To All Who Think Paul Hurst Should Go

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

He didn't start the season. It wasn't his team. Teams generally don't sell in January because they cannot replace players. Teams are too desperate to either get promoted, snatch play-offs or avoid relegation, so change is very limited in January, and the options you have may not always be good. They're usually unmissed by the selling team. Even then, he basically replaced a big chunk of the first 11, because what Holloway left us with was absolute dross and going to be relegated. I don't think anyone would have saved us there.

The thing is though, the players Hurst brought in that season were worse than what we had in the first place. PH even recognised that himself and by the end of the season he was using more of the Holloway players than the ones he brought in himself.

I think I have a pretty balanced view on PH in regards to his strengths and flaws. But as per the points arryarryarry makes, I do think PH should be held more accountable for the relegation than he seems to be by most on here. Maybe the hatred for Holloway as his predecessor is a reason for that, I don't know.

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

He didn't start the season. It wasn't his team. Teams generally don't sell in January because they cannot replace players. Teams are too desperate to either get promoted, snatch play-offs or avoid relegation, so change is very limited in January, and the options you have may not always be good. They're usually unmissed by the selling team. Even then, he basically replaced a big chunk of the first 11, because what Holloway left us with was absolute dross and going to be relegated. I don't think anyone would have saved us there.

Okay cool, have it you way, we were not relegated, it didnt happen, wiped from out history, nothing to see here, move along.
We remained in League 2, Hurst did what he was bought in to do and kept us safe, of course its also means we cant have been promoted either!

As I stated previously, I made a factual observation which was being overlooked.

Quoted from Azimuth

Okay cool, have it you way, we were not relegated, it didnt happen, wiped from out history, nothing to see here, move along.
We remained in League 2, Hurst did what he was bought in to do and kept us safe, of course its also means we cant have been promoted either!

As I stated previously, I made a factual observation which was being overlooked.

Of course we were relegated. That is a fact. I dispute that this was Hurst's responsibility.

You were born, and it was a miracle. How could life come to be? Unless of course, we are aware of biology, and that you had parents, and that is how humans are born.

You cannot take an event in isolation, and avoid all the context and what comes before. It is ignorant, and shallow. Talking in absolutes is just empty debate, and weird rhetoric in a blame game to match an underlining narrative (that some don't like Paul Hurst, and don't like that some support him, and will regularly try to tarnish the reputation of someone who on the whole has done a solid job, and is probably one of our best managers in recent years) in the hopes that we make a change of management, for a manager that isn't even doing badly. It's like some want us to become a Chelsea or Watford, and swapping managers is going to a silver bullet.

We are not the championship team we used to be, and have no right to be. If we want to be, we have to earn it through promotions, and that is through being a good league 2 team (and we were not before Hurst took over), improve ourselves as the opportunities arise and take the opportunity when it comes. Not throw toys out of the pram when we aren't at championship level. It serves no positive purpose other than satisfying the emotional needs of some folk who don't really have any grasp how teams on our level succeed without mega rich folk bankrolling them.

Quoted from Tommy

The thing is though, the players Hurst brought in that season were worse than what we had in the first place. PH even recognised that himself and by the end of the season he was using more of the Holloway players than the ones he brought in himself.

I think I have a pretty balanced view on PH in regards to his strengths and flaws. But as per the points arryarryarry makes, I do think PH should be held more accountable for the relegation than he seems to be by most on here. Maybe the hatred for Holloway as his predecessor is a reason for that, I don't know.

I see you deliberately avoided the point about culture, and that people improved under Hurst. Have you ever been in a job were folk don't give a intercourse. Even the hardest working don't want to look like they give a intercourse, because it'll be embarrassing. You have to remove the worst offenders, and bring in positive examples until hard work is the norm and that those that cannot buy into that long term, will have to go.

Why would a professional manager who isn't even a town fan hate his predecessor? You do realise that makes no sense.

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

I see you deliberately avoided the point about culture, and that people improved under Hurst. Have you ever been in a job were folk don't give a intercourse. Even the hardest working don't want to look like they give a intercourse, because it'll be embarrassing. You have to remove the worst offenders, and bring in positive examples until hard work is the norm and that those that cannot buy into that long term, will have to go.

Why would a professional manager who isn't even a town fan hate his predecessor? You do realise that makes no sense.

The post I replied to made no mention of culture so I didn't ignore something thats on a post I hadn't read at that point. But even so, I understand your point and the analogy, but I don't know too much about what the culture was like under Holloway. I don't think it was a squad full of people that didn't give a excrement, certainly not anywhere the levels we saw under Mike Newells gang of clowns who tossed it off in 2009. We just made some very poor signings, presumably Fenty assuming the season wouldn't go ahead so between him and Holloway they left it late to bring players in and did it on a low budget.

Think you've misread my point on the hatred of Holloway, or I've not written it very clearly. I meant fans' hatred of Holloway, not that Hurst hates him.

Quoted from Tommy

The post I replied to made no mention of culture so I didn't ignore something thats on a post I hadn't read at that point. But even so, I understand your point and the analogy, but I don't know too much about what the culture was like under Holloway. I don't think it was a squad full of people that didn't give a excrement, certainly not anywhere the levels we saw under Mike Newells gang of clowns who tossed it off in 2009. We just made some very poor signings, presumably Fenty assuming the season wouldn't go ahead so between him and Holloway they left it late to bring players in and did it on a low budget.

Think you've misread my point on the hatred of Holloway, or I've not written it very clearly. I meant fans' hatred of Holloway, not that Hurst hates him.

I think Hurst was very lucky to keep his job after that relegation,  and again when we went 12 or 13 games the following season without winning a game in the National League.

I don't think anyone here or the wider fanbase could have forseen what would happen between February and the play off final. It still seems like and indeed was a miracle.

So, does that make Hurst a good manager, a lucky manager, a manager who throws the dice so many times on different players he eventually turns up a double 6?

Who knows? None of us I expect.

Personally I would like to see a more attacking and fluent team, but for whatever reason the coaching staff and the manager can't seem to get them firing in this regard.

Quoted from AncientExiledMariner

We wasn't in the bottom 2, but it doesn't mean we wasn't a good shout to go down. It all depends on the run of games.

You're clearly insinuating that Hurst was better to stick with some of the players we had. Who do you think was good that he dropped and would have contributed to saving us?

Secondly, do you know much detail about how they train? How professional they were? Didn't we have a few breaches for covid and pub related stuff? Changing a culture is not easy. If half the team are half-assed in training, others are going to see it and copy it. It says that giving 70% of your effort is fine and accepted. With that, you try getting enough over the games to put points on the board. Do you think our culture was optimal to save us from relegation that season?

Hurst got more out of Clifton, Waterfall and Scannell. Do you think without a change of culture, that would have happened?

Also, did you know Waterfall was going to come on and score an own goal and cost us the game? Who actually knew that would happen? Football manager is really easy in hindsight. The question is, in the same situation, with the same information that he had to hand, with the same financial constraints and existing wage bill would you have done differently? If you wouldn't, it's a bit rich to criticise after the event.

I like how you ignore the actual facts, Hurst brought in what was it 11 or 12 players and in the end his points per game were less than what Holloway achieved.

Also I'm not criticizing after the event I said many times before the end of that season he would take us down and I was right.

People always point to Hurst's points vs Holloway's points in the relegation season. I always find that absolutely bemusing. Did these people not watch us that season? We were immeasurably better under Hurst once the side gelled. Holloway's points per game were boosted by back to back wins in what were our only two decent performances under him that season. Hurst was given a right mess to sort out. We know that Hurst teams take a while to kick in too, if the aim was purely to stay in the league then he was the wrong appointment. It's quite obvious that Hurst was brought in with one eye on next season and the imminent likelihood that we'd be in the NL. And yes, we were above the relegation zone when Holloway left but if you think the side he built was staying up then you're off your rocker. The football was so so bad under Holloway that season. Hurst sorted us out, we just didn't have enough games left once he'd done that.

Quoted from Son of Cod

People always point to Hurst's points vs Holloway's points in the relegation season. I always find that absolutely bemusing. Did these people not watch us that season? We were immeasurably better under Hurst once the side gelled. Holloway's points per game were boosted by back to back wins in what were our only two decent performances under him that season. Hurst was given a right mess to sort out. We know that Hurst teams take a while to kick in too, if the aim was purely to stay in the league then he was the wrong appointment. It's quite obvious that Hurst was brought in with one eye on next season and the imminent likelihood that we'd be in the NL. And yes, we were above the relegation zone when Holloway left but if you think the side he built was staying up then you're off your rocker. The football was so so bad under Holloway that season. Hurst sorted us out, we just didn't have enough games left once he'd done that.

Holloway’s points were boosted by wins so dismiss that .
Yes we were above the relegation zone when Holloway left but let’s ignore that.
Yes Hurst points per game were worse then Holloway’s but let’s ignore that.
Yes Hurst brought in 11 or 12 of his own players but let’s ignore that.
The football under Hurst was so much better!!
And you think there is a cult in Scunthorpe!

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!