Dai will be sprouting his crap about how well we played yesterday even though any body with half a brain cell could see we folded in the second half, yes there may have been issues with a big doing the rounds, but none of us are as deluded as Dai to think we deserved all 3 points after that shambles of a second half. The problem is Dai is saying all this, because he has to, after all, he has been going on about Monk being the next best thing since he took over. Monk could have a game like ML did agianst West Ham and Dai would still sing his praises, oh wait, it happened in the second half last night, and look, Dai sings his praises. He is doing it to protect his own interests, and thats it. And you know when Dai is struggling, he starts going on about armchair fans, and having to be there to know what is going on. He is predictable, I mean it is easier to predict Dai's responses than it is to predict our own results.
In fairness to both Monk and Laudrup it has been a very odd season. I mean who saw Stoke beating Arsenal? It seems that the bottom teams always get a win at the worst time for us. Anyway yesterday was rubbish (2nd half in particular). The players didn't look any better than under Laudrup (except JDG). I hope Monk's honeymoon period hasn't worn off so soon...
West Brom is CRUNCH time then in terms of our Premier League future and Monk's ambition to become our permanent manager. So far, Monk has been like the curate's egg - good in parts. There's no doubting his motivational ability and the team has played with more vigour and pace. However, some searching questions have been raised about his tactical nous and his choice of substitutions - in my opinion he has been found wanting in these areas and his inexperience was ruthlessly exposed against Palace where that wily campaigner, Pulis, comprehensively out thought him. Monk was at pains to point out that the players were tired after recent games, which begs the question: does he think Laudrup had it any easier? The answer, of course, is a resounding no. In fact Michael Laudrup had it considerably harder. When we started the season he had to deal with the Premier League, the Europa Cup, the Capital One Cup and the FA Cup. Along the way, he then suffered the loss of many players, most of them key personnel, and had to juggle his meagre resources to get the best out of what he had available to him. In the meantime, player unrest was being stirred behind the scenes, by Monk himself and the likes of Williams, who were complaining that the training wasn't intensive enough. So, let me ask the question: exactly what sort of extra training did they expect and HOW was this training going to be fitted in to what was a pretty intense fixture list? Playing Saturday, Thursday, Sunday for weeks on end, with the attendant travelling, exhausted the players as it was. Anything other than "loosening up" training would have driven them into the ground. Surely the number of games they were playing was training enough? It certainly was match practise. Mind you, I can't be bothered to look it up, but I believe I was the first to criticise Laudrup's preference of a lean squad of 22 players because I always argued that we needed at least 25 to deal with four competitions and the likely drain this would have on the players' energy. Mistake against Laudrup's name for me. What now concerns me is the future. After a much needed rest, the players should return refreshed and raring to go in an attempt to preserve our PL status. I think they will succeed, with Monk's help, but even so, with no disrespect to Monk, I believe we should be looking NOW for an experienced manager to take us on next year. It is just too soon for Monk as the Premier League is no place to learn your trade and it is evident that he has much to learn. What will really hit home next season, is that we will lose the continental transfer bargains that Laudrup brought in. His name was a magnet that Monk just cannot compete with. British players? Laudrup correctly identified that they are far too expensive and not good value. For me, we want an experienced, hard-nosed campaigner with good contacts and Monk appointed as a coach under him - groom him for the future, if you like, providing he makes the necessary progress. I have already said that Jenkins dropped a clanger in not appointing Laudrup as DOF with Monk as a prominent part of the coaching team - we would have had the best of both worlds, in my opinion.
Wouldn't this solution have left us with the substitution and lack of tactical nous problem though Ivor?
If rumours were right that there was player power invovled, would you blame ML for refusing to accept someone like Monk as part of his team.
I wouldn't. The personnel management part of this equation leaves a lot to be desired at the club - and I mean the club and not Laudrup. In any organization, you cannot have people at a lower level, doing an end-run around their supervisors to complain to people at the top. It just undermines whatever organizational structures you have in place. Now, this does not cover issues of malfeasance and criminal wrong-doing. Whistle-blower reporting is an exception to this rule, but differences of professional opinion (because that's what we had here) is not in the same category as whistle-blowing. When approached by Monk/Williams/Whoever with a complaint on training - the first thing HJ should have done is to invite Laudrup into the meeting and have the players concerned state their grievances in front of the manager. First, this would have dissipated any notion of player power, it would have consolidated club support for the organization in place and Laudrup in particular, it would have fostered better communications and it would have cut out the cowards .... because if you cannot state the complaint to the man's face but instead go bleating behind the scenes that is exactly what you are.
Of course the whole idea is now redundant, Terror, but, in my scenario, ML would take an overview whilst dictating tactics, substitutions and transfers etc. I envisaged Monk working with him primarily engaging with the players and ensuring that fitness levels and match intensity was where it should be.
Valley, apparently on the day of dismissal, Jenkins asked Laudrup if he would accept Monk as an integral part of his coaching team expecting that Laudrup would refuse and walk (probably hoping to save a few million quid). Laudrup accepted but Jenkins sacked him anyway.
When Jenkins showed Laudrups agent the door , all was lost in the cohesiveness aspect in all different levels of the club , it was the beginning of the end . Jenkins had a one track mind , ditch Laudrup at the best available time and that was clearly after the West Ham game. All roads to blame lead to Jenkins and his board buddies imo. Great chairman when he doesn't make it personal and this was personal
...and you heard this where Ivor?, were you party to the meeting? the content of which even the press aren't aware of, or we'd all know it, do you have a link or a contact ? or do you simply think that this conversation actually took place? ? ? ? just askin like
I thought he rejected the chance three times during January, that's at least what Laudrup hinted at at the press conference?
Complete bull to me Yankee Of course you can and rightly so. If anyone's supervisor/manager is not doing his/her job correctly which in turn could have a detrimental effect on the business, any director, managing director, upper management would expect you to take ownership of the situation and let them know. I know I do. For an issue to be resolved it first has to be realised and I doubt the manager with 'the issue' would knock on my door to tell me about it. They tend to not realise there is an issue, or ignore it, or hide it or simply pass it on. Why? Your wrong again Yankee, there should be no fear of reprisal or recrimination from anyone who wishes to report any issue with any process, employee or manager considered to be damaging to any business as a whole. Your suggestion to have people 'lined up' invites a kangaroo court, where anyone wishing to report an issue finds themselves tried, persecuted in response to their candor. In my experience Managers do not often fcuk up, certainly not as often as those in their respective 'teams' but, when mangers do fcuk up it costs a hell of a lot more to repair. You've heard the words "Why wasn't I told", not good for anyone when you hear them. Also ownership and access is written into many a risk assessments, its standard white collar practice Yankee.
Stumpy, I deliberately used the word "apparently" as roofjack picked up on. I have mentioned this in a previous post when Laudrup's dismissal was at the height of its frenzy. I said then that it was a quote from the BBC's Welsh football correspondent (can't remember his name but maybe Rob Phillips??) on their web site. There has been no comment from the Liberty to refute this. No doubt we will know the true facts in the fullness of time.
Totally agree with your post yankee , end arounds cause problems and are wrong in general . Jenkins tried to cause Laudrups demise with his foolish intervention on Laudrups authority all season that no premier manager would put up with . Certainly not one that took us so far, credit to Laudrup for taking so much grieve for the sake of the team .
I stated that there were exceptions to the rule and there are, but differences in professional judgement does not constitute not going through channels. "lined-up" is not in my posting .... so where the **** you got that from I don't know ... nor is there any concept of a kangaroo court. Players are contracted employees - they get paid regardless ... so there are no threats of financial retribution for being men not children and discussing problems as adults. If a player feels that he has a problem, the player has two courses of action .... a) he has an agent, who is there to represent his interests; b) he should discuss matters with the club/team captain and coaches involved. Running and bleating to the chairman is utter ****ing nonsense in a football club. Best I can figure out the agents of Monk / Williams / whoever were not involved in this - so clearly there is not a contractual grievance here .... just a difference of professional opinion. If an employee runs bleating to an executive every time there is a difference in professional opinion that is not resolved immediately by the executive involving the manager being undermined and the employees, then you foster an environment that is just as dysfunctional as the "kangaroo court" you claim would exist. Managers are hired to make decisions, if you don't back their decisions you handicap them. If you permit underlings to complain over differences of professional opinion you undermine the manager by providing channels of communication for those seeking to undermine him or don't have sufficient belief in the opinion to raise it and discuss it directly and then accept the managers decision and move on. If the executive does not have the competence to properly arbitrate the technical aspects of the situation it becomes even worse. Except in a situation of malfeasance, risk of injury / casualty to person or property outside the scope of the job, criminal misconduct ... appropriate channels of communication should be followed. Otherwise you have a whistle-blower situation. Are you claiming that the bleats of Monk/Williams/whoever were whistle-blowing.
