Fletcher Out !

GreenSam wrote:

I've never got the call for experienced managers. Hear me out cause I think you'll come around to this point of view the more you hear it.

All great managers have to start somewhere right? Sir Alex, Wenger, Jose. In this league Eddie Howe, Mark Robins.

I know the predictable response will be that Fletcher is not as good as those managers and you're right, but that's just because he is, well, not as good. Not cause he's inexperienced per say. If clubs only appointed managers with experience, no-one would be in work before too long.

One counter balance to that argument [which is not an illogical one by any means] is that two types of appointments seem guaranteed never to work at Argyle in particular,certainly in my time as a supporter;

a.Promoting coaching staff from within the club [Ufton,Kelly,Jones all took the club to relegation or were well on the way to doing so]

b.Ex players returning to the club-Saxton,Hore,Kemp,Hodges and Mariner had managerial records at Argyle which were mediocre at best

The truly successful managers have been people with some track record within the profession to give them a reputation which seems to enable them to come in and grab the club by the scruff of the neck and get it moving in the right direction,for a while at least.Messrs Waiters,Smith,Warnock and Sturrock all met the criteria and duly achieved things-they seemed to have the persona to stamp their authority on the place and command respect from all parties,even the board of directors initially.Why it should be this way i couldn't really say but it does seem to be a requirement for success at Argyle.To be fair,some experienced managers [Bingham,Brown,Williamson,Sturrock second time around] have not been raging successes at Argyle,i suppose Reid would be the latest example,although he operated under horrendous circumstances.I do hope Fletcher is the exception to this unwritten rule but he has a way to go yet.

There appears to have been some improvement recently. We haven't won many but we are unbeaten in eight games I think.

I think it is far too early to tell if Fletcher is going to be a good manager. The trouble is that hovering near the bottom of the league as we are is no position to allow a man to develop his managerial skills.

I'm just wondering if the much vaunted "want to play football" is a Fletcher principle or maybe has been imposed on him by a naive Brenty in a Roman Abramovich kinda way.

If Fletcher does want to develop a true footballing style then I applaud him but if that's the case then it's incomprehensible to me why he didn't take the opportunity to make a clean sweep at the start of the season and say "thanks but no thanks" to all the players we'd accumulated who had shown plenty of evidence that they would have struggled to adapt to the new order.

I'm not, and never have been, a proponent of ugly 1-0 win at any cost philosophy as I don't think it offers any foundations to improve on season by season.

Fletcher hasn't shown me any natural managerial talent in what I've seen in tactical awareness or inspirational leadership. In time he may lead the team to promotion in this league, say 3 years, and lots of people will claim to be right in giving him time. Not me though, in my golden years each season of nothingness is a season wasted.

Freathy wrote:

I don't want Argyle to be atraining ground for 'inexperienced' rookies, especially when they're as shite as carl the clueless. Get rid of this buffoon NOW and get a manager in who can at least get us challenging in this SHITEST of divisions!!!!

FLETCHER OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about if the inexperienced manager did what Eddie Howe did and got us up first season and then to second in League One?

You wouldn't be against that would you? Or Mark Robins who was doing similarly well for Rotherham before being poached? Or Paulo De Canio who was inexperienced and won League Two? Three managers who did excellently whilst inexperiened.

As I say, if Fletcher is crap then it's just because he's crap. It's not because he's inexperienced per say.

But experience helps Sam, check out the "Situation Vacant" in any advertising media and you'll understand. There's a reason why employers prefer a potential employee to have experience and of course there will always be an exception to the rule as you have quoted, but most businesses follow a general approach because it's the most successful, proved, tried and tested.

Yeah that's true but by it's very essence, if everyone only took on experienced people sooner or later there'd be no jobs. Appointing inexperience and it going succesfully I'd argue is also a lot more common in football than in other industruies. A good few of the 92 league clubs appoint inexperience each season and a good number of those are successful.

There's nothing wrong with inexperience if they do well, like the three I mentioned. Admittedly Fletcher isn't doing well enough, but that's imo because he just isn't as good as the others. Not because of inexperience. Often I'd argue that in theory it's a good thing to appoint young managers with new ideas, not the same turgid names of repeated mediocrity. I bet Swindon are glad they gave De Canio a punt. Gary Rowett's made a great start at Burton.

Fletcher's problems imo lie in his atributes and faults, not that this is his first job in managment.

I've wondered for a while if one of the reasons that there wasn't more of a fresh start with players this season was because of Fletcher's inexperience. That's not so much in making footballing judgements but more in an inexperience of man-management skills. When he got rid of Soukhouna he said he hadn't ever done that before. And I don't mean that he consciously bottled it but that he took a look at the players who had got us through the war and that swayed his judgement in favour of keeping them.

GreenSam wrote:

Yeah that's true but by it's very essence, if everyone only took on experienced people sooner or later there'd be no jobs. Appointing inexperience and it going succesfully I'd argue is also a lot more common in football than in other industruies. A good few of the 92 league clubs appoint inexperience each season and a good number of those are successful.

There's nothing wrong with inexperience if they do well, like the three I mentioned. Admittedly Fletcher isn't doing well enough, but that's imo because he just isn't as good as the others. Not because of inexperience. Often I'd argue that in theory it's a good thing to appoint young managers with new ideas, not the same turgid names of repeated mediocrity. I bet Swindon are glad they gave De Canio a punt. Gary Rowett's made a great start at Burton.

Fletcher's problems imo lie in his atributes and faults, not that this is his first job in managment.

I agree to a point, nothing wrong with inexperience if they bring 'something' to the table. Peter Shilton done that for us for a while until off the pitch problems kicked in.

Gary Rowett was assistant manager to Paul Peschisolido for a couple of seasons so wasn't totally inexperienced and already knew the players, the set-up etc. Keeping Burton in the football league will probably be enough to keep him in a job for life.

Di Cannio on the other hand was seemingly away from the game for a while but made a return after gaining various coaching badges. Swindon obviously liked what he had to say and gave him his chance and after a slow start (we're talking weeks not months/years) his team became unstoppable.

Howe and Robins were made manager of their respective clubs due to financial reasons and their impact was virtually immediate.

Fletcher?, including time spent as caretaker manager, has now been in charge for over a year and results are still poor to mediocre at best. The so-called improvement in the actual football played has coincided with the changes from the top stating this season is now all about consolidation. IMO Fletcher isn't bringing anything to the table but the goalposts are conveniently being moved in order to avoid sacking him. Anything but 3 points this Saturday should see him sacked, it wont happen though. A club with our attendances shouldn't have to plod along with Fletch's lack of attributes and faults for so long.

Every Manager is inexperienced when they start out as is every employee in every occupation known to man. Some will develope and some will show immediate spark for the job. Others will fail.

Starting a career in a dogfight with no cash available to speak of and a squad of cobbled together players would probably have most Managers struggling to an extent. Results wise Fletcher hasn't been a complete failure. The team did enough from a poor position to keep it's league status. That in itself was some sort of achievement because most supporter pundits had us dead and burried more than once last term including me. No fires lit as yet this season but signs of some improvement. Unless you are just determined to rubbish everything Argyle that is and not give any credit under any circumstances. My opinion of Fletcher is he will probably turn out to be an ok Manager. Not great, not overly successful but just ok. For a team like Argyle in this league that should not be good enough in the end. He does enough, just about, to keep his job and that is where the problem lies. He will get better in my view but will it still be good enough in the long run. I hope he does but have my doubts.

GreenSam wrote:

I've never got the call for experienced managers. Hear me out cause I think you'll come around to this point of view the more you hear it.

All great managers have to start somewhere right? Sir Alex, Wenger, Jose. In this league Eddie Howe, Mark Robins.

I know the predictable response will be that Fletcher is not as good as those managers and you're right, but that's just because he is, well, not as good. Not cause he's inexperienced per say. If clubs only appointed managers with experience, no-one would be in work before too long.

All of those manager worked under an experienced manager before they went out on their own. Your argument would have more merit if you did some research.

Also to add yes clubs do hire first time managers that is a fact but 9/10 they would either have a director of football in place of the newb manager has an experienced assistant at his side.

I think you may be right Sense but the trouble with that is it means fletch will take us mid table at best and this "momentum" fletch speaks of is going at a snails pace mainly because of his misspending a competative budget on dross, probably down to inexperience in handling a budget other than his own shopping one. Sorry but he has had enough time for me but I wish him well elsewhere.

GreenSam wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I don't want Argyle to be atraining ground for 'inexperienced' rookies, especially when they're as shite as carl the clueless. Get rid of this buffoon NOW and get a manager in who can at least get us challenging in this SHITEST of divisions!!!!

FLETCHER OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I say, if Fletcher is crap then it's just because he's crap

He certainly is that

Bournemouth have a vacancy

Nick Wall wrote:

Bournemouth have a vacancy

Maybe someone on the inside can give him a gentle nudge in the right direction. I for one cannot put up with a single more season of boring shite football and struggling in League 2.

Renegade wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I've never got the call for experienced managers. Hear me out cause I think you'll come around to this point of view the more you hear it.

All great managers have to start somewhere right? Sir Alex, Wenger, Jose. In this league Eddie Howe, Mark Robins.

I know the predictable response will be that Fletcher is not as good as those managers and you're right, but that's just because he is, well, not as good. Not cause he's inexperienced per say. If clubs only appointed managers with experience, no-one would be in work before too long.

All of those manager worked under an experienced manager before they went out on their own. Your argument would have more merit if you did some research.

Also to add yes clubs do hire first time managers that is a fact but 9/10 they would either have a director of football in place of the newb manager has an experienced assistant at his side.

Those are fair points, and I am aware the other managers did work their way up as part of a set up but then again Fletch was captain, he has experience leading the team in that regard and as an organiser on the pitch. Taken coaching badges etc...

I have doubts about his capabilities, but personally they're based on what we're seeing now and not his background.

Fletcher was "experienced" when he took over in as much as he knew as he knew about the players at the club and didn't need a settling in period like an outsider would have.

However, he's clearly inexperienced in that he kept on several journeymen players (even gave new contracts to some of them) for this season, meaning we now have an oversized squad (some people never learn) of mediocre players none of which would get into a team of genuine promotion standard.

GreenSam wrote:

Renegade wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I've never got the call for experienced managers. Hear me out cause I think you'll come around to this point of view the more you hear it.

All great managers have to start somewhere right? Sir Alex, Wenger, Jose. In this league Eddie Howe, Mark Robins.

I know the predictable response will be that Fletcher is not as good as those managers and you're right, but that's just because he is, well, not as good. Not cause he's inexperienced per say. If clubs only appointed managers with experience, no-one would be in work before too long.

All of those manager worked under an experienced manager before they went out on their own. Your argument would have more merit if you did some research.

Also to add yes clubs do hire first time managers that is a fact but 9/10 they would either have a director of football in place of the newb manager has an experienced assistant at his side.

Those are fair points, and I am aware the other managers did work their way up as part of a set up but then again Fletch was captain, he has experience leading the team in that regard and as an organiser on the pitch. Taken coaching badges etc...

I have doubts about his capabilities, but personally they're based on what we're seeing now and not his background.

Darren Purse is more qualified than Romain and Carl in coaching terms.

Renegade wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Renegade wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I've never got the call for experienced managers. Hear me out cause I think you'll come around to this point of view the more you hear it.

All great managers have to start somewhere right? Sir Alex, Wenger, Jose. In this league Eddie Howe, Mark Robins.

I know the predictable response will be that Fletcher is not as good as those managers and you're right, but that's just because he is, well, not as good. Not cause he's inexperienced per say. If clubs only appointed managers with experience, no-one would be in work before too long.

All of those manager worked under an experienced manager before they went out on their own. Your argument would have more merit if you did some research.

Also to add yes clubs do hire first time managers that is a fact but 9/10 they would either have a director of football in place of the newb manager has an experienced assistant at his side.

Those are fair points, and I am aware the other managers did work their way up as part of a set up but then again Fletch was captain, he has experience leading the team in that regard and as an organiser on the pitch. Taken coaching badges etc...

I have doubts about his capabilities, but personally they're based on what we're seeing now and not his background.

Darren Purse is more qualified than Romain and Carl in coaching terms.

True.

Grovehill wrote:

Fletcher was "experienced" when he took over in as much as he knew as he knew about the players at the club and didn't need a settling in period like an outsider would have.

However, he's clearly inexperienced in that he kept on several journeymen players (even gave new contracts to some of them) for this season, meaning we now have an oversized squad (some people never learn) of mediocre players none of which would get into a team of genuine promotion standard.

Thought we had established that contracts were renewed as a reward for going months without pay!

If memory serves me right but was it not Fletcher who claimed that Reid was clueless and had "lost"the dressing room...i know he was part of the influence which led to his departure.

punchdrunk wrote:

If memory serves me right but was it not Fletcher who claimed that Reid was clueless and had "lost"the dressing room...i know he was part of the influence which led to his departure.

Yet he can captain us to 2 succesive relegations, then almost captain and manage us to a third, and be hailed as a hero!

Poor old Carl is a hopeless manager.He is slow brained and tongue tied............... but he's cheap...................... like the rest of Brent's Argyle.

Tringreen wrote:

Poor old Carl is a hopeless manager.He is slow brained and tongue tied............... but he's cheap...................... like the rest of Brent's Argyle.

Sadly, the best opinion yet. He loves the Bournemouth area so maybe, just maybe we'll be let off the hook!

Bournemouth wont entertain the idea of hiring Carl. Not when there are better options out there including Harry Redknapp!

Renegade wrote:

Bournemouth wont entertain the idea of hiring Carl. Not when there are better options out there including Harry Redknapp!

Harry won't want it, he's only there cos he lives in Sandbanks and fancies taking the dogs walkies up Kings Park, a couple of days a week. Won't suprise me at all if Carl dabbles with it, they're mugs anyway!