The Experimental Project of Fulham

[toshes mate]

"Choose a manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

You know about analytics, MJG, probably better than any one else on here, but do they have categories for professionalism, responsibility, morality, knowledge, charisma, personality, man-management ability, quality and care.  Apparently not in view of the number of 'bad' appointments made in the whole football spectrum.  And the trouble with that is further compounded by the fact nobody seems to pick the flaws up during interviews, or general conversations when little snippets or suspicions of doubts are most likely found.  I have always believed that you have to charm the right personnel through reception first and then engage with them in can do and cannot do exercises to maintain (A) the level of your expectations and (B) the level of their expectations.  Expectations are fluid in as much as ambition and reality have to come together at some point in the future for success to be achieved.  In other words the dialogue constructs a pathway between two points and suggests the length of time it may take for the journey.

I see charisma as a quality for a Club's leader to seduce potential employees (whatever their skill set is) to consider FFC as a first choice and not as 'second best'.  To do that the leader must already be first choice because otherwise the whole process is flawed.  I get the sense that the Khans may have realised their shortcomings when they engaged the 'panel approach' prior to Symons's appointment and perhaps should have stuck with him longer than they did.   I also believe the Khans found SJ's professionalism and phlegmatic approach unfathomable and awkward since it gave little away in both good times and bad times.  He just got on with it.  Surely that would have come across in interview and conversations, language issues or not.   Ranieri is totally different to Jokanovic in personality and may have some of the traits that the Khans admire but are pretty useless when it comes to being in charge of FFC. 

Ranieri found his best fit at Leicester but his credentials do not say he'll be as successful again even at lower level.  However, he is here, and in many ways it is always better the devil you know.  I don't think the Khans ever understood Jokanovic's philosophy of work and that is why they never truly backed him.  Perhaps they may be seduced into backing Ranieri and turning him into an FFC hero given time and full support.  The Khans will also be aware that their record in sacking managers at FFC and finding worse is almost identical to what has happened this season.  They may want a chance to prove that, given time, Ranieri could be a success story.  I'd rather they didn't take that chance but I can also see their point of view.     

[aaronmcguigan]

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.
There is constant succession planning being thought out there, and the profile of head coach is a mix of characteristics, stats and scouted results which I assume would include behaviour and authority.

You would think we would have the same thing going on considering appointing Slav was 2 months wasted, and Claudio's appointment goes completely against the qualities of the squad. Surely a scouting system on managers would identify the right character with the right philosophy at the right time?

[MJG]

"Choose a manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

You know about analytics, MJG, probably better than any one else on here, but do they have categories for professionalism, responsibility, morality, knowledge, charisma, personality, man-management ability, quality and care.  Apparently not in view of the number of 'bad' appointments made in the whole football spectrum.  And the trouble with that is further compounded by the fact nobody seems to pick the flaws up during interviews, or general conversations when little snippets or suspicions of doubts are most likely found.  I have always believed that you have to charm the right personnel through reception first and then engage with them in can do and cannot do exercises to maintain (A) the level of your expectations and (B) the level of their expectations.  Expectations are fluid in as much as ambition and reality have to come together at some point in the future for success to be achieved.  In other words the dialogue constructs a pathway between two points and suggests the length of time it may take for the journey.

I see charisma as a quality for a Club's leader to seduce potential employees (whatever their skill set is) to consider FFC as a first choice and not as 'second best'.  To do that the leader must already be first choice because otherwise the whole process is flawed.  I get the sense that the Khans may have realised their shortcomings when they engaged the 'panel approach' prior to Symons's appointment and perhaps should have stuck with him longer than they did.   I also believe the Khans found SJ's professionalism and phlegmatic approach unfathomable and awkward since it gave little away in both good times and bad times.  He just got on with it.  Surely that would have come across in interview and conversations, language issues or not.   Ranieri is totally different to Jokanovic in personality and may have some of the traits that the Khans admire but are pretty useless when it comes to being in charge of FFC. 

Ranieri found his best fit at Leicester but his credentials do not say he'll be as successful again even at lower level.  However, he is here, and in many ways it is always better the devil you know.  I don't think the Khans ever understood Jokanovic's philosophy of work and that is why they never truly backed him.  Perhaps they may be seduced into backing Ranieri and turning him into an FFC hero given time and full support.  The Khans will also be aware that their record in sacking managers at FFC and finding worse is almost identical to what has happened this season.  They may want a chance to prove that, given time, Ranieri could be a success story.  I'd rather they didn't take that chance but I can also see their point of view.     

I'd not expect any one an to be employed just in stats and there is no way that will happen. But it used.

Might surprise people to learn that Southampton employed a stats company to come up with a list of potential managers who fitted a crtiera and this led to their current manager... One which a few had named as a possible coach for us.

[toshes mate]

"Choose a manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

You know about analytics, MJG, probably better than any one else on here, but do they have categories for professionalism, responsibility, morality, knowledge, charisma, personality, man-management ability, quality and care.  Apparently not in view of the number of 'bad' appointments made in the whole football spectrum.  And the trouble with that is further compounded by the fact nobody seems to pick the flaws up during interviews, or general conversations when little snippets or suspicions of doubts are most likely found.  I have always believed that you have to charm the right personnel through reception first and then engage with them in can do and cannot do exercises to maintain (A) the level of your expectations and (B) the level of their expectations.  Expectations are fluid in as much as ambition and reality have to come together at some point in the future for success to be achieved.  In other words the dialogue constructs a pathway between two points and suggests the length of time it may take for the journey.

I see charisma as a quality for a Club's leader to seduce potential employees (whatever their skill set is) to consider FFC as a first choice and not as 'second best'.  To do that the leader must already be first choice because otherwise the whole process is flawed.  I get the sense that the Khans may have realised their shortcomings when they engaged the 'panel approach' prior to Symons's appointment and perhaps should have stuck with him longer than they did.   I also believe the Khans found SJ's professionalism and phlegmatic approach unfathomable and awkward since it gave little away in both good times and bad times.  He just got on with it.  Surely that would have come across in interview and conversations, language issues or not.   Ranieri is totally different to Jokanovic in personality and may have some of the traits that the Khans admire but are pretty useless when it comes to being in charge of FFC. 

Ranieri found his best fit at Leicester but his credentials do not say he'll be as successful again even at lower level.  However, he is here, and in many ways it is always better the devil you know.  I don't think the Khans ever understood Jokanovic's philosophy of work and that is why they never truly backed him.  Perhaps they may be seduced into backing Ranieri and turning him into an FFC hero given time and full support.  The Khans will also be aware that their record in sacking managers at FFC and finding worse is almost identical to what has happened this season.  They may want a chance to prove that, given time, Ranieri could be a success story.  I'd rather they didn't take that chance but I can also see their point of view.     

I'd not expect any one an to be employed just in stats and there is no way that will happen. But it used.

Might surprise people to learn that Southampton employed a stats company to come up with a list of potential managers who fitted a crtiera and this led to their current manager... One which a few had named as a possible coach for us.

Of course 'stats' will be employed, after all, prior to information technology, you'd be asked to apply either in writing or via an application form which, on many occasions, requested supporting information.  And so no one can eliminate the relevance of empirical evidence with or without the assistance of information technology.  Profiling is, after all, a very prosperous enterprise for those gifted with its several techniques, but it doesn't always lead to the right conclusion(s).

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.
There is constant succession planning being thought out there, and the profile of head coach is a mix of characteristics, stats and scouted results which I assume would include behaviour and authority.

You would think we would have the same thing going on considering appointing Slav was 2 months wasted, and Claudio's appointment goes completely against the qualities of the squad. Surely a scouting system on managers would identify the right character with the right philosophy at the right time?

Absolutely concur with this as the only way to achieving a collection of all the tools you need to give yourself the best chance of making the best choice. 

[Fulham Tup North]

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.

I bet that makes the new Manager feel comfortable, knowing that the Club has a scout looking for your replacement only a few weeks after you have been appointed!
Mind you, once you appoint someone, you can sit with your feet up for at least a few months while still cashing your monthly cheque.
What a strange job.... unless they also do something else as well....sell match-day programmes perhaps :)

[toshes mate]

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.

I bet that makes the new Manager feel comfortable, knowing that the Club has a scout looking for your replacement only a few weeks after you have been appointed!
Mind you, once you appoint someone, you can sit with your feet up for at least a few months while still cashing your monthly cheque.
What a strange job.... unless they also do something else as well....sell match-day programmes perhaps :)

LOL.

I suspect he/she maintains a database exclusively for coaches, managers etc., from their scouting ventures and observations which will be ongoing process of updating like any other database project.  I would also imagine there would be, in a similar way to TK's media project, a chance of considerable income from consultancy work via recommendations etc.     

[ALG01]

"Choosoa manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

Depends on the question you are looking to answer. Tell me ALG01(although your style is reminiscent of someone who left recently) how would you pick a manager without looking at any stats on them at all?

Of course you could pick someone who has no record... And I'm not against that... But if you are looking at someone who has previously managed you will look at their records.

You might want to know how many promotions they have had?
What their record is paying a particular type of football.
Their record of promoting youth.
Average age of lineups

Any number of stats and information to make a choice.

Just by picking a a manger who has a 41% win record for example is a use of stats.

But if course it doesn't fit agendas does it to actually admit its required. Stats bad is the message.

Obviously what you say re stats is the sensible end of using the raw data as a weapon in ones armory and none of us would dispute that. Based on what I have gleaned from our leaders, and the issue with TK and his analytics company and seeing the lack of success we have had, to continue that approach, and that is what I meant, is bizarre if you want to succeed.

But further than that the choice of manager is a subtle thing. They may have a poor win record, a poor record on getting teams promoted but if they get the best from their squad that is all you can ask. You need somebody whose face fits. For example I always thought Sanchez was badly dealt with because the fans did not want him from day one, so that was always likely to end in tears, poor results sealed his fate, but somebody else would have been given longer. Since I was a boy I thought the managerial appointment was key to success, MacDonald and Adams being the absolute proof of what a new man can achieve with essentially the same squad. So stats are very low down the pecking order in terms of that appointment.

I did know CR was a massive error from the moment he was appointed and he has exceeded my worst fears. I did think we should have kept Slav a few more games but now we will never know if that was a correct assertion but I do not know who we should get for next season. I am pretty sure we should not be getting one of the usual suspects, and my feeling is we would be better off with a younger hungry British manager looking for a big chance. Providing they can deal with the transfer policy which in the end will pull the rug from all of them.

To me the first thing that needs to be done is what MAF did, get a top experienced person (Keegan was a masterstroke) and let them run the football side of things.

[3rdgenfan]

"Choosoa manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

Depends on the question you are looking to answer. Tell me ALG01(although your style is reminiscent of someone who left recently) how would you pick a manager without looking at any stats on them at all?

Of course you could pick someone who has no record... And I'm not against that... But if you are looking at someone who has previously managed you will look at their records.

You might want to know how many promotions they have had?
What their record is paying a particular type of football.
Their record of promoting youth.
Average age of lineups

Any number of stats and information to make a choice.

Just by picking a a manger who has a 41% win record for example is a use of stats.

But if course it doesn't fit agendas does it to actually admit its required. Stats bad is the message.

Obviously what you say re stats is the sensible end of using the raw data as a weapon in ones armory and none of us would dispute that. Based on what I have gleaned from our leaders, and the issue with TK and his analytics company and seeing the lack of success we have had, to continue that approach, and that is what I meant, is bizarre if you want to succeed.

But further than that the choice of manager is a subtle thing. They may have a poor win record, a poor record on getting teams promoted but if they get the best from their squad that is all you can ask. You need somebody whose face fits. For example I always thought Sanchez was badly dealt with because the fans did not want him from day one, so that was always likely to end in tears, poor results sealed his fate, but somebody else would have been given longer. Since I was a boy I thought the managerial appointment was key to success, MacDonald and Adams being the absolute proof of what a new man can achieve with essentially the same squad. So stats are very low down the pecking order in terms of that appointment.

I did know CR was a massive error from the moment he was appointed and he has exceeded my worst fears. I did think we should have kept Slav a few more games but now we will never know if that was a correct assertion but I do not know who we should get for next season. I am pretty sure we should not be getting one of the usual suspects, and my feeling is we would be better off with a younger hungry British manager looking for a big chance. Providing they can deal with the transfer policy which in the end will pull the rug from all of them.

To me the first thing that needs to be done is what MAF did, get a top experienced person (Keegan was a masterstroke) and let them run the football side of things.

I totally agree with you comments regarding an experienced Director of Football. However I think it should be someone who has an amount of managerial and playing time and someone under the age of 50.

A younger DOF could bring in new ideas. I would like to see someone like Lee Clark. Even though he wasn't overly successful in his managerial career he would have the best interests at heart for Fulham and would make an excellent Director of Football much like in the vein of Kevin Keegan.

[Statto]

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.

I bet that makes the new Manager feel comfortable, knowing that the Club has a scout looking for your replacement only a few weeks after you have been appointed!
Mind you, once you appoint someone, you can sit with your feet up for at least a few months while still cashing your monthly cheque.
What a strange job.... unless they also do something else as well....sell match-day programmes perhaps :)

LOL.

I suspect he/she maintains a database exclusively for coaches, managers etc., from their scouting ventures and observations which will be ongoing process of updating like any other database project.  I would also imagine there would be, in a similar way to TK's media project, a chance of considerable income from consultancy work via recommendations etc.     

No offence to NEwry FFC but I'm really struggling to believe that statement.

Firstly what does this "scout" do for the 23 months in every 24 or so where they're not looking to change the manager any time soon? As FTN says - sell programmes?  !

Secondly, whilst MJG has identified a handful of metrics above, that really is all there is to consider for a manager. Unlike assessing a player, it's not a complicated analysis and you don't need a computer (a pen and one side of A4 will do) or an expert to do it. So how on earth does he justify a salary?

Do we have a link? Any detail or evidence?

[aaronmcguigan]

Watford have a scout who solely scouts managers.

I bet that makes the new Manager feel comfortable, knowing that the Club has a scout looking for your replacement only a few weeks after you have been appointed!
Mind you, once you appoint someone, you can sit with your feet up for at least a few months while still cashing your monthly cheque.
What a strange job.... unless they also do something else as well....sell match-day programmes perhaps :)

LOL.

I suspect he/she maintains a database exclusively for coaches, managers etc., from their scouting ventures and observations which will be ongoing process of updating like any other database project.  I would also imagine there would be, in a similar way to TK's media project, a chance of considerable income from consultancy work via recommendations etc.     

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41710640

Take a read at this link, looking at the frequency of manager changes and how it doesn't cause chaos when it happens. Also re the depth of scouting: a list of 10 players per position to fit into the current ethos of the coaches, who are recruited to a specific model

[Statto]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41710640

Take a read at this link, looking at the frequency of manager changes and how it doesn't cause chaos when it happens. Also re the depth of scouting: a list of 10 players per position to fit into the current ethos of the coaches, who are recruited to a specific model

Where does it say they have a scout just for managers?

Also, a list of 10 players per position - I was doing that on Championship Manager in about 2001 and no one from the BBC wrote an article about it... like 99% of this stats business it really does just sound like money for old rope to me

[Sting of the North]

"Choosoa manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

Depends on the question you are looking to answer. Tell me ALG01(although your style is reminiscent of someone who left recently) how would you pick a manager without looking at any stats on them at all?

Of course you could pick someone who has no record... And I'm not against that... But if you are looking at someone who has previously managed you will look at their records.

You might want to know how many promotions they have had?
What their record is paying a particular type of football.
Their record of promoting youth.
Average age of lineups

Any number of stats and information to make a choice.

Just by picking a a manger who has a 41% win record for example is a use of stats.

But if course it doesn't fit agendas does it to actually admit its required. Stats bad is the message.

Obviously what you say re stats is the sensible end of using the raw data as a weapon in ones armory and none of us would dispute that. Based on what I have gleaned from our leaders, and the issue with TK and his analytics company and seeing the lack of success we have had, to continue that approach, and that is what I meant, is bizarre if you want to succeed.

But further than that the choice of manager is a subtle thing. They may have a poor win record, a poor record on getting teams promoted but if they get the best from their squad that is all you can ask. You need somebody whose face fits. For example I always thought Sanchez was badly dealt with because the fans did not want him from day one, so that was always likely to end in tears, poor results sealed his fate, but somebody else would have been given longer. Since I was a boy I thought the managerial appointment was key to success, MacDonald and Adams being the absolute proof of what a new man can achieve with essentially the same squad. So stats are very low down the pecking order in terms of that appointment.

I did know CR was a massive error from the moment he was appointed and he has exceeded my worst fears. I did think we should have kept Slav a few more games but now we will never know if that was a correct assertion but I do not know who we should get for next season. I am pretty sure we should not be getting one of the usual suspects, and my feeling is we would be better off with a younger hungry British manager looking for a big chance. Providing they can deal with the transfer policy which in the end will pull the rug from all of them.

To me the first thing that needs to be done is what MAF did, get a top experienced person (Keegan was a masterstroke) and let them run the football side of things.

I totally agree with you comments regarding an experienced Director of Football. However I think it should be someone who has an amount of managerial and playing time and someone under the age of 50.

A younger DOF could bring in new ideas. I would like to see someone like Lee Clark. Even though he wasn't overly successful in his managerial career he would have the best interests at heart for Fulham and would make an excellent Director of Football much like in the vein of Kevin Keegan.

So, apart from apparently have Fulham's best interest at heart (one would expect that no? I am sure the same goes for TK) and not so far being overly successful in his managerial career, what leads you to believe that he would make an excellent DoF for Fulham?

[ALG01]

"Choosoa manager on analytics is bizarre"

Why is it?

Depends on the question you are looking to answer. Tell me ALG01(although your style is reminiscent of someone who left recently) how would you pick a manager without looking at any stats on them at all?

Of course you could pick someone who has no record... And I'm not against that... But if you are looking at someone who has previously managed you will look at their records.

You might want to know how many promotions they have had?
What their record is paying a particular type of football.
Their record of promoting youth.
Average age of lineups

Any number of stats and information to make a choice.

Just by picking a a manger who has a 41% win record for example is a use of stats.

But if course it doesn't fit agendas does it to actually admit its required. Stats bad is the message.

Obviously what you say re stats is the sensible end of using the raw data as a weapon in ones armory and none of us would dispute that. Based on what I have gleaned from our leaders, and the issue with TK and his analytics company and seeing the lack of success we have had, to continue that approach, and that is what I meant, is bizarre if you want to succeed.

But further than that the choice of manager is a subtle thing. They may have a poor win record, a poor record on getting teams promoted but if they get the best from their squad that is all you can ask. You need somebody whose face fits. For example I always thought Sanchez was badly dealt with because the fans did not want him from day one, so that was always likely to end in tears, poor results sealed his fate, but somebody else would have been given longer. Since I was a boy I thought the managerial appointment was key to success, MacDonald and Adams being the absolute proof of what a new man can achieve with essentially the same squad. So stats are very low down the pecking order in terms of that appointment.

I did know CR was a massive error from the moment he was appointed and he has exceeded my worst fears. I did think we should have kept Slav a few more games but now we will never know if that was a correct assertion but I do not know who we should get for next season. I am pretty sure we should not be getting one of the usual suspects, and my feeling is we would be better off with a younger hungry British manager looking for a big chance. Providing they can deal with the transfer policy which in the end will pull the rug from all of them.

To me the first thing that needs to be done is what MAF did, get a top experienced person (Keegan was a masterstroke) and let them run the football side of things.

I totally agree with you comments regarding an experienced Director of Football. However I think it should be someone who has an amount of managerial and playing time and someone under the age of 50.

A younger DOF could bring in new ideas. I would like to see someone like Lee Clark. Even though he wasn't overly successful in his managerial career he would have the best interests at heart for Fulham and would make an excellent Director of Football much like in the vein of Kevin Keegan.

So, apart from apparently have Fulham's best interest at heart (one would expect that no? I am sure the same goes for TK) and not so far being overly successful in his managerial career, what leads you to believe that he would make an excellent DoF for Fulham?

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

[toshes mate]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41710640

Take a read at this link, looking at the frequency of manager changes and how it doesn't cause chaos when it happens. Also re the depth of scouting: a list of 10 players per position to fit into the current ethos of the coaches, who are recruited to a specific model

Where does it say they have a scout just for managers?

Also, a list of 10 players per position - I was doing that on Championship Manager in about 2001 and no one from the BBC wrote an article about it... like 99% of this stats business it really does just sound like money for old rope to me

In terms of the original data and data analysis it is literally a premium paid by every single club accessing the same data and downloading to their own accessing device.  Of course individually they can attempt to add to or improve upon the original material and then render it in many different ways via spreadsheets or database applications.  The data covers coaching and other specialisms.  People like TK, driven by 'Moneyball' ideology, seek to come up with something original and successful.  In TK's case his role suggests a conflict of interests.  On the subject of the data itself and the collation of it by so called experts I would suggest it largely is money for old rope because the algorithms will give the same answer to the same question wherever it is asked.  However a unique algorithm may give a different answer but the efficacy of that answer relies on the algorithm being sensible and appropriate and not in use anywhere else.  The chances of someone in everyday use coming up with a unique algorithm must be millions to one against but that may be lost on people who don't understand what computer's do or what computer people do to make their fame and fortune (largely repetition of unoriginal ideas).  Hollywood makes a movie out of the written material, a legend is created and everybody goes 'wow' .... 

[Sting of the North]

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

Again, sure maybe that would work. But why exactly? I mean, so far one of the main reasons seem to be that this is at least not the same job that he has not been successful at. Thus, I still fail to understand what is so great about him. So, he spent a few seasons here 15 odd years ago which apparently translates to knowing the place and the psyche. If those are the criteria, then there would be a host of candidates I believe, since we surely have many ex players that have not been overly successful in their post playing days. What sets Clark apart from any of them? Not saying that it couldn't work, just don't really see the rationale behind this at all.

[toshes mate]

I should add that I am not being cynical in my last post.

[toshes mate]

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

Again, sure maybe that would work. But why exactly? I mean, so far one of the main reasons seem to be that this is at least not the same job that he has not been successful at. Thus, I still fail to understand what is so great about him. So, he spent a few seasons here 15 odd years ago which apparently translates to knowing the place and the psyche. If those are the criteria, then there would be a host of candidates I believe, since we surely have many ex players that have not been overly successful in their post playing days. What sets Clark apart from any of them? Not saying that it couldn't work, just don't really see the rationale behind this at all.

To be honest Lee Clark doesn't have to do much to be better than what we have already does he?

[Sting of the North]

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

Again, sure maybe that would work. But why exactly? I mean, so far one of the main reasons seem to be that this is at least not the same job that he has not been successful at. Thus, I still fail to understand what is so great about him. So, he spent a few seasons here 15 odd years ago which apparently translates to knowing the place and the psyche. If those are the criteria, then there would be a host of candidates I believe, since we surely have many ex players that have not been overly successful in their post playing days. What sets Clark apart from any of them? Not saying that it couldn't work, just don't really see the rationale behind this at all.

To be honest Lee Clark doesn't have to do much to be better than what we have already does he?

That could be an argument, but I for one would hope that our ambitions if we hire someone new would be a bit higher than just finding someone that is a little less bad at his job than the people currently occupying the job is said to be.

[ALG01]

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

Again, sure maybe that would work. But why exactly? I mean, so far one of the main reasons seem to be that this is at least not the same job that he has not been successful at. Thus, I still fail to understand what is so great about him. So, he spent a few seasons here 15 odd years ago which apparently translates to knowing the place and the psyche. If those are the criteria, then there would be a host of candidates I believe, since we surely have many ex players that have not been overly successful in their post playing days. What sets Clark apart from any of them? Not saying that it couldn't work, just don't really see the rationale behind this at all.

For me he seems like the right soprt of candidate, whether he himself is correct I am not sure, I would have to interview him but... the reason is he is an ex player and an ex Fulham player too so knows that much about what it is like. He has been a manager and did well for a while so I think he may also have an eye for a player and he seems to talk reasonably well (if I remember correctly) and that also counts. Plus I think because of his playing career he will have the respect of the players.  I think he has the right sort of credentials that are worth considering, that is not the same as he is the man. Sometimes it is just instinct that says good idea and my instinct says so with this suggestion.

[Sting of the North]

I know it wan't my suggestion but Lee Clarke may be a good choice as a candidate to consider. He knows the place and the psyche, has managed (not all that well but this job is different) and could be a 'thinking outside the box' person that might just work. Who would have believed one M. Adams would be quite so good at the job when he took over.

Again, sure maybe that would work. But why exactly? I mean, so far one of the main reasons seem to be that this is at least not the same job that he has not been successful at. Thus, I still fail to understand what is so great about him. So, he spent a few seasons here 15 odd years ago which apparently translates to knowing the place and the psyche. If those are the criteria, then there would be a host of candidates I believe, since we surely have many ex players that have not been overly successful in their post playing days. What sets Clark apart from any of them? Not saying that it couldn't work, just don't really see the rationale behind this at all.

For me he seems like the right soprt of candidate, whether he himself is correct I am not sure, I would have to interview him but... the reason is he is an ex player and an ex Fulham player too so knows that much about what it is like. He has been a manager and did well for a while so I think he may also have an eye for a player and he seems to talk reasonably well (if I remember correctly) and that also counts. Plus I think because of his playing career he will have the respect of the players.  I think he has the right sort of credentials that are worth considering, that is not the same as he is the man. Sometimes it is just instinct that says good idea and my instinct says so with this suggestion.

Fair enough