Jump to content

Off topic discussions (split from Transfer Summer 2021)


historyman

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KillieBus said:

When I see some of the comments on Steve Clarke's time here, it makes me think that we didn't really deserve to have him at the club.

Think the overwhelming majority of Killie fans would find a few comments in this thread a tad bizarre, but each to their own

SC’s time at our club will always be up there with so many other high points in the decades I’ve been supporting our club 

 

Edited by Scouser2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


legacy: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor:

 

Clarke handed things down and within a few years we relegated.

talk of great managers and you talk about what they built long term. Simple fact is nothing but turmoil was built long term. That turmoil resulted in relegation. 
 

Tommy Burns got us promoted and helped build a foundation for the club in the premier leugue. Now that is a legacy. 
 

Alex Totten got to invest money and brought in top players and regularly qualified for Europe. Williamson took over and won a Scottish cup with a few home grown players thrown in. 
 

These managers left something worthwhile behind to build on. Clarke left nothing but a European spot. Good achievement and worthy of long term admiration. 
 

but what was passed down after leer to a shambles and a relegation. That is not a debate, that is a fact. He did not get us relegated but the legacy of his time at the club was a major part of it. Dyer would never be in charge other wise. Players would not be having dressing room revolts and their commitment questioned. 
 

Legacy is what you hand down, not what you did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bgb02burns said:

Alex Totten got to invest money and brought in top players and regularly qualified for Europe. Williamson took over and won a Scottish cup with a few home grown players thrown in. 
 

Alex Totten didn't qualify for Europe, he finished 8th, 7th and 7th in the 10 team league format and left when we were looking like getting relegated, having spent more in transfer fees than any manager in our history before or since.  Williamson took over and we survived on the final (penultimate?) day and rebuilt a fair amount of the team in the close season after winning the cup, so I'm not sure what Totten legacy you're remembering there.

Williamson then left when the board had to start stripping back the budget due to the loss of the "SPL TV" deal that the old firm screwed over the rest of the league on, and Jefferies was left with a downsizing job to do.  Not Williamson's fault of course, he felt he'd done all he could with us, but given you expect managers to be responsible for their own succession for some reason, it would only seem fair you should blame him for that too.

Clarke left us the core of a decent but old side that needed careful rebuilding over probably 3 or 4 transfer windows.  Alessio came in and had us having, at the very least, a perfectly comfortable season built on an exceptionally miserly defence, all of whom (the starters) were relatively young and all going relatively strong today (all for other teams), so Clarke's "legacy of relegation" may be a fact (certainly not a simple one), but just because relegation followed, doesn't make him anywhere close to the primary cause.

If Clarke had a genuine fault, it was allegedly recommending Dyer for the job in the immediate aftermath of him leaving.  I can only assume he was still steaming from celebrating his new job at the time.

Edited by Lorielus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

Clarke left us the core of a decent but old side...

I agree with most of your post but he left us with some young players with potential and others in their prime: O'Donnell (27), Findlay (23), Taylor (21), Power (30), Brophy (23)....

Dicker (31) and Burke (35) had at least one more good season left in them.

Heavy reliance on the loan market meant that Bachmann, Tshibola, McAleny and Millar left but it shouldn't have been beyond the wit of a decent manager, with the board's backing, to fashion a Top Six team.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, skygod said:

I agree with most of your post but he left us with some young players with potential and others in their prime: O'Donnell (27), Findlay (23), Taylor (21), Power (30), Brophy (23)....

Dicker (31) and Burke (35) had at least one more good season left in them.

Heavy reliance on the loan market meant that Bachmann, Tshibola, McAleny and Millar left but it shouldn't have been beyond the wit of a decent manager, with the board's backing, to fashion a Top Six team.

 

 

Fair point - somehow I always think of Taylor having gone by then for some reason.

It was really the midfield and of course Broadfoot that needed to be rejuvenated, though of course it would have been preferable for us to do it as naturally and phase them out for younger players over time rather than us holding onto them (or bizarrely signing them again in the case of Broadfoot) and then dumping them all at once (even if we hadn't been relegated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KillieBus said:

When I see some of the comments on Steve Clarke's time here, it makes me think that we didn't really deserve to have him at the club.

When I see how easily a couple of positive results, prevent fans from seeing the bigger picture, it makes me wonder if we really deserve to have a club. 
 

Take the name Steve Clarke out of the equation and ask yourself -

1. Do we as a club need to promote youth? 
2. Should our squad need to rely so heavily on the loan market?

3. Do we want evolution or revolution every year when it comes to putting a team on the park? 
4. Should so many of our key positions be filled by players at the wrong end of their careers?

Literally nobody is saying we didn’t enjoy the ride with SC in charge, but a manager should be judged on more than just their results, but if that is the only measure you want to focus on, you can’t ignore the ultimate result…we didn’t win anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorro said:

When I see how easily a couple of positive results, prevent fans from seeing the bigger picture, it makes me wonder if we really deserve to have a club. 
 

Take the name Steve Clarke out of the equation and ask yourself -

1. Do we as a club need to promote youth? 
2. Should our squad need to rely so heavily on the loan market?

3. Do we want evolution or revolution every year when it comes to putting a team on the park? 
4. Should so many of our key positions be filled by players at the wrong end of their careers?

Literally nobody is saying we didn’t enjoy the ride with SC in charge, but a manager should be judged on more than just their results, but if that is the only measure you want to focus on, you can’t ignore the ultimate result…we didn’t win anything.

While I absolutely agree a club should always be about more than results, I disagree that it's the manager's job to define that identity.  As managers are transitory just as players are, it should be up to the board  and head of football operations (hopefully in coversations with, but not wholly reliant on, fan associations/trusts) to define what the club's values should be by answering those kinds of questions you've posed above, and then the board/HoFO should be clear on what they expect managers to deliver when they hire them and what support they'll have.

That, however, is obviously with the huge caveat that I've no idea what, if any, relevant conversations have taken place between the board/HoFO and any manager we've ever had.

Edited by Lorielus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorro said:

When I see how easily a couple of positive results, prevent fans from seeing the bigger picture, it makes me wonder if we really deserve to have a club. 
 

Take the name Steve Clarke out of the equation and ask yourself -

1. Do we as a club need to promote youth? 
2. Should our squad need to rely so heavily on the loan market?

3. Do we want evolution or revolution every year when it comes to putting a team on the park? 
4. Should so many of our key positions be filled by players at the wrong end of their careers?

Literally nobody is saying we didn’t enjoy the ride with SC in charge, but a manager should be judged on more than just their results, but if that is the only measure you want to focus on, you can’t ignore the ultimate result…we didn’t win anything.

Suppose you can only promote youth if there’s any talent to promote?

clarke did rely on the more experienced heads and loans but he did use likes of Taylor regularly but he was another level. Frizzell and Wilson got runouts aswell but where are they now? 
Kiltie was deemed not good enough now doesn’t get a game with st mirren.

club needs to be doing better at recruitment firstly then pushing for first team involvement. Problem is Tommy wright will have these boys on the bench but they won’t get a game unless we’re cruising, season is too important. That being said likes of warnock maybe could get a start instead of Murray and not make a massive difference to overall quality.

Hopefully we’re a few points clear in the league and we can get the boys a runout and see what they’re made of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lorielus said:

While I absolutely agree a club should always be about more than results, I disagree that it's the manager's job to define that identity.  As managers are transitory just as players are, it should be up to the board  and head of football operations (hopefully in coversations with, but not wholly reliant on, fan associations/trusts) to define what the club's values should be by answering those kinds of questions you've posed above, and then the board/HoFO should be clear on what they expect managers to deliver when they hire them and what support they'll have.

That, however, is obviously with the huge caveat that I've no idea what, if any, relevant conversations have taken place between the board/HoFO and any manager we've ever had.

Unless you want the board or HoFO picking the team or choosing which players we sign, ultimately it’s always going to be the manager who defines the identity of the team. It would be hugely destabilising for the club if we sacked a manager anytime they didn’t play x% of players under the age of 21 or if the board assembled the squad and foisted it on the manager. Just look at how successful lumbering a manager with an assistant worked out for us. 
 

Of course the board should try and employ a manager whose vision for the club matches their own. However SC could have said he wanted a medium term project, to bring success back to the club, with an experienced core of players, bolstered by youngsters and feel he achieved those aims. Someone else might think, that’s not what I thought he meant. I thought the youngsters would be ours, I thought medium term was longer than 18 months. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, PrestersKtid said:

Suppose you can only promote youth if there’s any talent to promote?

clarke did rely on the more experienced heads and loans but he did use likes of Taylor regularly but he was another level. Frizzell and Wilson got runouts aswell but where are they now? 
Kiltie was deemed not good enough now doesn’t get a game with st mirren.

club needs to be doing better at recruitment firstly then pushing for first team involvement. Problem is Tommy wright will have these boys on the bench but they won’t get a game unless we’re cruising, season is too important. That being said likes of warnock maybe could get a start instead of Murray and not make a massive difference to overall quality.

Hopefully we’re a few points clear in the league and we can get the boys a runout and see what they’re made of. 

You’re never going to know if they’re good enough until you play them. SC brought in some utter dross who blocked a pathway to training with the first team and perhaps ultimately playing in the first team. Would Taylor have made the breakthrough in that type of environment? We will never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bgb02burns said:


legacy: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor:

 

Clarke handed things down and within a few years we relegated.

talk of great managers and you talk about what they built long term. Simple fact is nothing but turmoil was built long term. That turmoil resulted in relegation. 
 

Tommy Burns got us promoted and helped build a foundation for the club in the premier leugue. Now that is a legacy. 
 

Alex Totten got to invest money and brought in top players and regularly qualified for Europe. Williamson took over and won a Scottish cup with a few home grown players thrown in. 
 

These managers left something worthwhile behind to build on. Clarke left nothing but a European spot. Good achievement and worthy of long term admiration. 
 

but what was passed down after leer to a shambles and a relegation. That is not a debate, that is a fact. He did not get us relegated but the legacy of his time at the club was a major part of it. Dyer would never be in charge other wise. Players would not be having dressing room revolts and their commitment questioned. 
 

Legacy is what you hand down, not what you did. 

Like saying Alex Ferguson’s legacy was Man Utd losing in the cup this midweek. Clarke gave us an enormous platform to build from. Put us in a better position to attract quality than we’ve had for a generation. More money, more supporters, Europe, international players. Club f**ked it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zorro said:

You’re never going to know if they’re good enough until you play them. SC brought in some utter dross who blocked a pathway to training with the first team and perhaps ultimately playing in the first team. Would Taylor have made the breakthrough in that type of environment? We will never know. 

100% you’ll never know but I suppose that’s what the loan system is for. 
this season we need to get promotion so the manager isn’t going to go with inexperienced unproven players unless they are a special talent. 
If we were mid table championship regulars then it would be forced upon us to use youth more. With retaining a high budget compared to the rest we’re able to bring in ready made players. Signing 19 year old youth players from English sides though isn’t probably the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PrestersKtid said:

100% you’ll never know but I suppose that’s what the loan system is for. 
this season we need to get promotion so the manager isn’t going to go with inexperienced unproven players unless they are a special talent. 
If we were mid table championship regulars then it would be forced upon us to use youth more. With retaining a high budget compared to the rest we’re able to bring in ready made players. Signing 19 year old youth players from English sides though isn’t probably the best.

Hamilton got promoted while still bringing through youth players. St Johnstone did it. I can’t be bothered looking but Hearts probably did it too. It’s a choice. It just needs a manager willing to make theses brave decisions. It needs a manager willing to put the future  of the club before their own future/reputation. These decisions reveal the true character of the manager. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...