Lennon or Lemon?

y2johnny wrote:he's bigger than clough and clayton.  probably put together, so not lightweight.

He looks a big enough lad for his age but as his detractors will point out, it's a different ballgame playing with the big lumps at this level.

wanderlust wrote:
This is just utter bollocks.
It took Bruce two years to create a team playing in the 3rd and 2nd tiers to drive the momentum towards promotion culminating in the Reading playoff in his third year. Great days but the fact is that we were at a lower level AND more importantly he was given time. And money where required.

Which is the case with all the successful managers we've had. Just look how much time and money Fat Sam was given.

There's a direct correlation between success and the manager being given time and money.
Conversely, every time we've sacked the manager for going through a bad patch recently, the next one hasn't improved things. Because the state of the club hasn't changed and we still can't give them money - but we could give them time.

Your whole argument seems to be that it's all about money. If that's the case why bother with a manager, surely an accountant would be a better option?

Lennon might not have had the millions that Megson, Fat Sam & Coyle had, but he's had money even if it's only been to tempt free transfers. How many of Lennon's signings are worth more now than when we signed them? How many have looked good players? I'd say only Amos could be sold for hard cash at this moment.

If Lennon is so great he'd be able to pull a few rabbits out of hats like Rioch and Fat Sam did long before they got us to the Premier League.

A manager's role is to improve the players he has and mould them into a team. Are we any better than when Dougie left? I'd say not much if at all.

I'm 95% behind Neil for now..... agreeing with most on here that his hands are tied. You can shout and scream all you want at a donkey.....it's still a donkey.
Our players are mostly outcasts and freebies that nobody else wants.  Not the players fault or the managers.  Survive relegation and hope to sell the club soon. That's that.

Backing Lennon, generally we look a better team when we have the ball certainly than we did with Double. If we can rediscover our early season resilience at the back we'll be OK.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
This is just utter bollocks.
It took Bruce two years to create a team playing in the 3rd and 2nd tiers to drive the momentum towards promotion culminating in the Reading playoff in his third year. Great days but the fact is that we were at a lower level AND more importantly he was given time. And money where required.

Which is the case with all the successful managers we've had. Just look how much time and money Fat Sam was given.

There's a direct correlation between success and the manager being given time and money.
Conversely, every time we've sacked the manager for going through a bad patch recently, the next one hasn't improved things. Because the state of the club hasn't changed and we still can't give them money - but we could give them time.

Your whole argument seems to be that it's all about money. 

If you'd bothered to read what I wrote you'd see that I'm saying the opposite i.e. I accept we have no money to give but we could show a little patience and give our managers more time.

Moreover you suggest that (part of) the manager's role is to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal so how is he supposed to do that if he isn't given sufficient time to do it?

Looking forward to reading your definition of "sufficient"....

wanderlust wrote:


Moreover you suggest that (part of) the manager's role is to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal so how is he supposed to do that if he isn't given sufficient time to do it?

Fair enough, but it works both ways. How long are you supposed to give a manager without a little bit of improvement?

He's had 12 months to stamp his authority on this team, and the truth is we are probably no better than when Dougie was fired. And worse, absolutely no hope or potential for the future.

It's hard to improve when you are asking girls to the prom, and they all turn you down.  We had more players turn Lennon down than we brought in. Of course that is a reflection of a team in disarray not only on the field, but in ownership.  The longer this goes on, the worse the situation will be.  I think Lennon is the best we can do, and it is certainly a challenge for him.  His passion needs to be imparted upon the deadheads who stop playing in the final few minutes.  It's hard to stick a boot up someone's rear when there are few or no replacements available.

observer wrote:It's hard to improve when you are asking girls to the prom, and they all turn you down. 

What has your past got to do with BWFC?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:


Moreover you suggest that (part of) the manager's role is to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal so how is he supposed to do that if he isn't given sufficient time to do it?

Fair enough, but it works both ways. How long are you supposed to give a manager without a little bit of improvement?

He's had 12 months to stamp his authority on this team, and the truth is we are probably no better than when Dougie was fired. And worse, absolutely no hope or potential for the future.

It's a good question and the answer is complicated.
Worst case scenario is we're already seeing the best of these players i.e. that's it and we can expect nothing further. Personally, I don't believe that's true but I don't see them in training every day. If it were to be true, then our only hope is that the youth and development squads have the potential to be better in which case I would have thought 3 years before we can expect to see a turnaround.
Lennon has brought in some youngsters and I would have thought that their development would be the benchmark of his success or failure. Not particularly impressed with his performance on that score as yet but it will take time TBF.

It's a grim situation, but I think that changing the manager again would make things a lot worse. Even if we get relegated under Lennon I'd still like to stick with him if only to see his l-t plan come to fruition but we all know that a new manager would tear that up and start over again from scratch.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:


Moreover you suggest that (part of) the manager's role is to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal so how is he supposed to do that if he isn't given sufficient time to do it?

Fair enough, but it works both ways. How long are you supposed to give a manager without a little bit of improvement?

He's had 12 months to stamp his authority on this team, and the truth is we are probably no better than when Dougie was fired. And worse, absolutely no hope or potential for the future.

It's a good question and the answer is complicated.
Worst case scenario is we're already seeing the best of these players i.e. that's it and we can expect nothing further. Personally, I don't believe that's true but I don't see them in training every day. If it were to be true, then our only hope is that the youth and development squads have the potential to be better in which case I would have thought 3 years before we can expect to see a turnaround.
Lennon has brought in some youngsters and I would have thought that their development would be the benchmark of his success or failure. Not particularly impressed with his performance on that score as yet but it will take time TBF.

It's a grim situation, but I think that changing the manager again would make things a lot worse. Even if we get relegated under Lennon I'd still like to stick with him if only to see his l-t plan come to fruition but we all know that a new manager would tear that up and start over again from scratch.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:


Moreover you suggest that (part of) the manager's role is to get the best out of the players he has at his disposal so how is he supposed to do that if he isn't given sufficient time to do it?

Fair enough, but it works both ways. How long are you supposed to give a manager without a little bit of improvement?

He's had 12 months to stamp his authority on this team, and the truth is we are probably no better than when Dougie was fired. And worse, absolutely no hope or potential for the future.

We are definitely more positive with the ball and create more chances than we ever did under Dougie. Just need players to put the chances away.