Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 11:53:50 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Wellens v McSheffrey  (Read 9607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris Black come back

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14333
Wellens v McSheffrey
« on March 12, 2022, 05:01:06 pm by Chris Black come back »
Today was our 38th league game this season. Wellens managed the first 19 games, and McSheffrey the last 19 games. 50/50.

Wellens 13 points
McSheffrey 16 points

You could make the argument that given McSheffrey had the January window and has a better squad than Wellens had available for selection, he's had a marginally stronger hand.

Either way, they are both pretty much as disappointing as each other. What a mess.



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

sedwardsdrfc

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4635
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #1 on March 12, 2022, 05:02:52 pm by sedwardsdrfc »
Both not good enough. Big risk to give GM the summer. We could sink very low if we don’t get the summer right

ChrisBx

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #2 on March 12, 2022, 05:10:34 pm by ChrisBx »
This squad is a shambles, yet I'm certain a half decent manager would have got much more out of them.

Chris Black come back

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 14333
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #3 on March 12, 2022, 05:11:08 pm by Chris Black come back »
There is a total absence of desire, urgency or cohesion. There is absolutely no recognisable style of play and the forward line and midfield are like people winning their places in a lottery and getting to know each other on the pitch.

ChrisBx

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #4 on March 12, 2022, 05:12:55 pm by ChrisBx »
I posted a comparison of their numbers not so long ago and my thread was closed for some reason..

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8843
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #5 on March 12, 2022, 05:13:04 pm by Copps is Magic »
The players are useless, we all know that. But he was given a mandate (and money) to at least improve it a little bit and he hasn't done that.

glosterred

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8929
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #6 on March 12, 2022, 05:45:02 pm by glosterred »
Both shit


COYR

Padge_DRFC

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4975
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #7 on March 12, 2022, 05:50:46 pm by Padge_DRFC »
Both shit


COYR

Simple correct summary. End of discussion

DonnyOsmond

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 11336
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #8 on March 12, 2022, 05:54:18 pm by DonnyOsmond »
Today was our 38th league game this season. Wellens managed the first 19 games, and McSheffrey the last 19 games. 50/50.

Wellens 13 points
McSheffrey 16 points

You could make the argument that given McSheffrey had the January window and has a better squad than Wellens had available for selection, he's had a marginally stronger hand.

Either way, they are both pretty much as disappointing as each other. What a mess.

Wellens had Close, Bostock and Anderson. That's probably a better hand.

RoversAlias

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 11888
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #9 on March 12, 2022, 09:14:35 pm by RoversAlias »
It was a diabolical decision to pluck Gary from the u18s and give him the head job, especially after a weeks-long process to try and find someone.

Second coach whose managerial career has been severely damaged right at the start by the club throwing them to the wolves, in the last year.

Pliskin

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 372
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #10 on March 13, 2022, 12:58:54 am by Pliskin »
A combined 8 weeks spent hiring them.

It really does call into question whether the people who do the hiring actually know what to look for in a manager.

How is it possible to spend this much time deliberating something and still make such terrible decisions?

Lesonthewest

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #11 on March 13, 2022, 07:22:03 am by Lesonthewest »
A combined 8 weeks spent hiring them.

It really does call into question whether the people who do the hiring actually know what to look for in a manager.

How is it possible to spend this much time deliberating something and still make such terrible decisions?
Makes you wonder if they're afraid to appoint someone who will come in & ruffle a few feathers.

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29849
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #12 on March 13, 2022, 07:37:25 am by drfchound »
I just find it hard to believe that McSheff was the stand out applicant.

Lesonthewest

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #13 on March 13, 2022, 07:41:30 am by Lesonthewest »
Could be wrong here but when we appointed McSheffrey, who decided to make Sinclair as his number 2, the board or the manager himself. I always thought a manager brought in his own assistant, ie same wavelength, certain stile of play. Just seems they were put together rather than what the manager would have chosen.

sedwardsdrfc

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4635
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #14 on March 13, 2022, 07:44:59 am by sedwardsdrfc »
Could be wrong here but when we appointed McSheffrey, who decided to make Sinclair as his number 2, the board or the manager himself. I always thought a manager brought in his own assistant, ie same wavelength, certain stile of play. Just seems they were put together rather than what the manager would have chosen.

They were working together as caretaker and GM wanted to keep him on. It's not been forced on him anyway.

On backroom staff i wonder what Lee Carsley's advise to GM has been? Wonder if he has even been to Cantley Park. What a joke of an announcement that was.

RoversAlias

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 11888
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #15 on March 13, 2022, 07:52:34 am by RoversAlias »
Why would Carsley have been to Cantley Park? He has a job, a more important one than anything to do with Rovers, with England.

It truly was a pathetic turn of events that whole phone call thing.

Lesonthewest

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #16 on March 13, 2022, 07:58:36 am by Lesonthewest »
Could be wrong here but when we appointed McSheffrey, who decided to make Sinclair as his number 2, the board or the manager himself. I always thought a manager brought in his own assistant, ie same wavelength, certain stile of play. Just seems they were put together rather than what the manager would have chosen.

They were working together as caretaker and GM wanted to keep him on. It's not been forced on him anyway.

On backroom staff i wonder what Lee Carsley's advise to GM has been? Wonder if he has even been to Cantley Park. What a joke of an announcement that was.
Thanks, didn't know that. They're certainly no SOD & ROK.

GazLaz

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 12900
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #17 on March 13, 2022, 08:31:03 am by GazLaz »
Why would Carsley have been to Cantley Park? He has a job, a more important one than anything to do with Rovers, with England.

It truly was a pathetic turn of events that whole phone call thing.

I’m pretty sure he has been to Cantley Park and he works very few days with England thus taking on this role to further aid his own development.

ChrisBx

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #18 on March 13, 2022, 04:29:15 pm by ChrisBx »
The comparison now stands at:

Wellens: P 26. W 6 (23.1%), D 5 (19.2%), L 15 (57.7%)

McSheffrey: P 20. W 5 (25%), D 1 (5%), L 14 (70%)

Most accept that we should have replaced Wellens sooner, yet here we are again.

big fat yorkshire pudding

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13619
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #19 on March 13, 2022, 05:51:11 pm by big fat yorkshire pudding »
The comparison now stands at:

Wellens: P 26. W 6 (23.1%), D 5 (19.2%), L 15 (57.7%)

McSheffrey: P 20. W 5 (25%), D 1 (5%), L 14 (70%)

Most accept that we should have replaced Wellens sooner, yet here we are again.

Wellens had 2-3 months to prepare for his first game.  Mcsheffrey had days and inherited a god awful side with its key players injured.  He has improved us but those expecting miracles are delusional it was never going to happen.

NickDRFC

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6243
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #20 on March 13, 2022, 06:01:39 pm by NickDRFC »
The comparison now stands at:

Wellens: P 26. W 6 (23.1%), D 5 (19.2%), L 15 (57.7%)

McSheffrey: P 20. W 5 (25%), D 1 (5%), L 14 (70%)

Most accept that we should have replaced Wellens sooner, yet here we are again.

Wellens had 2-3 months to prepare for his first game.  Mcsheffrey had days and inherited a god awful side with its key players injured.  He has improved us but those expecting miracles are delusional it was never going to happen.

Expecting a manager to not keep making the same mistakes, to not ask his defenders to hoof it towards forwards who are hopeless in the air, to drill a modicum of organisation into the defence, to stop picking underperforming players whilst flat out ignoring others, to get his team to turn up and show a bit of effort for more than a third of a game isn’t expecting miracles.

Personally I reckon that it’s anyone who thinks that McSheffrey is doing a good job at the moment that’s delusional.

silent majority

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 16889
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #21 on March 13, 2022, 07:27:21 pm by silent majority »
Why would Carsley have been to Cantley Park? He has a job, a more important one than anything to do with Rovers, with England.

It truly was a pathetic turn of events that whole phone call thing.

He certainly has been to Cantley Park and the FA and Gareth Southgate utilise their contract with DRFC as part of his development too.

RoversAlias

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 11888
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #22 on March 13, 2022, 07:50:30 pm by RoversAlias »
Fair enough then, I'm surprised but my original comment didn't come from a place of knowledge on the subject.

The whole thing is still shambolic. The club need a dedicated, employed staff member in charge of the footballing side of things and they need to be someone committed who can change the culture in the squad and staff.

Yet again we are aiding an individual's development for someone else's gain, and to our own detriment.

ChrisBx

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #23 on March 26, 2022, 04:59:58 pm by ChrisBx »
After 26.03.22:

Wellens: P 26. W 6 (23.1%), D 5 (19.2%), L 15 (57.7%). PPG: 0.88

McSheffrey: P 22. W 5 (22.7%), D 2 (9.1%), L 15 (68.2%) PPG: 0.77

People claim we have improved under McSheffrey. I'm yet to see any evidence of that.

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29849
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #24 on March 26, 2022, 06:20:04 pm by drfchound »
After 26.03.22:

Wellens: P 26. W 6 (23.1%), D 5 (19.2%), L 15 (57.7%). PPG: 0.88

McSheffrey: P 22. W 5 (22.7%), D 2 (9.1%), L 15 (68.2%) PPG: 0.77

People claim we have improved under McSheffrey. I'm yet to see any evidence of that.

Me too, shocking again today.

anton123

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1551
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #25 on March 26, 2022, 07:19:50 pm by anton123 »
Why would Carsley have been to Cantley Park? He has a job, a more important one than anything to do with Rovers, with England.

It truly was a pathetic turn of events that whole phone call thing.

He certainly has been to Cantley Park and the FA and Gareth Southgate utilise their contract with DRFC as part of his development too.
Haha that will be scrapped soon as we are the worst professional football club team in the country bar scunny, please sm tell the board to at least pull there heads out there ass and assess the mcsheffrey situation it’s becoming untenable

sedwardsdrfc

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4635
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #26 on March 26, 2022, 07:41:23 pm by sedwardsdrfc »
Carsley wants to get himself to cantles park more often then and Southgate can come while we’re at it.

Maybe his brief is to learn what not to do from GM and report back to the FA. Because we are terrible truly terrible so whatever me mentor is saying is either rubbish or it’s getting ignored

Draytonian III

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 5688
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #27 on March 26, 2022, 07:55:23 pm by Draytonian III »
So Richie ( the messiah ) Wellens has won a few matches at Leyton Orient, I’m pleased for the club as Peter Kitchen is involved there, but people on here shouldn’t kid themselves if he was still here we would be in a better position. Not a chance he caused more problems than enough when he was the manager

sedwardsdrfc

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 4635
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #28 on March 26, 2022, 07:59:09 pm by sedwardsdrfc »
I don’t think there many regrets in getting rid. I can’t believe we went with GM it’s set us up so badly for this summer. A manager who is already on thin ice is going to be giving out 2 year deals… to players identified by Younger. We might not come back up for years

Daniel_Smith

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 221
Re: Wellens v McSheffrey
« Reply #29 on March 27, 2022, 01:28:38 pm by Daniel_Smith »
Rovers are turning into Scunthorpe United. We're following their template to demise almost identically.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012