New Head Coach

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sunderlad said:
I think that it is the manner of defeats. If your losing games, but all be it narrowly then I would give time to let the manager/coach try and get the team to play his way or style. If it looks like they have no clue and we're getting walloped, then I would have no issue!!
Click to expand...
We lost most of those games under Mowbray because we didn't have a striker who could find the net.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malagamackem, Sunderlad, Blond Bombshell and 4 others
The Norton Cat said:
I'm not sure why people get so upset by them. Logic would indicate that they've performed their original roles well. It's only when they've been put in temporary charge that things haven't gone so well, and that's not solely their fault. Losing Dodds, particularly, from his player development role is a loss to the club. The animosity towards them is just scapegoating in my opinion.
Click to expand...
OldNewtown said:
Well said sir!
Click to expand...
I second that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: malagamackem, OldNewtown, Blond Bombshell and 4 others
I am led to believe Dodds has developed into a very good first team coach. Excellent ideas and good communicator. He did have what I would have loved as a role, head of individual player development. That is a class role to have in modern footy. Now if he wants to remain in the first team setup I would have no issues if he has a role under Still. I have said before it takes a lot of coaches to run a first team session. If Still and Dodds can find some common ground and see a way to work together it can only be good. If Still doesnt want him then he should of course go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monkey69, Bank of England 2, Random lad and 9 others
FellTop said:
I am led to believe Dodds has developed into a very good first team coach. Excellent ideas and good communicator. He did have what I would have loved as a role, head of individual player development. That is a class role to have in modern footy. Now if he wants to remain in the first team setup I would have no issues if he has a role under Still. I have said before it takes a lot of coaches to run a first team session. If Still and Dodds can find some common ground and see a way to work together it can only be good. If Still doesnt want him then he should of course go.
Click to expand...

I see absolutely no reason Dodds (or Proctor) should be forced out. If Still wants to work with them they can absolutely stay. Its just important to me that its Still's choice who supports him with the first team and who doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iain, Random lad, TonyG and 11 others
Prehab26 said:
They have proven when given greater levels of responsibility, that they are not good. We have went from play off contenders to 16th whilst losing 90% of the games they were in charge of.

They can get back to the AOL and have nothing to do with the front bench or find new employment. We need to progress as a club , and tough decisions need to be made.

Thankfully, they are.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said, I never said keep them in charge of first team but they were perfectly fine coaches when we reached the playoffs. It's not there fault that they were put in charge of first team
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorset, Blond Bombshell and The Norton Cat
Southern A said:
I see absolutely no reason Dodds (or Proctor) should be forced out. If Still wants to work with them they can absolutely stay. Its just important to me that its Still's choice who supports him with the first team and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

One of the important points of the model that we have adopted is that we can change the head coach and still have continuity throughout the age groups right up to first team. This appointment may be a slight departure, so it may be beneficial to keep both Dodds and Procter in and around the Academy and occasionally the first team.
Just in case things don't work out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Norton Cat and Southern A
OldNewtown said:
One of the important points of the model that we have adopted is that we can change the head coach and still have continuity throughout the age groups right up to first team. This appointment may be a slight departure, so it may be beneficial to keep both Dodds and Procter in and around the Academy and occasionally the first team.
Just in case things don't work out.
Click to expand...

Still may also want to keep them involved in the first team until Christmas for example to provide some continuity and handover
 
  • Like
Reactions: FellTop, Culinary, Hudson92 and 3 others
Mackem 10.1 said:
You don't need a clean slate if the coaches are good, liked by the players and the new manager wants them
Click to expand...
Mackem 10.1 said:
That's not what I said, I never said keep them in charge of first team but they were perfectly fine coaches when we reached the playoffs. It's not there fault that they were put in charge of first team
Click to expand...
I'd rather still brought in who he wanted to tbh personally
 
  • Like
Reactions: WorkyTicketFTM, Prehab26, Hudson92 and 1 other person
Southern A said:
I see absolutely no reason Dodds (or Proctor) should be forced out. If Still wants to work with them they can absolutely stay. Its just important to me that its Still's choice who supports him with the first team and who doesn't.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree. However, if the club were to say to Still "we have this/these coach/es who have very good reputations, who have worked with the first team and know the club inside out. We think they are an asset and we'd like them to remain involved for the sake of continuity" and he turned them down flat, I think that would indicate a lack of willingness to work with the club (and possible an element of arrogance and/or cowardice).

I keep seeing people suggesting that appointing Still means that the club are being more 'flexible'. Aside from the fact that I don't believe that the club are as rigid as people have made out, I think it would be unhealthy for Still to completely dictate how things are run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malagamackem, Culinary and safc-noggieland
The Norton Cat said:
I mostly agree. However, if the club were to say to Still "we have this/these coach/es who have very good reputations, who have worked with the first team and know the club inside out. We think they are an asset and we'd like them to remain involved for the sake of continuity" and he turned them down flat, I think that would indicate a lack of willingness to work with the club (and possible an element of arrogance and/or cowardice).

I keep seeing people suggesting that appointing Still means that the club are being more 'flexible'. Aside from the fact that I don't believe that the club are as rigid as people have made out, I think it would be unhealthy for Still to completely dictate how things are run.
Click to expand...
I personally think they aren't as good as people are saying they are and we need their influence gone tactics wise. The squad could really do with a clean slate and something new
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random lad, Prehab26 and Samcro
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back