The myth of our “top quality set of players”

[Jims Dentist]

For what it is worth, I think the overall standard of The Championship has improved.
But, I don't think SP's selections, tactics, formations are doing us many favours.
Week after week the opposition seem to be able to set up to frustrate us.

[toshes mate]

'Top quality set of players'? 

That's a really naive way of finding the answer to what makes a team play?  Martin was by no means a top quality striker but Jokanovic got him to play for his team even at less than 100%.  The same could be said of Ayite, Piazon, Kebano, Aluko, Malone, Kamara and so on.  He reinvented Johansen and got McDonald and Odoi playing out of their skins.

Simple stuff like managing a team to success?

Yes, but only a tiny percentage of managers will, by the end of a season have had success by virtue of winning their league, coming second, or winning a play off final.  All of that would have been achieved by winning more points by whatever means they were won (e.g. deserved or undeserved), whether or not they were attractive when winning, and whether or not the coaching team were the best thing since sliced bread, or just experiencing a lucky break.  The managers who win promotion for their clubs more than once stand out like sore thumbs and it gets harder the higher up the pyramid you climb.

We had a 'winner' here at FFC but many on here couldn't wait to see the back of him when things went wrong.  And look where we ended up after he went and what is happening now.  If it were simple then Parker would have sussed it months ago.   It is anything but simple.

[FFC1987]

Not answered my post at all. Relied on the same points as before. Come back to me when you can agree the manager is literally responsible for overcoming bad circumstances. Otherwise your argument is mute.

[Sting of the North]

My argument is mute unless I agree with your arguments? Sure... Maybe a discussion forum is just not for you, if it is such a problem for you if other posters don't agree with you. Me not agreeing doesn't have to keep you from still believing that it is simple stuff.

Also, no one on here as far as I can see, including me, has argued against the 'argument'  that the job of the manager is to get the team to perform (I even literally spelled out that I agree with that, which should have been a hint). But that is on the same level as stating that the goalkeepers job is to not concede goals, everybody knows that.

That is however for example not the same as saying that the sole reason for every bad result is a bad manager. Neither does it mean that the solution has to be to fire the manager. Surely it shouldn't be completely impossible to expand a discussion beyond the absolute obvious and basic once in a while?

[FFC1987]

My argument is mute unless I agree with your arguments? Sure... Maybe a discussion forum is just not for you, if it is such a problem for you if other posters don't agree with you. Me not agreeing doesn't have to keep you from still believing that it is simple stuff.

Also, no one on here as far as I can see, including me, has argued against the 'argument'  that the job of the manager is to get the team to perform (I even literally spelled out that I agree with that, which should have been a hint). But that is on the same level as stating that the goalkeepers job is to not concede goals, everybody knows that.

That is however for example not the same as saying that the sole reason for every bad result is a bad manager. Neither does it mean that the solution has to be to fire the manager. Surely it shouldn't be completely impossible to expand a discussion beyond the absolute obvious and basic once in a while?

Unless your argument is that we shouldn't sack a manager (something we can disagree on)  you've not made a point period. You originally took issue with my use of simple, which I've elaborated on but since then, you haven't said how my issue with Parker being the issue is integrial to the problem. Specifics quickly, what you disagree with because currently, it's word soup. As I said before, if we can't agree that it's a managers responsibility to get the mat out of a team whilst overcoming 'bad' circumstances, it's a pointless debate.

In a nutshell, do you think, yes or no, Parker is doing well as manager?

[Sting of the North]

My argument is mute unless I agree with your arguments? Sure... Maybe a discussion forum is just not for you, if it is such a problem for you if other posters don't agree with you. Me not agreeing doesn't have to keep you from still believing that it is simple stuff.

Also, no one on here as far as I can see, including me, has argued against the 'argument'  that the job of the manager is to get the team to perform (I even literally spelled out that I agree with that, which should have been a hint). But that is on the same level as stating that the goalkeepers job is to not concede goals, everybody knows that.

That is however for example not the same as saying that the sole reason for every bad result is a bad manager. Neither does it mean that the solution has to be to fire the manager. Surely it shouldn't be completely impossible to expand a discussion beyond the absolute obvious and basic once in a while?

Unless your argument is that we shouldn't sack a manager (something we can disagree on)  you've not made a point period. You originally took issue with my use of simple, which I've elaborated on but since then, you haven't said how my issue with Parker being the issue is integrial to the problem. Specifics quickly, what you disagree with because currently, it's word soup. As I said before, if we can't agree that it's a managers responsibility to get the mat out of a team whilst overcoming 'bad' circumstances, it's a pointless debate.

I have in my last two posts very clearly agreed broadly about the responsibilities of the manager (although disagree that it is 100 % his responsibilities alone), which leads me to believe that you don't even bother to read them.

A point doesn't have to be yes or no. My point is, and has been all the way, that it is not that simple (as saying 'sack the manager' when things don't go your way). Unless you believe that a manager should be sacked every time the team loses a game, you have already left the "it's that simple" area since you then have to decide when enough is enough.

I didn't take issue with you stating that it is simple as such, and I also didn't take issue with you wanting Parker gone. I "took issue" with your persistent way of trying to find simple and clear cut answers to complex questions. It is not as simple as saying that it is necessarily solely the manager to blame. That doesn't mean that the manager is not to blame. It certainly doesn't mean that the manager will not be blamed (which is why we lost Joka, in my opinion).

You keep looking for a "yes" or "no", when in reality most questions should be answered with a "maybe", and then expanded upon. I do agree however that it is a pointless debate, since you don't even bother reading what I write.

[FFC1987]

My argument is mute unless I agree with your arguments? Sure... Maybe a discussion forum is just not for you, if it is such a problem for you if other posters don't agree with you. Me not agreeing doesn't have to keep you from still believing that it is simple stuff.

Also, no one on here as far as I can see, including me, has argued against the 'argument'  that the job of the manager is to get the team to perform (I even literally spelled out that I agree with that, which should have been a hint). But that is on the same level as stating that the goalkeepers job is to not concede goals, everybody knows that.

That is however for example not the same as saying that the sole reason for every bad result is a bad manager. Neither does it mean that the solution has to be to fire the manager. Surely it shouldn't be completely impossible to expand a discussion beyond the absolute obvious and basic once in a while?

Unless your argument is that we shouldn't sack a manager (something we can disagree on)  you've not made a point period. You originally took issue with my use of simple, which I've elaborated on but since then, you haven't said how my issue with Parker being the issue is integrial to the problem. Specifics quickly, what you disagree with because currently, it's word soup. As I said before, if we can't agree that it's a managers responsibility to get the mat out of a team whilst overcoming 'bad' circumstances, it's a pointless debate.

I have in my last two posts very clearly agreed broadly about the responsibilities of the manager (although disagree that it is 100 % his responsibilities alone), which leads me to believe that you don't even bother to read them.

A point doesn't have to be yes or no. My point is, and has been all the way, that it is not that simple (as saying 'sack the manager' when things don't go your way). Unless you believe that a manager should be sacked every time the team loses a game, you have already left the "it's that simple" area since you then have to decide when enough is enough.

I didn't take issue with you stating that it is simple as such, and I also didn't take issue with you wanting Parker gone. I "took issue" with your persistent way of trying to find simple and clear cut answers to complex questions. It is not as simple as saying that it is necessarily solely the manager to blame. That doesn't mean that the manager is not to blame. It certainly doesn't mean that the manager will not be blamed (which is why we lost Joka, in my opinion).

You keep looking for a "yes" or "no", when in reality most questions should be answered with a "maybe", and then expanded upon. I do agree however that it is a pointless debate, since you don't even bother reading what I write.

Original point 'To think that the solution for alleged poor performances by individual players and/or teams is "simple stuff" is in my opinion far from true, and reflective of a binary mindset that is not applicable in the real world. ' You literally tried to take issue with my 'simple stuff' point, and failed. You can't claim 'I didn't take issue with you stating that it is simple as such' when that was the entire starting position of your posts. Results and consistency of results aren't on your side, so why are you arguing otherwise? Unless Parker is the unluckiest man alive, you are literally finding excuses to create a false dichotomy that Parker is merely happen stance of a manager of a long running set of unfortunate events which, you yourself have said, he is not and that his performances are questionable.

If you agree with my stance that ultimately, however hard times are, its still the managers job to overcome them, then there is literally nothing to debate on. I've read your posts, but they have offered nothing in terms of further dialogue to the original point you made. If anything, they detract froms aid point, go on a tangent, then end up skirting the original position, to your favour.....which wasn't what we were talking about.

This for me is key 'Unless you believe that a manager should be sacked every time the team loses a game, you have already left the "it's that simple" area since you then have to decide when enough is enough.' What kind of ridiculous position are you asserting here? That Parker is only being criticised because of one bad result? if not, what on earth are you saying? Table position and the last two games should be clear indicators that this isn't a wild backlash to a result. This isn't WestBrom fans being unhappy with Bilic for drawing with Wigan. This is much more than one result.

For what its worth, and i'll probably have to say this another 50 times during Parkers tenure, hes a young english manager who I want to do well, I'd much rather not look at how's he done and be negative, but he deserves criticism whether you like it or not. Performances haven't been good, results haven't been good and hes literally under performing when you stack up wage/transfer budget of the squad. He's not worth being 10+ points away from automatic, and the football we play isn't entertaining enough to warrant cost against how far off automatic we are. He's struggling as a manager on the weighted expectations against him and he's being rightly called out for it. This isn't the players fault, this is a manager problem.

I simply think, which is a fact, that Parker is under performing and unless you can tell me otherwise, I've at this stage, no idea how you can claim that i'm seeking binary answers. Its a fools errand and a position beneath you. Teams performances and table rankings, are measured on a managers ability, and usually, a manager takes the brunt for poor results/performances, so to pretend one hasn't read your responses and play that card is pathetic. 

[Sting of the North]

I should of course have known better than to try to discuss with you, as I should have known it would end up with you resorting to calling things pathetic or similar. To conclude, I am very happy for you to disagree with whatever conclusion you believe I made.

I also have a fun little exercise for you: try to point out where in my posts I have stated that Parker doesn't deserve criticism.

[toshes mate]

Not answered my post at all. Relied on the same points as before. Come back to me when you can agree the manager is literally responsible for overcoming bad circumstances. Otherwise your argument is mute.

If that is addressed to me then you need to make a cogent argument about your challenge that stands up to scrutiny which you haven't.  Just five teams in England in the top five of our leagues (includes National League) have recently enjoyed excellent form (check it for yourself) and so by your measure a simple task proves to be somewhat more arduous than you presume and you should stop being presumptuous if you want a decent discussion. 

[FFC1987]

Not answered my post at all. Relied on the same points as before. Come back to me when you can agree the manager is literally responsible for overcoming bad circumstances. Otherwise your argument is mute.

If that is addressed to me then you need to make a cogent argument about your challenge that stands up to scrutiny which you haven't.  Just five teams in England in the top five of our leagues (includes National League) have recently enjoyed excellent form (check it for yourself) and so by your measure a simple task proves to be somewhat more arduous than you presume and you should stop being presumptuous if you want a decent discussion.

It wasnt directed to you.

[toshes mate]

For what it is worth, I think the overall standard of The Championship has improved.
But, I don't think SP's selections, tactics, formations are doing us many favours.
Week after week the opposition seem to be able to set up to frustrate us.

For the many in the football league games are like a visit to a casino without a betting system which improves the odds of success.  The crucial bit of this point is that some 'winners' will lose heavily on their next visit and some 'losers' will live to fight another day.   Managing anything requires a pretty vivid knowledge of how a game works to take advantage of regular losers and to further restrict the odds for the guys who seem to have a system that works, fair means or foul. 

[Spirit of 2000]

'Top quality set of players'? 

That's a really naive way of finding the answer to what makes a team play?  Martin was by no means a top quality striker but Jokanovic got him to play for his team even at less than 100%.  The same could be said of Ayite, Piazon, Kebano, Aluko, Malone, Kamara and so on.  He reinvented Johansen and got McDonald and Odoi playing out of their skins.

Simple stuff like managing a team to success?

Yes, but only a tiny percentage of managers will, by the end of a season have had success by virtue of winning their league, coming second, or winning a play off final.  All of that would have been achieved by winning more points by whatever means they were won (e.g. deserved or undeserved), whether or not they were attractive when winning, and whether or not the coaching team were the best thing since sliced bread, or just experiencing a lucky break.  The managers who win promotion for their clubs more than once stand out like sore thumbs and it gets harder the higher up the pyramid you climb.

We had a 'winner' here at FFC but many on here couldn't wait to see the back of him when things went wrong.  And look where we ended up after he went and what is happening now.  If it were simple then Parker would have sussed it months ago.   It is anything but simple.

Exactly, a good manager gets a group of players playing above their perceived ability levels based on their career to date - that may equate to promotion as was the case with us and Slav or survival if a Barnsley, Wigan or similar stay up, or if Charlton achieve a mid table finish.

Given the group of players at his disposal at this level of the game Parker is certainly NOT delivering a collective team performance that is above or even on par with their abilities as professionals as a group at this level. Yes - the defence isn't great but let's look at individual, Christie a ROI international with buckets of experience at this level who cost £4m, Odoi a limited but capable utility defender who played a massive part in our last promotion campaign - displacing Kalas, Bryan - deemed as one of the best left backs in this division when we signed him from Bristol City, Ream - borderline our star performer in the Jokanovic promotion season, Mawson - England squad and £15m signing much talked up before his signing. OK injuries haven't helped specifically in the case of Mawson - but that group shouldn't constitute an utterly ropey defence at this level and at some juncture things like coaching & tactics come into question.

Knockaert and Cavaleiro are not performing as they had before in this league, I believe as a direct result of coaching & tactics - our transition to attack is too slow to effectively use their abilities (although I have concerns on Knockaert beyond just that - but replace him with AK47 or Kebano and the same applies that these players would profit more from quicker tempo) - Mitrovic is carrying the side and is being compromised by our style & tactics and gets way too isolated. The balance, tactics, selection are ALL questionable in my opinion and the buck ultimately stops with one man on this front - the manager. Sorry but for me we should replace Parker for the good of the side, the season & club going forward - he and his coaching staff are not up to the task of getting the best from this bunch of players with their collective abilities at this level. Also please don't quote me the 3rd place mantra .... we are in points and application on the pitch a mile behind Leeds and WBA, two sides we should be competing on a reasonable equal level. Should we pick up none or maybe 1 point from the forthcoming Brentford & Leeds games, which given our last 2 performances isn't inconceivable ... in fact is looking likely, we're likely to be out the top 6 completely which given the squad we have is utterly unacceptable.

[Chutney]

Our squad is not better than West Brom or Leeds. They have actual good defenders. We didn't sign a single defender over the summer. this failure is not just down to the manager, glad somebody else can see this!

[ScalleysDad]

Once upon a time five guys were sat on a train talking football and the transfer window and how it might finish some promotion projects or tilt the balance for others. Bristol City, Charlton, 'The Wall', QPR and us, me, were the wanna be pundits. Mitrovic to Palace or West Ham, Stefjo to West Brom ............. and that was it. None of the pretenders to the role of back four were fancied, Kmac to Millwall as player coach does'nt count, and Cairney was only considered an option between August and the first sign of rain. Without any prompting Parker is doing alright with what he has but the team is a bookies nightmare. Next year it is then.

[Facts Not Fiction]

Our squad is not better than West Brom or Leeds. They have actual good defenders. We didn't sign a single defender over the summer. this failure is not just down to the manager, glad somebody else can see this!

Bartley used to be a joke to WBA fans. Nathan Ferguson is a kid.

Leeds have wingers at full back, and quite often Berardi at CB.

They both make do, because they have a good manager.

Odoi Mawson Ream Bryan is easily good enough to push promotion.

[@jolslover]

Our squad is not better than West Brom or Leeds. They have actual good defenders. We didn't sign a single defender over the summer. this failure is not just down to the manager, glad somebody else can see this!

Bartley used to be a joke to WBA fans. Nathan Ferguson is a kid.

Leeds have wingers at full back, and quite often Berardi at CB.

They both make do, because they have a good manager.

Odoi Mawson Ream Bryan is easily good enough to push promotion.

Real, our defence on paper is much better than both these sides. Especially Leeds whos defence is made up off players out of position

[Dr Quinzel]

Yes Parker is inexperienced, tactically frustrating and not tested. BUT, the myth that this set of players are the highest quality in the league is rubbish... cost does not equal quality. There is a reason Knockaert and Cav were loaned out and deemed not good enough for their sides. Bryan, Manson and Onomah etc are simply not top quality championship players. Parker deserves the pressure he is under but we need to understand the squad of players are not as good as we all think and Parker deserves to be judged more realistically based on that.

Rant over.

Interesting. I've been thinking similar myself, but maybe not quite to the same level. I don't think they're as good as advertised (many of them), but are still good players that should be achieving better and probably would be under a different manager. The Khan's gave us Parker, a first time coach, after a relatively poor showing as caretaker, so we need to be patient as Parker grows or the Khan's admit a mistake... which is unlikely until it is too late.

[ScalleysDad]

Yes Parker is inexperienced, tactically frustrating and not tested. BUT, the myth that this set of players are the highest quality in the league is rubbish... cost does not equal quality. There is a reason Knockaert and Cav were loaned out and deemed not good enough for their sides. Bryan, Manson and Onomah etc are simply not top quality championship players. Parker deserves the pressure he is under but we need to understand the squad of players are not as good as we all think and Parker deserves to be judged more realistically based on that.

Rant over.

Interesting. I've been thinking similar myself, but maybe not quite to the same level. I don't think they're as good as advertised (many of them), but are still good players that should be achieving better and probably would be under a different manager. The Khan's gave us Parker, a first time coach, after a relatively poor showing as caretaker, so we need to be patient as Parker grows or the Khan's admit a mistake... which is unlikely until it is too late.

Khan Snr is obviously a highly successful businessman and that takes a certain mindset. His decision to appoint Parker and not trawl the managers merry go round along with the comments about how the Club was all the better for it will require a massive U turn.
Going into Christmas in the top six, possibly/probably, will not be giving him too many headaches at the moment. He once said "whatever it takes". I wonder if somebody whispered in his ear, "patience".

[Chutney]

Our squad is not better than West Brom or Leeds. They have actual good defenders. We didn't sign a single defender over the summer. this failure is not just down to the manager, glad somebody else can see this!

Bartley used to be a joke to WBA fans. Nathan Ferguson is a kid.

Leeds have wingers at full back, and quite often Berardi at CB.

They both make do, because they have a good manager.

Odoi Mawson Ream Bryan is easily good enough to push promotion.

Its good enough for a play offs push.

[@jolslover]

Our squad is not better than West Brom or Leeds. They have actual good defenders. We didn't sign a single defender over the summer. this failure is not just down to the manager, glad somebody else can see this!

Bartley used to be a joke to WBA fans. Nathan Ferguson is a kid.

Leeds have wingers at full back, and quite often Berardi at CB.

They both make do, because they have a good manager.

Odoi Mawson Ream Bryan is easily good enough to push promotion.

Its good enough for a play offs push.

Bryan was the best LB in the Championship 2 seasons ago, Ream was in the best 4 CBs in the Championship 2 seasons ago and our player of the season, Mawson is capped for England and everyone was describing it as a top signing when we bought him into our premier league side and if you swap Odoi for Christie then Christie was consistently the best RB in the division (excluding Fredericks) before he joined us

In what world is that defence not good enough for automatic promotion??

Lets compare that with Leeds - Ayling a bang average Championship defender who has always been in and around mid table. Berardi a fullback converted to a CB, walking red card playing in Serie B before Leeds and alongside Ayling was part of a Leeds team that consistently finished mid table before Bielsa came in. Dallas an average championship winger converted to a fullback under Bielsa and Ben White who admittedly looks good but before this season had no experience above league 1 level

Please please stop saying that our defence is a joke... Our defence is the weak point of our team and is still the best in the division. With Bielsa or Billic we would be setting a Championship points record