The interim managers

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
23,213
Rating the 3:

ManagerGames playedW/D/LOpponentsThe contextManagerial career
Giggs42/1/1Norwich, Sunderland, Hull, SouthamptonThe slow-motion disaster of MoyesAfter this: Wales NT
Carrick32/1/0Chelsea, Villareal, Arsenal.Ole's third season crashAfter: Middlesborough
Ruud43/1/0Leicester(*2), PAOK, Chelsea.ETH's 2nd season malaise, continuing into his 3rd seasonBefore: PSV

I think Carrick's was the best. Came in directly after 3 awful hammerings, faced 3 tough opponents, got very good results, and some nice team goals I can still vaguely remember. High point of that rotten season.

Ruud did the job well. Tightened things up, got the points, got Amad back into the team. Won the winnable ones, drew the tough one.

Giggs had the easiest set of opponents and suffered a defeat, but his first game was a 4-0 win ...
 
Carrick easily had the most impressive set of result given the opposition. But Ruud has done really well. And he's also given chances to players who weren't fancied and he's subbed off those who are playing poorly, which sets a standard.
 
Our interims seem to do a better job than the managers they replace. Funny thing is they seem to just keep things simple and do the basics well while the main managers always try too hard with their tactics
 
Ole, Ruud and Carrick were all great. Giggs was ok but obviously it was hard for him to motivate the players considering we had feck all to play for and Rangnick was a complete disaster.
 
Freak said:
Our interims seem to do a better job than the managers they replace. Funny thing is they seem to just keep things simple and do the basics well while the main managers always try too hard with their tactics
Click to expand...
This is it, and it's also why OGS did so well initially.

Why do we insist on complicating it? Who are we trying to be or copy? If you can finish 2nd with a good but not world-class bunch of players, whilst playing simple 4-2-3-1 football, why can't we do that for a while, set the foundations and look to bring in some star "difference maker" forwards?
 
berbatrick said:
Rating the 3:

ManagerGames playedW/D/LOpponentsThe contextManagerial career
Giggs42/1/1Norwich, Sunderland, Hull, SouthamptonThe slow-motion disaster of MoyesAfter this: Wales NT
Carrick32/1/0Chelsea, Villareal, Arsenal.Ole's third season crashAfter: Middlesborough
Ruud43/1/0Leicester(*2), PAOK, Chelsea.ETH's 2nd season malaise, continuing into his 3rd seasonBefore: PSV

I think Carrick's was the best. Came in directly after 3 awful hammerings, faced 3 tough opponents, got very good results, and some nice team goals I can still vaguely remember. High point of that rotten season.

Ruud did the job well. Tightened things up, got the points, got Amad back into the team. Won the winnable ones, drew the tough one.

Giggs had the easiest set of opponents and suffered a defeat, but his first game was a 4-0 win ...
Click to expand...
Ole was also an interim, why not listing him?
 
Obviously fond of all our interims but I think people give them far too much credit for good results which are mainly down to the simple fact that they’re not the previous manager. People attribute improved results to tactics and selection tweaks but the reality is the whole team plays with a freedom and confidence they lacked when in a death spiral, counting the games until the manager gets sacked. And we see this all the time, at all sorts of clubs, with all sorts of interims. Including some legitimately rubbish managers, who never get a job again anywhere even close to that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.