MindtheGab

I was using those two as an example of how players can play a key part of a promotion but still be let go as they are deemed not good enough for the level you've been promoted to. To be successful in the PL you have to be ruthless. And for clarity, I was talking specifically about Armstrong's situation last summer. He'd already proven then that he was not at the level required for PL, he lacks the physicality and technical ability to be effective. He should not have been relied on as much as he was in the first half of the season nor given a new contract. As said elsewhere, that was the time to cash in. This summer represents several new points of debate around Armstrong: Firstly, does he fit into Will Still's system? If not, then the rest is moot and we can move him on. Secondly, having now absolutely proven that he's not good enough to be a premier league player, does he have the required motivation and confidence to be as effective in the championship? His loan spell for WBA suggests maybe not. Thirdly, if we do use him on a "2-year cycle" as you put it, will we not just be in exactly the same position in 2 years time? In my opinion, he's still a very good championship player that deserves to play for promotion-chasing championship teams but unfortunately is not good enough to play in the league above. With that in mind, if he suits Will Still's system, we should keep him until we get promoted.

This tells you how much the club and fans' ambition has fallen in the past few years under Gao and SR ownership. Of course you can sell a player that has performed well in a league below once you get promoted. The circumstances have significantly changed especially the chasm of quality between Championship and the PL. One of our biggest problems last season was showing too much loyalty to players who unfortunately are not good enough for the EPL. When we were last promoted to the EPL, we identified in preseason players that wouldn't be good enough such as our team captain Dean Hammond and star January signing Billy Sharp. Both were loaned out in that summer window never to start a PL game for us. I don't remember that having an impact on their ability to perform in the championship nor our ability to stay up without them in the premier league

The post you've quoted was more of an opinion of why we chose Still over Rohl - I believe that the compensation required for Rohl (amount and complexity) was a factor. I quoted the other post because that's when I found out we had offered the job to Still. Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully I can add more snippets of information when I get it 😉

I think when it got down to these two, it's much of a muchness really. They're both high risk, high reward managers with a lot of potential. Rohl has a more distinguished coaching background but as a manager Still has more pedigree. Factor in the compensation required for Rohl and it makes sense why we'd go with Still. We were already interested in Still but his MNF appearance prompted follow ups from us and Leicester Still has been interested in a job in England for a while (turned down Sunderland a season or two ago?) and he attended our play off final last year, where he enjoyed the atmosphere created by the fans. FWIW, I don't know if we (or he) were ever interested but Cooper would have been my first choice. I don't mind a Still or Rohl but SR have got such little credit in the bank that whoever we get has to make a good start imo

Are we Still debating who it is going to be? 👀

It's Rohl vs Still