick with regardless of the facts on the ground and the facts on the ground at Charlton are that we have a lopsided, fairly limited, squad.Manic_mania said:
That's what baffles me... so was that on him? or was he being a bit of a chancer? He comes across very well and very smart in interviews - did he just get found out?se9addick said:
He should have played a system that suited the players he had. I don’t really agree with his sacking, but watching us trying to get League One duffers playing like Manchester City was crazy.Manic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
Sussing out the owner is also key.
Garner may be a coach and not a manager...0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Where Garner went wrong is not pushing hard enough early enough for players IMO. If you have a budget and you have maxed it out, and are still 2 or 3 players short, you push as hard as possible to shift those unwanted players, to sign youngsters on loan where the parent club don't ask for the wages to be paid, and you do everything you can to make sure you have a left footed left back and a left sided midfielder and more than one fit senior striker on the books.Manic_mania said:
I get what you are saying, but i'm trying to look at this from a different POV - there is enough threads to criticise TS on here (and I agree) my question is where did JG go wrong with what he had.sam3110 said:Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here1 -
He may have believed it wasn't a midfielder or a striker and you take on players when they are available. I suspect something changed with Sandgaard's approach and Garner probably believed what he was promised. Maybe that is what he could have changed and he could have tried to bring the striker in before midfielders but Sandgaard had spent money before and promised him support so you can see why he trusted him. Maybe he could have looked at JJ who was sacked because of performance which was affected by having all his strikers injured for a considerable time.DOUCHER said:
really? that's a plausible theory but i don't agree - centre forward was a priority from day 1 and he brought in loads of midfielders - i know the next answer - 'yes, thats because strikers cost more... ' well that again is another convenient explanation but again i don't agree - get your priority positions sorted first then see what you have left - piss poor football management to end up with the striker situation we have got nowRC_CAFC said:
He was playing manager press speak in the transfer window. He knew it was blindingly obvious we needed a centre forward, but no manager ever says it as they know the price goes up.DOUCHER said:
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.0 -
I entirely don't disagree with what you're saying about who we brought in, I just don't think it was Garner's fault. I think he was fully supporting those decisions while equally of the understanding the club would back him in getting a striker as well. There is no way he would have let Davison go otherwise. He, at the end of the day, wasn't dealing with the negotiations of players Gallen and MS were.DOUCHER said:
really? that's a plausible theory but i don't agree - centre forward was a priority from day 1 and he brought in loads of midfielders - i know the next answer - 'yes, thats because strikers cost more... ' well that again is another convenient explanation but again i don't agree - get your priority positions sorted first then see what you have left - piss poor football management to end up with the striker situation we have got nowRC_CAFC said:
He was playing manager press speak in the transfer window. He knew it was blindingly obvious we needed a centre forward, but no manager ever says it as they know the price goes up.DOUCHER said:
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.
A new manager will not bad mouth his club within weeks of signing, but he has come out and said stuff recently about it not being the gig he thought it was.2 -
But if you are hired SPECIFICALLY for your footballing philosophy? That was made very clear on his appointment. and was he sold the job (bearing in mind he was in the middle of a project, not unemployed) that this was he case. Doesn't that mean time is key?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Part of being a good manager is the ability to adapt and to recognise that your 'philosophy' may not work with the resources available.se9addick said:
I don’t think he’s a chancer, I actually think he has a lot of qualities that could make him a good manager in the future. I think however he has a philosophy that he wants to stick with regardless of the facts on the ground and the facts on the ground at Charlton are that we have a lopsided, fairly limited, squad.Manic_mania said:
That's what baffles me... so was that on him? or was he being a bit of a chancer? He comes across very well and very smart in interviews - did he just get found out?se9addick said:
He should have played a system that suited the players he had. I don’t really agree with his sacking, but watching us trying to get League One duffers playing like Manchester City was crazy.Manic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
Sussing out the owner is also key.
Garner may be a coach and not a manager...1 -
I think this is a bit of a red hearing. He hardly ever started Payne, for example. McGrandles, probably the worst, and most pointless, of the summer signings wasn't a league 2 player.MrOneLung said:He bought players that couldn’t get promoted from league two to try and get promoted from league one0 -
exactly - the noises he was making were not those of a manager who knew just how serious the striker situation was - and many felt the same - i was amazed at how many others felt the same - left footed full back, centre back.... yes, but to have 1 centre forward who we all knew couldn't play the manager's system and a bunch of crocks and kids was ridiculoussam3110 said:
Where Garner went wrong is not pushing hard enough early enough for players IMO. If you have a budget and you have maxed it out, and are still 2 or 3 players short, you push as hard as possible to shift those unwanted players, to sign youngsters on loan where the parent club don't ask for the wages to be paid, and you do everything you can to make sure you have a left footed left back and a left sided midfielder and more than one fit senior striker on the books.Manic_mania said:
I get what you are saying, but i'm trying to look at this from a different POV - there is enough threads to criticise TS on here (and I agree) my question is where did JG go wrong with what he had.sam3110 said:Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here2 -
It isn't so much about who we brought in for me. It is who we didn't bring in.5
-
yes, that's a consideration of course but he was way too compliant then at the end of the window if that actually happened - he should have been wheeling and dealing to get players out and strikers inMuttleyCAFC said:
He may have believed it wasn't a midfielder or a striker and you take on players when they are available. I suspect something changed with Sandgaard's approach and Garner probably believed what he was promised. Maybe that is what he could have changed and he could have tried to bring the striker in before midfielders but Sandgaard had spent money before and promised him support so you can see why he trusted him. Maybe he could have looked at JJ who was sacked because of performance which was affected by having all his strikers injured for a considerable time.DOUCHER said:
really? that's a plausible theory but i don't agree - centre forward was a priority from day 1 and he brought in loads of midfielders - i know the next answer - 'yes, thats because strikers cost more... ' well that again is another convenient explanation but again i don't agree - get your priority positions sorted first then see what you have left - piss poor football management to end up with the striker situation we have got nowRC_CAFC said:
He was playing manager press speak in the transfer window. He knew it was blindingly obvious we needed a centre forward, but no manager ever says it as they know the price goes up.DOUCHER said:
yep - i remember him saying a centre half was the priority - he went on the list along with a load of others who said similar - cretinousRC_CAFC said:
You don't honestly think that he didn't think that was important do you? He will have been dying for a new centre forward.DOUCHER said:
swollowed a coaching manual designed for the premier league and tried to make it work with a load of sub standard players and funds - and didn't think it was particularly important to get another centre forward in in the summerManic_mania said:Its very clear that he was hired for us to play a certain way - he made it very clear (to us at least) that this would take time, a certain number of transfer windows - changing an entire football philosophy - He was given a transfer budget of zero, and signed players he was familiar with and had already bought into what he had been trying to do previously. It was a way of playing that was basically foreign to the players he was joining. There has already been question marks about the culture of the club, disciplinary and attitude wise (which he was still trying to combat even up to his last game based on his last interview)
It became increasingly clear that the players he inherited were not either good or suited enough to this philosophy. Injuries to probably the 3 or 4 players that bought into it and had the ability to do what he wanted made things even worse.
Can anybody explain what else he could have done based on his remit? I can't.
As above, he went wrong by joining under TS. He is clearly a very talented coach and has a good future in the game under the right owners.0 -
How do you know he didnt?sam3110 said:
Where Garner went wrong is not pushing hard enough early enough for players IMO. If you have a budget and you have maxed it out, and are still 2 or 3 players short, you push as hard as possible to shift those unwanted players, to sign youngsters on loan where the parent club don't ask for the wages to be paid, and you do everything you can to make sure you have a left footed left back and a left sided midfielder and more than one fit senior striker on the books.Manic_mania said:
I get what you are saying, but i'm trying to look at this from a different POV - there is enough threads to criticise TS on here (and I agree) my question is where did JG go wrong with what he had.sam3110 said:Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here3 -
See that's where my sympathy for JG goes under - we all knew it the day Washington left that we were short - how can a seemingly smart, intelligent manager not realise that replacing him was priority number one? he signed a number of players but replacing Washington was left til the last minute - he clearly was picking and choosing players - the swindon intingent shows this.DOUCHER said:
exactly - the noises he was making were not those of a manager who knew just how serious the striker situation was - and many felt the same - i was amazed at how many others felt the same - left footed full back, centre back.... yes, but to have 1 centre forward who we all knew couldn't play the manager's system and a bunch of crocks and kids was ridiculoussam3110 said:
Where Garner went wrong is not pushing hard enough early enough for players IMO. If you have a budget and you have maxed it out, and are still 2 or 3 players short, you push as hard as possible to shift those unwanted players, to sign youngsters on loan where the parent club don't ask for the wages to be paid, and you do everything you can to make sure you have a left footed left back and a left sided midfielder and more than one fit senior striker on the books.Manic_mania said:
I get what you are saying, but i'm trying to look at this from a different POV - there is enough threads to criticise TS on here (and I agree) my question is where did JG go wrong with what he had.sam3110 said:Whoever was in charge of the squad and it's overall make-up is to blame primarily.
Is that Garner for being the manager of the squad and ultimately not pushing for certain players?
Is that Gallen for being the person responsible for the negotiations, and therefore the lack of quality coming through the door?
Is it Sandgaard Jr. for being part of the scouting team and being able to have a say despite having no real credentials for the role?
Is it Sandgaard Sr. for being the head honcho and pulling the purse strings tight when it's obvious to everyone that we need to spend more to get better players and a better squad
Let's be honest here, the squad themselves aren't devoid of blame either, as they, and the squads before them too, have been absolutely fucking pathetic.
My view is that it's a combination of all of the above, but the main blame lays at the door of Thomas, and unfortunately unless he gives up and fucks off, it's only downhill from here0
