4 managers can't be wrong about what Cinci?

4 managers have failed to get any sign of a lift in the squad in over 18 months tats.
From players who allegedly respected Mick and TC was like a father figure etc etc.
Or are you going to tell me now that mick was getting the best out of the players throughout last seasons complete failure?

History repeats itself. We build a big stand, we have to pay for it and boom shack a lack we go down.....

Hey the futures bright, we have a squad full of mr hankys poo

cinci isn't it time you gave up trying to have some credibility instead of spurting things you know nothing about.

The players hated Connor. Far from a father figure they pleaded with the owners to appoint anyone but him to replace McCarthy. Why do you think the team collapsed overnight when he took over regardless of the players wishes?

But I agree with your general comments, It would be dreadful to go back to having a team struggling in the Premier League or worse still challenging for promotion in the Championship. Much much better to be where we are after the buffoons Connor and Solbakken had finished with them. You expats have unquestionably been right all along

Those that wanted mick out, didn't necessarily want a managerial mess and poor recruitment though.

A far too convenient point I'm afraid

Well thats nonsense dj, a number of them came out saying what a great influence the guy was.
I agree he would not have been first choice for most......but again it just shows the rubbish that is coming out of the club on a daily basis.

Its not nonsense at all cinci. It just doesn't fit alongside your repeated made up stories. Connor was someone the players put up with because they respected McCarthy. Once Mick had gone he was never going to have the players behind him. Did you not notice Connor's record was the worst of any manager in Premier League history?

Yes i did, because our players had quit.
Just as they quit against WBA.

DJ, how do you know the players hated TC? You accuse others of making up stories and yet you come out with this classic. I kept reading that the players were all behind TC, but alas he was worse at tactics than his predecessor.

I dont think they were significantly worse under TC...results were to be expected....we lost to Man City & Arsenal etc but had some reasonable draws. Think we were unbeaten in 4 of the last 6. The damage was done with MMs sacking and the fiasco straight after. We were down with no hope with moral at an all time low. I dont think respect or liking TC was ever relevant

Simon, I'm afraid results under TC were significantly worse than under MM. Someone else pointed out on another thread that MM got 21 points from 25 games, 0.84 points per game. TC got 4 points from 13 games, 0.31 points per game. But it hardly matters, the damage had been done and morale was shattered, and even if TC had matched MM Wolves would have still gone down with 32 points. Safety was 37 points, and that would have required TC to achieve 16 points from his 13 games.
Morgan and Moxey's everlasting mistake was twofold - not sacking MM earlier, like after the Blackburn game the season before - and then not having a replacement like Alan Curbishley or even Steve Bruce lined up when they did sack him.

Aries - sadly football does not work like a spreadsheet. McCarthy had got late season improvement every season at the club. Just like Martinez does at Wigan. McCarthy may well have kept Wolves in the top flight and if not then his record would point to him having Wolves as a promotion contender this season.

There is only ever one good reason to sack a manager and that is to bring in someone better to replace him. And no matter what other theories people want to come up with, that has been Wolves downfall in that Connor and Solbakken were both useless and Wolves would have unquestionably been better sticking with McCarthy than appointing either of those two

Thats all very well, except for the small detail where we were going to appoint someone better, Curbishley and Bruce were both offered the job so we are led to believe.

And for different reasons both fell through because of Morgans stupidity and hard balling.

So with that said, and by using your own theory, the sacking was correct, but Morgan then made a fool of himself.

Curbishley was offered the job. Whether he would be better after so long out of the game is something we will never know. Bruce was not offered the job because Morgan was concerned that close to 100% of Wolves fans didn't want him.

What you seem to be completely ignoring in this debate cinci is the point of the article. Most of us have moved on from the debate as to what might have kept us in the Premier League. Everyone I know is far more interested in debating what we need to do to keep out of League One.

The point of my article is that we would have been nowhere near this position if McCarthy was still here. We would either still be struggling in the Premier League or be prominent in the Championship. You and your expat mate seem to argue that McCarthy is more to blame for us being where we are than the guy that took us to this level, Solbakken.

Getting rid of Solbakken was a necessity to give someone else the chance to try to save us from relegation. Getting rid of McCarthy is looking more and more stupid by the week given where we are.

Move on a year - the debate about the Premier League ended ages ago. The debate now is about League One thanks to the disastrous appointments of Connor and Solbakken

comment by Crikey (U17289)
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
McCarthy had got late season improvement every season at the club. Just like Martinez does at Wigan. McCarthy may well have kept Wolves in the top flight and if not then his record would point to him having Wolves as a promotion contender this season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCarthy didn't get the improvement in 2010-11 and I just think it's too big a risk to take, hoping for or relying on late-season improvements. Wigan's luck will run out one year, maybe this year, and Wolves' luck certainly ran out. The extra effort in improving the squad is something MM should have done better at. With an adequate squad it's quite a bit easier to stay in the PL than to get promoted out of the Championship - you only have to do well for around 30 games as opposed to 46.
Oh well.

You're right, Crikey, the debate has moved on from the PL now. But.... but.....

.....but what?