Will Still

[Badger]

17 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

i know some people liked the way he talked but I thought it was very amateurish.

curious what his previous team actually thought were his strengths. 

 

No idea why that might be. His interviews tended to be a slow motion wreckage. 

11 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

 

Still talked a good game with a pragmatic style but the job was too much.

 

Did he ?

I couldn’t see the attraction in the appointment when he was first linked, and any interviews reinforced my view that it seemed completely disjointed. Seemed quite a leap in faith to think he’d get coherent ideas across. Tonda has been a breath of fresh air by comparison. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Badger

[Toadhall Saint]

He was rubbish, we’ve moved on best result all round.

[Badger]

22 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

I think the job was too big for him (may well have been too big for Tonda too if he had come in the summer) 

 

16 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Agreed here. If Tonda was appointed in the summer there would have been a melt down on here. Myself included!

I wonder how quickly Tonda would have got Saints going if he was in charge in the summer. Either way he got time to assess the players etc during Stills tenure. 

 

It’s easy to just calculate the points we might have had if Tonda’s results are projected over the season but as you say, might not have worked that way. And his appointment would have been surprising.

Coming into a different  country and set up to get things going might have been too much at once. Instead of which he had a few months to see the club, settle and put his ideas in place.

Had he been appointed in the summer then, there would have been big questions asked. But personally I wouldn’t have found it much more underwhelming than Still. I’d have preferred Cleverley to Still, although Rohl had been my preferred option. 
 

(After a poor start Cleverley has turned Plymouth round. Fully expect he’ll be back in the Championship in the next couple of years with Argyle or elsewhere). 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

46 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't actually think he's a terrible manager 

I do. I saw nothing whatsoever during his time with us to suggest he's anything else.

The team looked completely unfit and disorganised, he had no idea how to use our two best attacking players Scienza and Azaz and frequently just dropped them completely, and his entire tactical vision seemed to be: winning = throw on more defenders to protect the lead; losing = chuck on loads of attackers and go 3-2-5 in a desperate attempt to score. 

I've seen teams better managed in my local park on a Sunday morning.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Agreed here. If Tonda was appointed in the summer there would have been a melt down on here. Myself included!

Still talked a good game with a pragmatic style but the job was too much.

I wonder how quickly Tonda would have got Saints going if he was in charge in the summer. Either way he got time to assess the players etc during Stills tenure. 

 

Maybe we needed the rock bottom but after hull in order for the reset and to change the mindset. Maybe he'd have had problems getting things sorted and maybe we'd have still got trash like Downs, loaning Bree and starting Bazunu which would have given him problems too.

[hypochondriac]

56 minutes ago, Badger said:

No idea why that might be. His interviews tended to be a slow motion wreckage. 

Did he ?

I couldn’t see the attraction in the appointment when he was first linked, and any interviews reinforced my view that it seemed completely disjointed. Seemed quite a leap in faith to think he’d get coherent ideas across. Tonda has been a breath of fresh air by comparison. 

Not sure I agree with that. His YouTube videos and things when he was talking in French made him seem quite direct and interesting. If he was successful everyone would love the way he talked, like how Tonda is actually really odd and his interviews are largely crap but no one cares because he's very successful. They'd be hating what he's like if he was losing.

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I do. I saw nothing whatsoever during his time with us to suggest he's anything else.

The team looked completely unfit and disorganised, he had no idea how to use our two best attacking players Scienza and Azaz and frequently just dropped them completely, and his entire tactical vision seemed to be: winning = throw on more defenders to protect the lead; losing = chuck on loads of attackers and go 3-2-5 in a desperate attempt to score. 

I've seen teams better managed in my local park on a Sunday morning.

Plenty of evidence at other clubs that he's a half decent manager even if he didn't show much during his brief tenure here. I would suggest he probably missed his regular support staff and wasn't experienced enough to handle the job largely on his own.