Schofield

[Alan Southstand]

He’s just another inexperienced manager!

[steve@dcfd]

Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game

Last season for Hartlepool he scored 12 goals in 55 league and cup games. A one off season or we are not playing in positions where he can score. He is the biggest disappointment of this season. His record in the National league was not good either. Let’s hope we can get more out of him playing wide of a front three is not working for him or the team.

[rover-n-out]

I would love it, really love it, if the club would allow a select few (3 or 4) members of this forum, who obviously have been around the game in one capacity or another, to sit down with Danny and Copps, and discuss the way our team is set up tactically.
The amount of technical knowledge and understanding of the game from some posters on here is very impressive (to me, that is), and I would love them to have the opportunity to have a face to face with our HoF and Head Coach just to sit down and discuss things the way that some of you can see from the stands, that you feel the management can't. I don't profess to understand the technicalities of how to set a team up, I just enjoy watching good football.
Just a very informative meeting, all very amicable of course! Is that too much to ask from the club?
Probably never been done by any other club either!!

[Campsall rover]

Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game

Last season for Hartlepool he scored 12 goals in 55 league and cup games. A one off season or we are not playing in positions where he can score. He is the biggest disappointment of this season. His record in the National league was not good either. Let’s hope we can get more out of him playing wide of a front three is not working for him or the team.

Jeff Stelling was amazed he didn’t go to a league 1 club.
Yes he has been the biggest disappointment this season of all the players who came in since our relegation.
Has shown flashes of what he can do. Not been anywhere near the player he was last season for Hartlepool.
Lacking in confidence it seems. We need to get him firing because like Hurst he can be a match winner with both assists and goals.

[ForsolongaRover]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

[Campsall rover]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

What he says to the media and what he says to the players in the changing room will be totally different.
He isn’t going to go into detail or discuss tactics in depth in any interviews.

[Lesonthewest]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

Some more than valid points there, we shall see what happens in the coming weeks. His record, whatever his words are, is not great.

[ForsolongaRover]

Campsall: Whilst I cannot refute what you say, is it not the case that what anyone says in public defines the way in which they wish their audience to see them? In the  case of a football team where it is in a manager’s interest to encourage the fans, they surely shape their comments to foster the belief that the fortunes of their team will improve. That is part of their job – PR.

I accept that the relationship between what people say in public and in private cannot be deduced accurately, but public statements define what you want your audience to believe about how you do your job.

It is difficult to know why Schofield would disguise or would choose to disguise his style of management or the terms in which he expresses how he approaches his role. The way he comes over fails to convince me that he has the depth of understanding to convert the theory into practice. If performances begin to improve I will be open to persuasion that I am wrong, but (to use possibly a refined version of his language) the combination of outcomes and obvious failures in execution points to a failure thus far.

[Canadian Rover]

I think it's when and how the interviews are done that place a limit on the answers. They aren't 30 minute press conferences like Pep and Klopp get. They are answer this in 30 seconds or less so we can post out some clickbait stuff from local press. Very little requests to elaborate on answers or points to specific sections of the game.

The same applies to player interviews; The way that Hurst spoke led me to think we'd had a really good game (not losing 4-1 to a traditional rival) but it's all cliched media training answers to bog standard questions.

Not a true reflection on them as people or their understanding of the game.

[dickos1]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place

[Campsall rover]

I am concerned though dickos. I am not convinced Schofield is our next SOD.
The benefit SOD had was he ad ROK as his right hand man.
He was a very good coach and motivator. 

Who has DS got helping him. Some fairly inexperienced coaches regarding EFL experience. That’s putting it mildly.

Having said that we must give DS time as I keep repeating.
He does though need to learn quickly that Miller is not going to be the answer playing up front on his own.
If he doesn’t start Lavery up with him on Saturday then I am seriously worried about his management.

[ForsolongaRover]

Schofield is the lynchpin, so his performance is the key to our fortunes. So how he views the play, and its quality and in this recent case, his solutions to failure, match by match, are key to what we are about in this forum, so I cannot apologise for my focus. He is not inspiring.

Others may imagine that he is a different man in private. I cannot say I listen to all the interviews with his players, but I do not recall much that they have said about Schofield, the man, nor do I recall anything that they tell us about how he does his job. Saying that he must be different on the training ground seems speculative. He must be a bit different because he has to translate the pages of the Training Manual into things that should be happening on the pitch.

It is too early to suggest he be dismissed and maybe he can get the right messages across in his coaching sessions to get us back on track, but why doesn’t he let us in on how he is tackling this day to day at the training ground? And get people on his side, be more forthcoming. The whole purpose of opening up your thinking to the media is to encourage fans and inform them and I do not think many people can be content with what they are getting from him. He needs time, but give those who go to games, home and away, something to convince them that he “gets it” and is working really hard to put things right.

And Campsall, I agree with you. Richard O’Kelly was the perfect foil to SOD. Why don’t we hear more from DS’s assistants - and we get less from Copps now than when he was playing.

[Alan Southstand]

Is Copps still at the Club?

[Chris Black come back]

Hate to break it to people but if SOD was operating on the relative budget we have now, we would not have been at Wembley beating Leeds.

He was a great manager but he was able to recruit real talent. Even SOD would struggle with the lads we have now. It’s a world away and not a credible scenario.

I don’t think we should be spending hugely or aiming for the Championship but it’s surely not beyond the wit of the club to get us back to being a competitive League One side on our current resources.

[BillyStubbsTears]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place

For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)

With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.

That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.

[elmsallrover]

Just won't do it

[pib]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place

For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)

With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.

That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.

He's not going to do it with the type of signings we've brought in so far.

[Cramby10]

To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.

What did  he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"

On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments". 

You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence -  with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score". 

You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players? 

Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.

You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place

For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)

With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.

That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.

I was going to mention the players SOD inherited. It was a team of functional mesters with a real spine that knew their jobs and played simple football put together by a manager that probably reflected that. You could liken that to Wenger also who inherited a core of Seaman, Adams, Keown, Dixon Winterburn, Bould, Parlour, Wright and Bergkamp. The point I’m trying to make is, would they have had their success if those squads were not inherited to build on? This is why I think DS is totally the wrong man at the wrong time. We need someone who is pragmatic and can steady the ship by assembling a squad of mesters and plug the gaps. If your ship is taking on water you block the hole before putting up the sails and paddling like hell. We’re trying to run before we can walk in my opinion. It’s all well and good trying to play fancy football when we can’t keep the ball out of the net at our end. (Not that we’re scoring many either like). It’s just as an important part of the game and we’re shipping in nigh on 2 a game. They always say start at the back.
I hope we can turn it around but I don’t see it really.

[colincramb]

I agree with the above. It’s not a league for fancy football - look at Stevenage. It’s about being organised, solid and hard to beat. We aren’t any of those things. Teams probably relish coming to our place - I mean why wouldn’t you? Lovely surroundings, great pitch, one of (if not) best stadiums in the league, a warm welcome from our family friendly club and a soft bellied touch of a team. Perfect storm

[NickDRFC]

I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!

[i_ateallthepies]

Get Dean Saunders back to do our recruitment for next season and we might start getting somewhere.

[Cramby10]

I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!

you know what I’m saying. He weren’t afraid to leave the elbow in by the way.

[Thorney]

I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!

you know what I’m saying. He weren’t afraid to leave the elbow in by the way.

Bergkamp was a stylish player who knew how to mix it when needed. Defenders knew that they wouldnt be able to bully Dennis out of the game

[BillyStubbsTears]

It feels like we need a Billy Bremner type figure. Bremner twice inherited a club in crisis with bloody awful squads. Twice he went right back to basics. Mesters, pace, physical presence.

[steve@dcfd]

It feels like we need a Billy Bremner type figure. Bremner twice inherited a club in crisis with bloody awful squads. Twice he went right back to basics. Mesters, pace, physical presence.

A permanent Manager who will sort the club out and does not accept nonsense from below and above. That doesn’t accept second or third best. If that means no HOF then so be it.

[jmt23]

DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.

We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.

He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.

[since-1969]

DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.

We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.

He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.

What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against  or is this potential based on what ?

[Campsall rover]

DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.

We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.

He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.

What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against  or is this potential based on what ?

So Copps is an idiot. He has brought in a coach who is not very good!

He did his homework. Spent time at Huddersfield watching and learning how they did things. 
DS obviously impressed him.

[sedwardsdrfc]

DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.

We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.

He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.

What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against  or is this potential based on what ?

By that logic there never be any new managers. He’s worked with some top coaches at top clubs learning the trade. They all said good things about him.

Yes doesn’t make him a great manager but look at Arteta he was in a similar boat and given time has got his team playing, it’s not as simple as experience = success.

there’s a big difference between the CV of McSheffery to DS. If DS was inexperienced then McSheffery was a toddler in comparison.

[ForsolongaRover]

Most managers will do better if they can get hold of better players than their predecessor. If a manager is better than his predecessor he should be able to make more of the existing players and do a good deal better with a few additions of his own choice, so might we hope for some improvement before all 11 are replaced?