Did Relegation Work Out For The Best?

[LondonBristolian]

and let's not forget many went further in their deliberations and claiming the end as I said earlier to the 5 pillars under SC (i'm glad you mentioned the 5 pillars in one of your posts).

 

They did indeed.  Sorry I didn't acknowledge your point on that earlier but you're quite right - there was a hell of a lot of nonsense about it being a complete volte-face whereas, as it turns out the 5 pillars have stayed and have worked.

 

Incidentally, I decided to have a google to find the original thread where SOD got sacked.  I didn't find it but instead found this (after the Sheffield United) and was interested to see who made post number 10 telling people (quite rightly) to forget SOD and accept SC was our manager now:

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/161014-sod-cotterill-bcfc-fans-and-cold-hard-facts/

[22A]

Two years ago there was a thread on this forum; "Relegation to League 1 won't be so bad". Some agreed and others disagreed with the post.

 

Has anyone who agreed with it then since changed their mind?

[Aizoon]

They did indeed. Sorry I didn't acknowledge your point on that earlier but you're quite right - there was a hell of a lot of nonsense about it being a complete volte-face whereas, as it turns out the 5 pillars have stayed and have worked.

Incidentally, I decided to have a google to find the original thread where SOD got sacked. I didn't find it but instead found this (after the Sheffield United) and was interested to see who made post number 10 telling people (quite rightly) to forget SOD and accept SC was our manager now:

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/161014-sod-cotterill-bcfc-fans-and-cold-hard-facts/

And I was right to say it. I doesn't mean we can't look back with hindsight at where we've come from. My admiration for SC is unbounded. We can still assess how we got here though.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

They did indeed.  Sorry I didn't acknowledge your point on that earlier but you're quite right - there was a hell of a lot of nonsense about it being a complete volte-face whereas, as it turns out the 5 pillars have stayed and have worked.

 

Incidentally, I decided to have a google to find the original thread where SOD got sacked.  I didn't find it but instead found this (after the Sheffield United) and was interested to see who made post number 10 telling people (quite rightly) to forget SOD and accept SC was our manager now:

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/161014-sod-cotterill-bcfc-fans-and-cold-hard-facts/

 

Aizoon to be fair is a very pragmatic poster and I would expect nothing different from him, myself and virtually everybody knows and accepts that Millen, DMC and SOD started the 'off field stuff' it's undeniable and I am struggling to find any poster that doesn't agree with that premise, which seems to be yours and Aizoon's argument here.

 

Here's SOD sacked pre SC appointment.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/159415-sacking-left-me-feeling-ashamed/

[AshtonGreat]

Let's not forget that, in the main, people were delighted at the appointment of SOD and few wanted Cotterill.  The people advocating Cotterill didn't say very much at all because so few of them existed and, even those who were okay with his appointment, didn't want him as their first choice.  On top of which, the general consensus seemed to be the board was rushing to a decision without considering other options. 

 

Kudos to Lansdown for having the balls to stick to his guns and make such an unpopular appointment with the confidence it would work.

 

To be fair, I think Lansdown had exhausted most of the other available options. There wasn't much left to choose from. 

 

I've no doubt that the likes of Burt and Pemberton have played key roles in our success, but Millen, McInnes and SOD? No chance. They all proved to be utterly inept at managing the first team, so why would anyone think they were so instrumental in improving other aspects of the club? 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This is a doozy.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/151776-the-welcome-steve-cottrell-thread/

 

But this is probably the one that you are really looking for.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/159469-steve-cotterill-merged-poll/

[LondonBristolian]

To be fair, I think Lansdown had exhausted most of the other available options. There wasn't much left to choose from. 

 

I've no doubt that the likes of Burt and Pemberton have played key roles in our success, but Millen, McInnes and SOD? No chance. They all proved to be utterly inept at managing the first team, so why would anyone think they were so instrumental in improving other aspects of the club? 

 

Why would anyone assume they weren't?  In any job, people are going to be better at some things than others so "someone is bad at x there they must be bad at y" doesn't cut it as a rational argument.

[AshtonGreat]

Why would anyone assume they weren't?  In any job, people are going to be better at some things than others so "someone is bad at x there they must be bad at y" doesn't cut it as a rational argument.

 

But equally, why would anyone assume they were? I'm not putting you down, I am just curious as to what evidence there is to suggest those people made a contribution. 

[LondonBristolian]

But equally, why would anyone assume they were? I'm not putting you down, I am just curious as to what evidence there is to suggest those people made a contribution. 

 

In McInnes' case, the fact that there were interviews and articles at the time about the fact he was overhauling the youth and coaching system.  And, not longer afterwards, we suddenly went from a point where we had only produced James Wilson and Christian "glass ankles" Ribeiro in ten years to a point where we had a highly-rated youth set-up, three of whom were knocking on the door of the first team (even if two of them are yet to prove they can make it).

 

In SOD's case, the fact Pemberton and Burt followed him from Forest soon afterwards and we started to move out the overpaid players on long contracts and get young talented players in (even if they ultimately didn't produce under SOD).  What's more, if you read the articles SOD wrote whilst he was at the club, he explained quite a lot about what he was trying to put in place and a fair bit of what he says tallies with what actually happened (including that he wouldn't ultimately be the one to see it through but, if the board stuck to their guns, they'd to where they wanted to be)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But equally, why would anyone assume they were? I'm not putting you down, I am just curious as to what evidence there is to suggest those people made a contribution. 

 

i'm sorry you are wrong of course they made a contribution, by getting rid of much dead wood, bringing in worthwhile coaches with a different approach to the academy, changing from overpaid so called experienced pro's, to young hungry talented players who might actually have an enhanced sell on value, starting an actual scouting programme and SOD did sign Fielding, Williams, Flint and Pack, OK his coaching didn't bring the best out of them but at least he recognised their undoubted talent.

[Aizoon]

Two years ago there was a thread on this forum; "Relegation to League 1 won't be so bad". Some agreed and others disagreed with the post.

Has anyone who agreed with it then since changed their mind?

I haven't. I think we will start In the Championship next season with a stronger team, a better run club and a more suitable stadium than we could have imagined when we were struggling in that division.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I haven't. I think we will start In the Championship next season with a stronger team, a better run club and a more suitable stadium than we could have imagined when we were struggling in that division.

 

and no Lindley's Aiz.

[Aizoon]

To be fair, I think Lansdown had exhausted most of the other available options. There wasn't much left to choose from.

I've no doubt that the likes of Burt and Pemberton have played key roles in our success, but Millen, McInnes and SOD? No chance. They all proved to be utterly inept at managing the first team, so why would anyone think they were so instrumental in improving other aspects of the club?

Absolutely. I can't play the piano, so

I must be crap at computer programming. After all, they both involve keyboards.

[Aizoon]

and no Lindley's Aiz.

TFFT

[AshtonGreat]

In McInnes' case, the fact that there were interviews and articles at the time about the fact he was overhauling the youth and coaching system.  And, not longer afterwards, we suddenly went from a point where we had only produced James Wilson and Christian "glass ankles" Ribeiro in ten years to a point where we had a highly-rated youth set-up, three of whom were knocking on the door of the first team (even if two of them are yet to prove they can make it).

 

In SOD's case, the fact Pemberton and Burt followed him from Forest soon afterwards and we started to move out the overpaid players on long contracts and get young talented players in (even if they ultimately didn't produce under SOD).  What's more, if you read the articles SOD wrote whilst he was at the club, he explained quite a lot about what he was trying to put in place and a fair bit of what he says tallies with what actually happened (including that he wouldn't ultimately be the one to see it through but, if the board stuck to their guns, they'd to where they wanted to be)

 

OK, so the youth system has contributed virtually nothing to the current first team (Joe Bryan being the exception).

 

The overpaid 'dead wood' that everyone keeps talking about: are we referring to the likes of Skuse (now plying his trade at the top of the Championship) and Kilkenny (a key member of Preston's likely promotion-winning team)? They were obviously decent players and, while I accept that some of them (Kilkenny especially) probably had egos the size of the Avon Gorge, the previous managers failed to get the best out of them.

 

I found most of what SOD said to be a load of old baloney. He was an uninspiring man who overthought everything and, in the process, frustrated and confused players and fans alike. Cotterill is the polar opposite: positive, galvanising, to the point.

[Donkeeebles]

I said I'd answer that and I will.

Firstly, SoD's brief wasn't about results on the pitch, it was about building a structure and a squad for the future. All he was required to do was to keep us in the division, which he would have done.

Secondly, he is now a part of the England coaching structure, which suggests that someone recognises his talents.

Thirdly, anyone looking at how SC's team plays the ball about when in possession must surely recognise the fruits of SoD's training. Remember that SC has worked with SoD before.

So, why the down on SoD so frequently expressed here?

Firstly, the results were poor, not dreadful, but poor. For those who never saw the team play, that was enough.

Secondly, it was terrible to watch. I was pro-SoD, and even I described it as being like watching an England friendly. That wasn't a compliment. I imagine a practice session would have been just as unenthralling. You got the impression at times that he wanted to call them together for a huddle and a tactical talk. Skill was being shown and we did have JET, but no one was going to die of excitement.

Thirdly, he sounded boring or even incomprehensible. In this, was badly served by Radio Bristol. His written comments were thoughtful and interesting. His spoken comments might have been, if any bugger could have heard them. The man clearly has a chronic chest problem and weak voice in a West Midlands accent. Why RB couldn't turn up the gain on their microphones, I really don't know*

Those negatives don't imply that he made no contribution to the players' development or that of the club, but they weren't calculated to make the fans happy. Read the comments of the anti-SoD brigade and tell me I'm wrong!

* Actually I do, it's because they're incompetent tossers, but that's not the point.

Thanks for that, very interesting. I will just comment on your first 3 points.

Point 1 - in this day and age of constant manager sackings if SODs brief wasn't about results on the pitch then he and whoever gave that brief are fools. No matter what you might be doing behind the scenes if you don't get results on the pitch then you've had it (and so it proved)

Point 2 - in my view being part of the England coaching set up does not mean you're an excellent coach. Stuart Pearce proved that.(might be a more personal one as I can't stand Pearce's idea of what makes a good footballer)

Point 3 - I've watched us all season and at no point have I ever thought I was seeing the fruits of Sods training. In fact I can't understand why anyone would think that. It's down to SC and His team. SC bought some quality players in during the summer and has got the players that were already here playing with confidence and believing in themselves, something Sod didn't seem to be able to do.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I think what worked out for the best was moving on a whole host of overpaid and under performing players and replacing them with a hungry and talented squad.

 

The very distant light at the end of the tunnel throughout the previous three years is now dazzling us.

 

This was my only consolation throughout the relegation season: wait until we can clear these wasters out and let us start afresh - and that's how it's worked out.   

 

 

I'm not getting into good/bad, right and wrong about SO'D and just for my own vanity, I was pretty non-committal one way or the other on SC's appointment at the time as well.  Less fool me.   

 

 

 WE DON'T KNOW

[Wanderingred]

I guess in hindsight it did, but everything is easy to say with hindsight. We had no way of knowing that at the time. Let's just make sure we learn from our mistakes and never end up back here again!

[PHILINFRANCE]

This is a doozy.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/151776-the-welcome-steve-cottrell-thread/

 

But this is probably the one that you are really looking for.

 

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/159469-steve-cotterill-merged-poll/

 

Graham C's post (8) is worth re-reading.

[Fordy62]

This is possibly the most gentlemanly and reasoned debate i've ever seen on here that hasn't descended into name calling... yet.

 

Gentlemen, I salute you.

[Vincent Vega]

I said I'd answer that and I will.

Firstly, SoD's brief wasn't about results on the pitch, it was about building a structure and a squad for the future. All he was required to do was to keep us in the division, which he would have done.

Secondly, he is now a part of the England coaching structure, which suggests that someone recognises his talents.

Thirdly, anyone looking at how SC's team plays the ball about when in possession must surely recognise the fruits of SoD's training. Remember that SC has worked with SoD before.

So, why the down on SoD so frequently expressed here?

Firstly, the results were poor, not dreadful, but poor. For those who never saw the team play, that was enough.

Secondly, it was terrible to watch. I was pro-SoD, and even I described it as being like watching an England friendly. That wasn't a compliment. I imagine a practice session would have been just as unenthralling. You got the impression at times that he wanted to call them together for a huddle and a tactical talk. Skill was being shown and we did have JET, but no one was going to die of excitement.

Thirdly, he sounded boring or even incomprehensible. In this, was badly served by Radio Bristol. His written comments were thoughtful and interesting. His spoken comments might have been, if any bugger could have heard them. The man clearly has a chronic chest problem and weak voice in a West Midlands accent. Why RB couldn't turn up the gain on their microphones, I really don't know*

Those negatives don't imply that he made no contribution to the players' development or that of the club, but they weren't calculated to make the fans happy. Read the comments of the anti-SoD brigade and tell me I'm wrong!

* Actually I do, it's because they're incompetent tossers, but that's not the point.

Having stood through the drivel his coaching served up ,i think you are wrong on this point & we would have gone down.

[screech]

This is possibly the most gentlemanly and reasoned debate i've ever seen on here that hasn't descended into name calling... yet.

 

Gentlemen, I salute you.

 

**** Off you clown.

[Garland-sweden]

Yes. It was not feeling good with relegation and bottom of the table. But have made that and avoid next relegation was a big turning point I think. The Club learned and made a structur a plan. Sometimes you have to hit ground hard to get forward. We are in good vibes now and the season been fantastic. Next season will be exciting to I hope. 

[Aussie]

On the pitch, yes. But as others have alluded to, he may have had a positive effect to some extent off it in terms of things he put in place. I also remember the players saying how disappointed they were when he left, so I believe he had their respect, which suggests he was doing certain things right.

At Tamworth in the Cup, I ended up chatting to a lady who worked at the club.

She said he was one of the most pig ignorant and arrogant people she had met and that absolutely nobody in the support side of the club is sad to see him gone.

She also said tho early days that Cotterill is a very personable guy and had made a really positive early impression.

SOD struck me as an aloof **** mind anyway.

[Port Said Red]

I would like to think that we are the new Southampton, dropping into this league whilst everything behind the scenes took precedence. For us to really show that though will mean seeing a side in the next couple of seasons that contains a good number of home grown talent and/or young players that can be improved.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

I doubt very much that any Managers or Chairman believe the only answer to their on field problems or high wages/surplus players is relegation. Otherwise the premise is that you cannot change a club whilst still in the same division.

 

There may be those Chairman who in hind- sight  believe that their relegation was a watershed moment. If we come straight back down next season then no, our own relegation under Sod wasn't helpful but if we carry on to the Prem - hell, yes.

[Fordy62]

**** Off you clown.

Oh yeh?

[Robbored]

Relegation was undoubtedly a watershed and in my view it turned out to be a cloud with a silver lining. Since then the club has changed significantly largely down to appointing the right people at the right time to manage the playing side of the club.

Until SoD was sacked there had never been a director of football at City. Im sure SoD wouldn't have wanted someone in that role and probably neither would have McInnes so employing someone to that role was long overdue and I applauded it. It was about time City moved into the modern infrastructure of the football world.

Obviously managers come and go and very few are succesful at every club they work for so appointing Cotterill was clearly a risk (just as any managerial appointment is) but this time it's proved to be the right one.

[AshtonGreat]

I said I'd answer that and I will.

Firstly, SoD's brief wasn't about results on the pitch, it was about building a structure and a squad for the future. All he was required to do was to keep us in the division, which he would have done.

Secondly, he is now a part of the England coaching structure, which suggests that someone recognises his talents.

Thirdly, anyone looking at how SC's team plays the ball about when in possession must surely recognise the fruits of SoD's training. Remember that SC has worked with SoD before.

So, why the down on SoD so frequently expressed here?

Firstly, the results were poor, not dreadful, but poor. For those who never saw the team play, that was enough.

Secondly, it was terrible to watch. I was pro-SoD, and even I described it as being like watching an England friendly. That wasn't a compliment. I imagine a practice session would have been just as unenthralling. You got the impression at times that he wanted to call them together for a huddle and a tactical talk. Skill was being shown and we did have JET, but no one was going to die of excitement.

Thirdly, he sounded boring or even incomprehensible. In this, was badly served by Radio Bristol. His written comments were thoughtful and interesting. His spoken comments might have been, if any bugger could have heard them. The man clearly has a chronic chest problem and weak voice in a West Midlands accent. Why RB couldn't turn up the gain on their microphones, I really don't know*

Those negatives don't imply that he made no contribution to the players' development or that of the club, but they weren't calculated to make the fans happy. Read the comments of the anti-SoD brigade and tell me I'm wrong!

* Actually I do, it's because they're incompetent tossers, but that's not the point.

 

I disagree with most of the points mentioned here.

 

Firstly, if SOD's brief was not about results on the pitch, why was he sacked because of results on the pitch? Perhaps he would have kept us up - who knows - but there's no way he would've galvanised the club in the way that SC has. He was a dour personality and wound a lot of fans up the wrong way. At least McInnes had some zip about him.

 

Yes, he is now part of the England set-up - so what? Someone also 'recognised the talents' of Kevin Keegan, Sven, Fabio Capello, Roy Hodgson et al, and look where they got us. Perhaps the common denominator here is the head of recruitment not having a clue.

 

So just because our team plays the ball around nicely, that must somehow be linked back to SOD? That seems very tenuous to me. Players passing the ball around is not a new science. They do it in my Sunday league.

 

The results under SOD WERE dreadful. Two wins in 18 games, I believe it was - that's one of the worst records by any Bristol City manager ever.

 

I'm not saying SOD did nothing whatsoever to improve the club's fortunes behind the scenes, but certainly on the playing side of things he contributed nothing. 

[Aizoon]

Oh yeh?

 

You and whose hedgehog?