Untenable.

[Gareth Nicholson]

Unfortunately, I don't think he will be sacked.

James Brent has said many times, that to an outsider with a background in other businesses, the turnover of managers in football is shocking, and he wants to run Argyle on a more stable, long-term basis.

I also recall Peter Jones being publicly critical of the decision to sack Bobby Williamson in 2005. Again, said he hadn't had a fair crack of the whip etc.

That is heartening and admirable on one level. But in this particular context, the manager in post was spectacularly under-qualified for the position in the first place. Fletcher has no track record, even in non-league football or as a reserve/youth/assistant coach, of developing players, scouting opponents or potential signings, man management, training and organising a team tactically etc. It seems unthinkable that we would appoint a manager without any evidence that he possesses any of these vital skills, but that is what happened.

In Europe, where they place more of a premium on the technical development of players, he probably wouldn't be allowed to manage a professional team.

It's obvious from, amongst other things, that the constant random changes to the starting XI; the goals we concede from setpieces; and the desperate loan signings that the task has completely overwhelmed him.

He has to go.

Good post. Looking back, I wonder if Peter Jones still thinks that we should have stuck with Bobby? Look at the managers that followed him and the immediate improvement Pulis made. On the subject of Fletcher, I agree that it might be worth sticking with him if only there was any real evidence that he is able to properly manage a football club and give it the required level of leadership. Clubs keep changing and going back in for the likes of Warnock and Sturrock for good reason (at times), just like they sometimes leave for good reason. Warnock's had so many jobs but it doesn't mean he's done badly in any of them or failed to help the clubs themselves. He got Argyle turned around in no time at all and made us a force at this level. Look at Bryan Gunn at Norwich - everyone thought he was a good bloke and an experienced pro (correct in playing terms) but Norwich bottomed-out.

Of course, there's the flipside that while Fletcher remains employed it's an effective firewall from criticism of the rest of the club and the Ridsdale business plan.

 

[GreenSam]

Could you call last night a loss? Surely if you're judging it by the same standards as the eight 90-minute games that proceeded it then it should go down as a draw, seeing as it's impossible to draw a tie.

Of course that's irrelevant to the debate but that's just a particular hobby horse of mine.

 

[Pogleswoody]

Could you call last night a loss? Surely if you're judging it by the same standards as the eight 90-minute games that proceeded it then it should go down as a draw, seeing as it's impossible to draw a tie.

Of course that's irrelevant to the debate but that's just a particular hobby horse of mine.

we GOT a draw but we are NOT IN the draw, that is relevant!! :banghead:

 

[GreenSam]

Could you call last night a loss? Surely if you're judging it by the same standards as the eight 90-minute games that proceeded it then it should go down as a draw, seeing as it's impossible to draw a tie.

Of course that's irrelevant to the debate but that's just a particular hobby horse of mine.

we GOT a draw but we are NOT IN the draw, that is relevant!! :banghead:

I agree, in the context of the debate it matters naff all. As I said, it's just a hobby horse of mine that statistically it can surely only be defined as a draw.

I'll take sad geeks corner elsewhere next time sorry :greensmile:

 

[Green Matt]

Could you call last night a loss? Surely if you're judging it by the same standards as the eight 90-minute games that proceeded it then it should go down as a draw, seeing as it's impossible to draw a tie.

Yes it's a loss. You get nothing if you lose a penalty shoot-out, wheras if you draw you get a point or a replay. Our cup exploits this season have been poor - we got a bye to the previous round of the JPT and only had to beat Aldershot to get the chance to play the mighty Oxford at home last night. I don't care if it's 'only' the JPT, it's extremely disappointing to think that we can't even take advantage in a home tie after all this time without a game.

In the League Cup we only beat Pompey's youth team, then lost to Burnley. In the FA Cup we lost to effing Dorchester. The lack of ability/determination to progress in cup competitions is one thing that I have always found difficult as an Argyle fan. The qtr final vs Watford was brilliant (result aside) and did a lot for morale as well as the added income. A good cup run is great. Why do we almost never have them? There seems to have been an almost tangible lack of interest in cups at Home Park over the years.

 

[Ghost]

Yes it's a loss. We lost. We didn't win, we got knocked out..............so we lost.

 

[GreenSam]

We lost the tie, we drew the game. It's not possible to draw a tie so it's not statistically fair to judge it by the standards of games that can be won, drawn or lost. Let me make it quite clear though I'm just being a geek. It bears no relevance to anything.

 

[with menace]

pretty sure we went 17 without a win under Ken Brown
and stayed up!!!