I've been long advocating the need for change. In that I mean a new playing style, new philosophy (more youth), new structure (DOF) and new players (too little change for far too long, stagnation has really caught up with us).
The issue is I'd love to see more like batth blooded into the team, but it seems that due to our precarious position this is unlikely. Personally I don't agree and cannot believe Cassidy for example would do worse than Doyle / seb at present and would at least be a step or the future.
Just makes me wonder that many that truly changed (Swansea, Norwich, Southampton) had gone down first and then reevaluated their entire set up and players, plus philosophy.
Back to wolves we started the season with a desire or change and the 2M's and many fans got twitchy very early which led to stale going, Saunders coming in, but no improvement really (although early days I grant you). Given we are building the foundations of our club via the academy, this seems a good place to start surely.
Pragmatically if we stay up, I suspect next season will see a few signings but minimal change in terms of style, personnel and club structure. The desire for premiership promotion would limit any patience or likelihood of evolution and therefore things will remain similar to the 1990's desperate short term desire for the premiership holy grail.
Financially relegation is a nightmare i know and the only positive I can think is that it would force a reliance on youth. So i'm not saying I want relegation, but I wonder from a long term perspective do we have to go down to truly change ?
Do we have to go down to truly change ?
posted on 24/2/13
Any of you bothering to turn up today?
posted on 24/2/13
You must have missed this link when it was posted the other day, Mike... http://www.twtd.co.uk/blogs/21287/mccarthy%E2%80%99s-ipswich-a-work-in-progress
posted on 24/2/13
Terrie stop hounding us with your provocative line of questioning.
We're going to smash them.
posted on 24/2/13
Cinci:
"As it is we have rebooted again, the club spent 8 million on another mangers signings, some of which clearly dont fit into Deanos plans and we have to start all over again."
Don't think there's much truth to that, Cinci.
How much did Solbakken use his own signings?
Sako always plays under both managers.
Saunders has probably use Bjorn with the same frequency as Solbakken.
Doumbia's usually played when available.
Boukari still injured.
Margereiter never used by either gaffer
So that leaves Peszko who I presume your comment which was phrased generally actually specifically refers to. And on Peszko, he's returning from serious injury, never struck me as a world beater before injury, so it's not a huge surprise that he's not the first name on the team sheet is it?
Think Solbakken's signings are probably the only way that his appointment hasn't been a waste of time or money. Peszko might leave at the end of his loan but of the permanent signings, I'm sure all but Margereitter will have a part to play in the rebuild, Saunders will be chuffed to have them in the squad, and the money spent won't have been wasted. They've all probably got more technical ability than most of our old guard and will all benefit massively from a summer with Purchase in terms of their adaptation to the English leagues.
posted on 24/2/13
comment by IsleOfBute (U16473)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Has anyone considered that the sacking of Mick McCarthy might just have been a big mistake? I'm sure we wouldn't be at this end of the table had he still been here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By table, you mean the Championship table?
So you at least acknowledge then that you would be in the Championship under Mick and that he would not have saved you from relegation from the Premier League? Excellent - you are at last on the path to truth and reconciliation.
As mike_hockin and plenty of others have said, the only mistake Morgan and Moxey made was in not sacking McCarthy much sooner. Now move on.
posted on 24/2/13
Bute:
"Has anyone considered that the sacking of Mick McCarthy might just have been a big mistake? I'm sure we wouldn't be at this end of the table had he still been here. Just a thought."
We would have the Clack leading the line instead of Sigurdarson though Bute, which is why many are still probably happy we moved on..?!
posted on 24/2/13
We will never know if relegation could have been avoided, Aries, so no, I am not acknowledging that we would definitely have been in the Championship this season. However, we are in this division, and my point is that we wouldn't be scrapping around in the basement right now is MM had been retained.
But you knew that's what I meant. You simply tried to be clever, and sadly failed.
posted on 24/2/13
Lets not talk about the past its boring now.
3-0 today
Sako
Sigurdarson (2)
Easy.
posted on 24/2/13
1-3. Bellamy hat-trick and o.g.
Bhatti part deux.
posted on 24/2/13
No Bute, I wasn't trying to be anything, but Mick's been gone a year now and the writing was on the wall nearly two years ago at the end of the 2010-11 season when the Premier League future of a club of Wolves' supposed resources went to the last five minutes of the last game. Ask yourself, should Wolves have been in the position? Then ask yourself, who was the manager in charge who could and should have done something about it long before? The next season, McCarthy bought Steven Fletcher but only used him as a substitute for much of the season, opting instead to persist with the ineffective Kevin Doyle. Mick's judgement was poor and as a result he got you relegated long before he was sacked.