Utter rubbish On 19 December 2011 11:55, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mick took on the role knowing what resources were available and what > (unrealistically) high expectations there are the club. He didn't have to > take the job and if he didn't think we could compete in the premier league > he shouldn't have got us promoted. > > Out of interest, anyone know what the wage bills are for Norwich or > Swansea? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19/12/2011, at 10:37 AM, Steven Millward <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So we're agreed that the team isn't good enough, but given the club's wage > policy it's not Mick's fault. I'm sure you'll agree that we are where we > should expect to be in the league? > > Given that player quality accounts for 90% of final league position, with > the remaining 10% being down to luck, club structure, back room set up, > youth academy and manager, then we're talking about maybe 3% being down to > Mick. > > It seems irrational to me to blame Mick for something that it barely his > responsibility. Is it a cultural thing? That football fans revert to > blaming the manager because it's seen as the thing to do to appear > knowledgeable. Or is it a form of denial of the facts because the facts > are too unpleasant to accept? > > You link two points together that don't seem to be linked. > > Firstly that the team should be improving? Why is this? What should > Wolves be doing that will make their team improve relative to every other > team? Monkey glands? Spiritual healers? > > Secondly, that the squad should have been strengthened. Mick reflects > club policy. I'm sure he'd like to have a load of players on 80 grand a > week but he can't. > > If someone you work with focussed on something that you knew had very > little impact on performance (say 3%), and ignored the things that you knew > did have an impact on performance (say 90%), how would you view him? > > > On 19 December 2011 10:08, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> >> *UNCLASSIFIED* >> Well in my opinion, Mick's team isn't good enough. Mick's tactics aren't >> good enough. I and I think many many others think Mick is out of his depth >> in the PL. >> >> Who knows, our squad may be capable of much more under a better manager. >> Its also possible that Mick has got this bunch punching well above there >> weight and they will be even worse with another manager....we just don't >> know, there lies the risk. >> >> What I do know is, the team should be showing more improvement, the squad >> should have been stregthened more. We all shudder everytime Mick says he >> doesn't need to sign more / better players because he's happy with "his" >> squad. >> >> Its Mick's fault we are not improving. Thats the bottom line. .... >> >> *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of >> Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act >> 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to >> contact the sender and delete the email. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 09:01 >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> How can I explain this more clearly. >> >> 90% of the results are down to the quality of players >> We have the fourth worst players in the league. >> We have no right to finish above where we currently sit >> If we look bad in matches it's because we are playing against better >> players >> >> Why do you keep saying its all Mick's fault? >> >> >> On 19 December 2011 09:55, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ** >>> >>> *UNCLASSIFIED* >>> To be fair, Steve Morgan needs to address the situation too. >>> >>> Wolves perfromances on the pitch have shown little or no improvement, >>> the manager has to be responsible for that. >>> >>> The big fear for me is, we change managers and still get relegated, and >>> so it all starts again. >>> >>> *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of >>> Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act >>> 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to >>> contact the sender and delete the email. >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >>> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >>> *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 08:35 >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>> >>> Anyone read Soccernomics? I've read extracts but I've just ordered >>> it. The author says that 90% of Premier league position is down to wages. >>> >>> I really don't understand why Mick is the scapegoat. He has the fourth >>> cheapest wage bill and the team is fourth from bottom. >>> >>> If the fans really cared they'd offer to pay double the season ticket >>> price to fund better players. >>> >>> Hmmm. >>> >>> >>> On 19 December 2011 09:04, Paul Crowe <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Spoke to me Dad last night, who is a season ticket holder in the Steve >>>> Bull, >>>> apparently Tuesday night against Norwich could be the "last chance >>>> saloon >>>> game" for MM. He reckons another loss would see the fans turn against >>>> him on >>>> mass! >>>> >>>> Paul Crowe >>>> Sales Manager - Asia Pacific >>>> >>>> ConTech (Sydney Office) >>>> >>>> PO Box 3517 >>>> Rhodes Waterside >>>> Rhodes NSW 2138 >>>> Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 >>>> Mob: 0406009562 >>>> Email: [email protected] >>>> Website: www.contechengineering.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf >>>> Of Morris, Lee SGT >>>> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 8:01 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >>>> >>>> UNCLASSIFIED >>>> >>>> Apparrantly the fans left him alone this week. >>>> >>>> My season ticket holding mate seems to think many fans are resigned to >>>> the fact that his job is safe, but that can change very quickly. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf Of Paul Hart >>>> Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2011 06:55 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >>>> >>>> Did MM get any abuse ? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 18/12/2011, at 4:22 AM, "paul " <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > At least Doyle scored. >>>> > >>>> > Sent via BlackBerry(r) from Telstra >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: "mark worrall" <[email protected]> >>>> > Sender: [email protected] >>>> > Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:05:48 >>>> > To: <[email protected]> >>>> > Reply-To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >>>> > >>>> > Passing is atrocious. Henry needs to stop the 50 yard speculative >>>> > passes that go straight to Stoke players. Even the short easy passes >>>> > are going to their players. >>>> > >>>> > Stoke are the dirtiest team in the league. Nasty tackles, elbows, >>>> > shoving, etc even makes Berra look ok. I hope McCarthy calls them for >>>> > who they really are. And the tactics won them the match in the 2nd >>>> half. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> > Behalf Of Marcus Chantry >>>> > Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2011 2:36 AM >>>> > To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Anyone watching? >>>> > >>>> > Bad scoreline now and we're creating nothing. >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPhone >>>> > >>>> > On 18/12/2011, at 3:03 AM, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Good scoreline but quality of game could be better, especially the >>>> > crossing. Fletcher hasn't been in the game which is surprising. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence >>>> and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. >>>> If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact >>>> the sender and delete the email. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>> >>> -- >>> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >>> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out. >> > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
