To All Who Think Paul Hurst Should Go

I find there are two broad types of people when it comes to looking at football:

Those who see it as a simple game made complicated by coaches, analysts and stats.
Those who see it as a complex game made to look simple by the quality of coaches and players (more so the higher you go).

I'm very much in the latter. I don't see how a game that can change on its axis by the simple action of a player not opening their body to change the way they face, or reacting a fraction of a second slower is the difference between launching an attack or having to defend one, can be seen as simple.

There are certain notions that are completely logical, such as play the ball forward and get men forward and you'll increase your chances of scoring, but I don't think this equates to being simple given the opposition will have a plan to make this strategy work against you, for example, by employing a counter attacking style.

I find it's very similar with peoples approaches to managers. That 'simply' changing a manager if one specific criteria isn't met will 'simply' fix the issue. In the present, for some, this is the perception/belief that PH plays negative football (evidenced by lack of goals and clear cut chances) and therefore he needs to be replaced. Doing this means we get in a manager that will get the team to attack, score goals, win games and win the league. Simple.

The reality is that's not likely to be the case. Look at our record of managers over the last twenty years and tell me which of them delivered the improvement desired by the Club and fanbase. We tried internal managers (Rodger, Woods), we tried past successful managers (Buckley Mk3), we tried managers that had promotions on their CV (Newell), we tried 'up and coming managers' from below (Slade, Hurst, Bignot), we tried a modern coach with experience in the Prem U23 (Jolley) and also someone with a fantastic reputation and experience in the game (Holloway).

The only name in that entire pool of managers to have delivered us a promotion is Hurst. Twice.

Each manager had his own style and only Slade Mk1 brought us close to getting us moving upwards from Lg2 and even then there was a lot of criticism for his 'Sladeball', a direct approach to getting the ball forward, which given the current argument is rather ironic.

What I've always found within the fanbase is this perception that change should happen quickly. It's not just a Grimsby problem, look at the average manager turn around time and you can see football is an impatient business. Some ride the merry-go-round and get lucky. In those scenarios it's inevitable that someone higher will be lurking and once that manager leaves you're back to square one, see FGR and Rob Edwards. Some ride the merry-go-round and spend forever going nowhere because no foundations are being laid and built on.

This is why, for me, I'm always more cautious about replacing managers inside of three years. Its effectively a lifetime in football terms, but that's realistically how long I believe it takes for a manager to truly have the time to implement not just his ideas, but build a squad of the quality he wants, and even then you're constrained to a budget. Within that three years you have to assess the markers that provide indications of success. With PH we have a promotion in a season with a short turn around, having an awful run mid season and two of the most difficult play-off games known to NL. We then had a record breaking FA Cup run and a highest placed finish in 14 years (or however long it was). If they are not indicators of competence, improvement and foundations for future success then I don't know what is.

It seems those who lean towards the idea that a new manager will take us further is basing it on game by game, goals by goals basis. Had we done that in our promotion season during our poor mid-season spell, would we have been promoted or stuck down there still? I firmly believe that sometimes you have to persevere with something you believe to be right to get the reward and that proved true in that season. It's also an unanswerable question.

I have every trust and faith in PH in this moment in time. That view is always open to change if I feel we reach the point that he's taken us as far as he's capable of in which case I'll respectfully share the view that a change may be required with a thanks for his efforts. Right now my personal view is that anyone who has this 'simple' view that a change in manager will catapult us up the league is naive and to do so is a gamble that doesn't need to be taken as it effectively begins a new cycle of work that has been two years in the making now and has yielded positive results year on year.

Focusing on an 8 game sample as the basis of an argument against two years of factual improvement is a dangerous precedent to set for how we determine the success of a manager and the criteria we demand. If a promotion, FA Cup run and an improved squad is considered not enough progress then what chance will our next manager stand?

I've always rated Hurst as a decent manager and thought we'd be safe when he was appointed after Holloway went.

I realised the club was in a shambles, but thought that he had enough time to get things sorted out.

Unfortunately, it wasn't to be. A few of the signings he made looked OK on paper, but let us down badly (that flipping useless striker whose name I don't recall, especially!). Difficult circumstances but definitely a failure. I lay the blame Holloway most of all as the team was a basket case when he left, but Hurst is certainly also culpable to a lesser degree.

Luckily, the remarkable promotion season which followed has left the team in a better place and we undoubtedly built on it last season. Just need to get the upward trajectory right and the run up to Christmas will show us where we are at following a decent start and a tough run of games.

Quoted from 123614

Why are we going on about a relegation that happened a few years ago, let's be in the here and now.  Nothing can be done about that relegation, it's gone, finished, kaput!

Agreed, as were the Promotion and mid table finish last season, lets look and focus on the here and now!
We are bang average!

In our relegation season, I think no-one was more disappointed than PH. He truly believed he could steer us clear of trouble and he was mightily peed off when he didn't, but he only took one season to right that wrong, so he's exonerated in my eyes.

We only lost 3 or 4 games in our last 15 I think, which is pretty good for a relegation threatened side, but too many draws did for us. Had we won at Scunny, they would have gone down instead of us, so fine margins.

I know it's all conjecture, but for me, the blame for that relegation lies with the preceding seasons and not learning lessons from the previous relegation. I feel we are on the right path now, and have the patience to see where we go with PH at the helm, but I realise others want someone a bit more dynamic, my own brother being one.

Quoted from White_shorts

Shouldn't Grimsby Town FC be aiming for top 7?  Last year was consolidation.

I find it odd that we're having this debate now.  Next month we play Barrow, Tranmere, Accrington, Stockport, Colchester and Doncaster.  That has to be three wins minimum for the Mariners.

Let's be honest: if that petulant Southampton defender hadn't gifted us a second penalty, we probably would have been knocked out.  The nation would then have enjoyed a tasty south coast derby, instead of a complete non-event as Paul aimed to restrict Brighton to single figures.

And if I'd been born with a fanny and t1ts I'd have been an extremely ugly woman. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Quoted from gtfc_chris

I find there are two broad types of people when it comes to looking at football:

Great post and really good summary.

I think the situation with Ten Hag at Man U is a case study in short term v long term and it will be interesting to see which way it goes.

He has some players who couldn't give a sh*t, they're just pocketing the money. He has to get rid of them.
He has had (and may still have) players who are a bad influence in the dressing room. Ronaldo and Pogba have gone but Sancho is looking like he may be similar.
The club have handled the Greenwood and Antony situations badly.
He has owners who appear not to give a sh*t as long as the money rolls in.
The fans desperately want them to be competitive again and play the kind of football they played 10 years ago. That looks as far away as Scunny playing in the Champions League does.
He might be a bit heavy handed with some of the players.

The things he can control will take time to work out because of contracts etc. The things he can't control may take even longer (owners).

If they fire him they're probably doomed to mediocrity for another decade. If they keep him they have to give him time to work this stuff out and it may be a 3 year timescale. Meanwhile the fans are screaming for beautiful football and wins.

The issues are different but Ten Hag and Man U could be a bigger money version of PH and us right now. And we are in better shape across a lot of the things Ten Hag is battling with (owners, team spirit etc)

This all assumes that Ten Hag isn't part of the problem, which I think has yet to be proven...

Quoted from Maringer

This all assumes that Ten Hag isn't part of the problem, which I think has yet to be proven...

Man Utd were running smoothly under their previous managers?

Quoted from gtfc_chris

I find there are two broad types of people when it comes to looking at football:

Those who see it as a simple game made complicated by coaches, analysts and stats.
Those who see it as a complex game made to look simple by the quality of coaches and players (more so the higher you go).

I'm very much in the latter. I don't see how a game that can change on its axis by the simple action of a player not opening their body to change the way they face, or reacting a fraction of a second slower is the difference between launching an attack or having to defend one, can be seen as simple.

There are certain notions that are completely logical, such as play the ball forward and get men forward and you'll increase your chances of scoring, but I don't think this equates to being simple given the opposition will have a plan to make this strategy work against you, for example, by employing a counter attacking style.

I find it's very similar with peoples approaches to managers. That 'simply' changing a manager if one specific criteria isn't met will 'simply' fix the issue. In the present, for some, this is the perception/belief that PH plays negative football (evidenced by lack of goals and clear cut chances) and therefore he needs to be replaced. Doing this means we get in a manager that will get the team to attack, score goals, win games and win the league. Simple.

The reality is that's not likely to be the case. Look at our record of managers over the last twenty years and tell me which of them delivered the improvement desired by the Club and fanbase. We tried internal managers (Rodger, Woods), we tried past successful managers (Buckley Mk3), we tried managers that had promotions on their CV (Newell), we tried 'up and coming managers' from below (Slade, Hurst, Bignot), we tried a modern coach with experience in the Prem U23 (Jolley) and also someone with a fantastic reputation and experience in the game (Holloway).

The only name in that entire pool of managers to have delivered us a promotion is Hurst. Twice.

Each manager had his own style and only Slade Mk1 brought us close to getting us moving upwards from Lg2 and even then there was a lot of criticism for his 'Sladeball', a direct approach to getting the ball forward, which given the current argument is rather ironic.

What I've always found within the fanbase is this perception that change should happen quickly. It's not just a Grimsby problem, look at the average manager turn around time and you can see football is an impatient business. Some ride the merry-go-round and get lucky. In those scenarios it's inevitable that someone higher will be lurking and once that manager leaves you're back to square one, see FGR and Rob Edwards. Some ride the merry-go-round and spend forever going nowhere because no foundations are being laid and built on.

This is why, for me, I'm always more cautious about replacing managers inside of three years. Its effectively a lifetime in football terms, but that's realistically how long I believe it takes for a manager to truly have the time to implement not just his ideas, but build a squad of the quality he wants, and even then you're constrained to a budget. Within that three years you have to assess the markers that provide indications of success. With PH we have a promotion in a season with a short turn around, having an awful run mid season and two of the most difficult play-off games known to NL. We then had a record breaking FA Cup run and a highest placed finish in 14 years (or however long it was). If they are not indicators of competence, improvement and foundations for future success then I don't know what is.

It seems those who lean towards the idea that a new manager will take us further is basing it on game by game, goals by goals basis. Had we done that in our promotion season during our poor mid-season spell, would we have been promoted or stuck down there still? I firmly believe that sometimes you have to persevere with something you believe to be right to get the reward and that proved true in that season. It's also an unanswerable question.

I have every trust and faith in PH in this moment in time. That view is always open to change if I feel we reach the point that he's taken us as far as he's capable of in which case I'll respectfully share the view that a change may be required with a thanks for his efforts. Right now my personal view is that anyone who has this 'simple' view that a change in manager will catapult us up the league is naive and to do so is a gamble that doesn't need to be taken as it effectively begins a new cycle of work that has been two years in the making now and has yielded positive results year on year.

Focusing on an 8 game sample as the basis of an argument against two years of factual improvement is a dangerous precedent to set for how we determine the success of a manager and the criteria we demand. If a promotion, FA Cup run and an improved squad is considered not enough progress then what chance will our next manager stand?

100% agree with this top post!

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

Man Utd were running smoothly under their previous managers?

Well, no. But that doesn't necessarily indicate that Ten Hag is blameless are regards their current poor form.

I'm always somewhat wary about a manager who picks out and criticises individual players in the media and that is definitely one of his traits.

Regardless of the cause of their current problems, I'm sure we can all agree it is pretty amusing.