Anybody pleased?...

Iggy wrote:

If you could précis that for me Sam, I shall give it a read some time.

He said "Fletch is doing OK" and I agree with him. Staying up is still down to us and what we do and I think we will do enough. Just.

GreenSam wrote:

I'll try and offer my usual line of defence to him here then and see if anyone'll think twice.

This team (ie this bunch of players) managed by this manager has consitently, over 4 months produced form that's of mid table bordering on top half. That's not statstical manipulation, that's fact and it's more or less what the mean form has been from this team being assembled to right now. Of course, that doesn't neccesarily mean the definete conclusion is to be pro-Fletcher, it's just the one I've taken and I'll explain why.

The first 9 games are a write off entirely. He wasn't either managing or on the coaching side so forget them. So that's at least a 9 game handicap. I'd argue there was another 9 game handicap on top of that, or a partial handicap at the very least. 9 games in the exact same circumstances as Reid, of unpaid and hapless players before he could bring in the team we have now, in which both performances (by and large) and results were on the up. I think it's hard to argue against that only from the Northampton game onwards can he really be judged in the same respect as any other manager in...well, history really. From that time, he's shown top ten at best and mid table at worst form the whole time. If people don't think that's good enough, then fair enough. What do you think Reid(or any "good" manager so as not to restrict it to Reid) could have done in the timeframe and what do you think Fletcher ought to be doing?

You reckon we ought to have shown play-off/promotion form in that time and be soaring clear of the drop zone and already having one eye on our Summer holidays? I certainly don't. Even now we hardly have a bunch of players that could be described as the best in the league. Bearing in mind that November through January was pretty much "pre season" for Fletcher in terms of team building and gelling. Team, even relatively good (on paper) like ours now won't start performing to their very best straight away. Fletcher's team were in the "getting to know eachother" period as well as crucial points being at stake, another disadvatnage that he has over other managers. The fact that we'd still be underperforming "giants such as Crawley, Torquay and Cheltenham" and the fact that "we were in the Championship two years ago" isn't really of relevance to the exact circumstances that we have right here, right now.

To analogise, it's like if 24 people run a marathon, and all the other athletes get a 9 or so mile headstart, people would say the athelete has done blooming well to catch up as much as he has. If people think the only acceptable measure of success would be promotion form which would lead us up to a reality of lower mid table and a comfortable end to the season then fine that's your perogative, I won't get arsey with you for it but I think it's immensley harsh for the reasons I said. We've been to hell and back, we're still getting over the hangover and I honestly think to get us into this kind of position from the down and out one we were in deserves credit. I don't think this because I'm a 'happy clappy' or 'deluded' it's what I honestly believe and I believe he'll keep us up.

Oh and fwiw- Fletcher wasn't appointed to stop the players going on strike. The proposed strike was September 3rd 2011, Fletcher was appointed on September 19th 2011.

FWIW - Fletch was the strike leader and the players were convinced not to go on strike when P&A paid them some money, that was only ever going to buy a couple of weeks breathing space. He was then convinced by the riddler that new owner was imminent and would he take temporary charge. So yes he WAS appointed to stop the players going on strike.

GreenSam wrote:

I'll try and offer my usual line of defence to him here then and see if anyone'll think twice.

This team (ie this bunch of players) managed by this manager has consitently, over 4 months produced form that's of mid table bordering on top half. That's not statstical manipulation, that's fact and it's more or less what the mean form has been from this team being assembled to right now. Of course, that doesn't neccesarily mean the definete conclusion is to be pro-Fletcher, it's just the one I've taken and I'll explain why.

The first 9 games are a write off entirely. He wasn't either managing or on the coaching side so forget them. So that's at least a 9 game handicap. I'd argue there was another 9 game handicap on top of that, or a partial handicap at the very least. 9 games in the exact same circumstances as Reid, of unpaid and hapless players before he could bring in the team we have now, in which both performances (by and large) and results were on the up. I think it's hard to argue against that only from the Northampton game onwards can he really be judged in the same respect as any other manager in...well, history really. From that time, he's shown top ten at best and mid table at worst form the whole time. If people don't think that's good enough, then fair enough. What do you think Reid(or any "good" manager so as not to restrict it to Reid) could have done in the timeframe and what do you think Fletcher ought to be doing?

You reckon we ought to have shown play-off/promotion form in that time and be soaring clear of the drop zone and already having one eye on our Summer holidays? I certainly don't. Even now we hardly have a bunch of players that could be described as the best in the league. Bearing in mind that November through January was pretty much "pre season" for Fletcher in terms of team building and gelling. Team, even relatively good (on paper) like ours now won't start performing to their very best straight away. Fletcher's team were in the "getting to know eachother" period as well as crucial points being at stake, another disadvatnage that he has over other managers. The fact that we'd still be underperforming "giants such as Crawley, Torquay and Cheltenham" and the fact that "we were in the Championship two years ago" isn't really of relevance to the exact circumstances that we have right here, right now.

To analogise, it's like if 24 people run a marathon, and all the other athletes get a 9 or so mile headstart, people would say the athelete has done blooming well to catch up as much as he has. If people think the only acceptable measure of success would be promotion form which would lead us up to a reality of lower mid table and a comfortable end to the season then fine that's your perogative, I won't get arsey with you for it but I think it's immensley harsh for the reasons I said. We've been to hell and back, we're still getting over the hangover and I honestly think to get us into this kind of position from the down and out one we were in deserves credit. I don't think this because I'm a 'happy clappy' or 'deluded' it's what I honestly believe and I believe he'll keep us up.

Oh and fwiw- Fletcher wasn't appointed to stop the players going on strike. The proposed strike was September 3rd 2011, Fletcher was appointed on September 19th 2011.

Sam, Fletcher had his real or chosen team more or less established about the turn of the year and from Jan 2nd we have gained 19 points in the last 16 games. That is 55 point a season form which is not even halfway up the league. It is looking more and more likely to me that we will just about stay up now. I still do not think he is the man to take us on but he will probably be given another year if we do manage to survive this season. The current squad I think is a top half squad just. With a pruning of the big earners in the summer we ought to be able to assemble a squad capable of getting close to the playoffs next year.

Certainly not happy with 90th position in general terms,absolute disgrace for the club.As for the Fletcher/Brent combo,not really sure.From the start,this season was always going to be about staying in the league and if this is achieved, job done i suppose,albeit not very convincingly.One thing is for sure,no matter which league Argyle are in next season,a huge rebuilding operation will need to be carried out on the squad for any aspiration other than another long hard struggle to be met.If the wherewithal is provided for the manager,whoever he may be,then Argyle should have a decent chance of making progress,certainly Mr Brent's mettle and sincerity will be fully tested without the extenuating circumsances of this season.Is Fletcher the man to do the job? History would be against him,no appointment from within has previously been successful at Argyle,but he does still seem to have the majority of the public behind him,which is a major plus factor for him.Logically and morally i would say that Fletcher would deserve a chance to have a crack at the job under more favourable conditions,but i thought that of Reid as well.

Bogsider wrote:

.......
FWIW - Fletch was the strike leader and the players were convinced not to go on strike when P&A paid them some money, that was only ever going to buy a couple of weeks breathing space. He was then convinced by the riddler that new owner was imminent and would he take temporary charge. So yes he WAS appointed to stop the players going on strike.

And where did you get that irrefutable information from?

Impressed with GreenSam's analysis basing his opinion on fact.

Do you actually attend games Sam?

I've seen no evidence yet of any tactics from Fletcher. Whatever he does he certainly doesn't do it in reaction to a set of circumstances on the pitch. He starts Walton nearly every game and that crock of overpaid shit isn't fit to lace my 8 year old son's boots never mind play in Argyle's first team. He (Walton) spends his entire time jogging around the halfway line and if the ball comes near him either a) passes it back to Cole or if this isn't possible b) hoofing it aimlessly forward or in an emergency c) passing it so someone in the back row of either the Lyndhurst or Mayflower.

Fletcher has done nothing to manage this side. He got the job because he is an expense (a huge expense) on the wage sheet and he stopped a strike. He should be out at the end of June if there is any justice.

You cannot say that Fletcher had nothing to do with the first nine games, he was part of the squad! He was also part of the squad in two successive relegations. It's partly his fault we are in the league position we are in. He couldn't organise the Devonport High School soccer team never mind a league side.

So how do you explain the greatly improved results, Cerbs? They can't all be down to withdrawing everyone behind the ball and shutting up shop. It strikes me is that he is doing OK with the players at his disposal. That doesn't mean it is a good side or that we are going to set the league on fire next season without significant improvements. The task for Fletcher has been to keep us up. Let's hope he achieves that.

"Fletcher has done nothing to manage this side."

We get far fewer players sent off now than we used to. Do we suspect that this has just occurred on its own?

knecht wrote:

Bogsider wrote:

.......
FWIW - Fletch was the strike leader and the players were convinced not to go on strike when P&A paid them some money, that was only ever going to buy a couple of weeks breathing space. He was then convinced by the riddler that new owner was imminent and would he take temporary charge. So yes he WAS appointed to stop the players going on strike.

And where did you get that irrefutable information from?

Impressed with GreenSam's analysis basing his opinion on fact.

Selective use of 'facts', in the process missing out other 'facts' and I don't want to tell you where I got that information from. I believe it and if you don't I couldn't care less.

Bogsider wrote:

knecht wrote:

Bogsider wrote:

.......
FWIW - Fletch was the strike leader and the players were convinced not to go on strike when P&A paid them some money, that was only ever going to buy a couple of weeks breathing space. He was then convinced by the riddler that new owner was imminent and would he take temporary charge. So yes he WAS appointed to stop the players going on strike.

And where did you get that irrefutable information from?

Impressed with GreenSam's analysis basing his opinion on fact.

Selective use of 'facts', in the process missing out other 'facts' and I don't want to tell you where I got that information from. I believe it and if you don't I couldn't care less.

You are Ponty and I claim my £5.

Fewer players sent off, agreed. I suspect more to do with James Brent giving them the hairdryer treatment and refusing to pay any FA fine without deducting it from their wages first more like.

I am convinced that with the few old lags we've got (Wotton, Walton, Purse, etc) that this team is largely managing itself. There is nothing that I have seen to suggest that the leadership is coming from Fletcher in the dugout.

If there was proper management, then there would with it come consistency. We have no consistency at all, save for a seemingly better form away from home. We are yet to string two home victories together.

I would also say that our improvement in form is solely down to my son attending the games. So far he has only witnessed two defeats to the games he's been to.

I think the signs are there that Fletch is managing the side effectively. I don't know what the stats suggest but we have conceded far fewer goals as the season has gone along and have recently even had a few clean sheets. We stick to a formation during games and the subs have mostly slotted in as like for like replacements.

Conceding fewer goals might arguably be down to Larry coaching Cole to look after his back four better!

Not that I particularly rate Le Keeper as a team coach/manager either.

I'm wondering why JB was at Tiverton last Tuesday. He certainly wasn't there to watch the youth team. Perhaps he was there to watch Kev Nancekivall (who kicked every ball) and never stopped cajoling the team on...........

Just saying like.

Bogsider wrote:

knecht wrote:

Bogsider wrote:

.......
FWIW - Fletch was the strike leader and the players were convinced not to go on strike when P&A paid them some money, that was only ever going to buy a couple of weeks breathing space. He was then convinced by the riddler that new owner was imminent and would he take temporary charge. So yes he WAS appointed to stop the players going on strike.

And where did you get that irrefutable information from?

Impressed with GreenSam's analysis basing his opinion on fact.

Selective use of 'facts', in the process missing out other 'facts' and I don't want to tell you where I got that information from. I believe it and if you don't I couldn't care less.

I don't believe it.

If Reid had been sacked just a couple of weeks later he wouldn't have been a "football creditor" who's contract settlement was subject to the negotiated (take it or leave it) five year settlement, he would have had to have been paid in one lump sum (perhaps doubling the cost of buying the club out of Administration lol)

And which person do you think is more malleable if you've just taken over a business and want to run it "your way"? The guy whose been in the job for years and knows it inside out, or the over promoted rookie who's grateful just to have the job?

Bogsider.

Try reading posts rather than trying to interpret what you think they mean.

First point the three "" quotes responded to. All of them are facts whether you like it or not. "you would take that all day long". Now that is a quote taken from my first post which is again fact right now. Nowhere in any of my post have I said I am happy. Nowhere have I said that Fletcher is great or the team of players are great. Nowhere have I said I would normally be happy with 55 points.

If you want to respond then please do so without the "happy clappy" labels because there is nothing happy clappy in anything I've said and putting a shit name to somebody does not make your opinion any more valid because of it. As for Fletcher being appointed to avert a strike. Prove it and don't just come out with the usual crap of "I've got inside info". Until I see some proof I won't believe it.

SG, as usual I find myself in general agreement with you. However, your last sentence......why do you think Fletcher was appointed?

My thoughts for what they're worth:

Fletch is rumoured to be on £5k a week. He has received no enhancement for being manager, this is his playing contract. That is a big expense.

Reid had to go, he was doing nothing with a bunch of 'yet to be's or nobodies'. Anyone could have done better. As it turned out he (Fletcher) was going to cost us no more, we effectively got a manager for free. everyone knows Player/Managers don't really work.

Whether it will ever be documented or not, I don't care. He was certainly instrumental in averting the strike. You know it, I know it. Just because it isn't written down doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I am not saying he was not instrumental in averting a strike. I am saying there is no proof that he only did so because he was to be made manager. My take is that he was willing once Reid was gone and maybe he even volunteered his services. He was cheap and at that time no other option was affordable. Ridsdale did not give a flying fig whether Argyle were relegated again once it was clear he wasn't getting his hands on the club. So my question remains the same. If anyone has proof he got the job to avoid a strike then where is it.

I would just like to add that although Fletcher inherited the same squad as Reid, of which he was the captain and senior pro, the squad were getting paid almost immediately which must have given them one helluva boost and much more of an incentive to perform.

Fletcher was playing every game under Reid, then becomes manager and his knees are gone? Sorry but doesn't stack up for me. I still feel Sean odriscolls presence accounted for a turnaround in form, and we should have got him on a contract as soon as possible. Meanwhile we got John feckin deehan.

Being paid or not greenjock it is a generally accepted that the squad, lots of kids, were poor and inexperienced. Just because somebody gave them some money did not make them better players only happier. The influx of more experienced players was still to come and not in place for a good many more matches. People talk about us being 9 games behind the rest but in truth that was at least another 6 or 7 and it is quite a turn around to be at least in a position to stay up. Had there been no Administration and had there been a proper and full season with Fletcher at the helm and we be in this same position then I think kicking him hard would be justified.

I know how much work I did on a good news day compared to the day I found out I was being made redundant, or when there were issues with my pay.

Under Fletcher we drew at home then were beaten by stourbridge. With an entirely new squad of his players we have been abject on many occasions and average to say the least on all but a coupla of games.

I reckon cobi could have matched his his results with this squad, and he would have played Robbie Williams every game.

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

We are bloody joke outfit.

Yep, I can agree with that.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

We are bloody joke outfit.

Yep, I can agree with that.

In fairness, we are not 8 points adrift and I don't think we were in that situation at all in L1

Block4Green wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

We are bloody joke outfit.

Yep, I can agree with that.

In fairness, we are not 8 points adrift and I don't think we were in that situation at all in L1

FFS! We were relegated all the same. We are now bottom of L2 going onto April. Our position or Exeter's? I know which i'd chose right now.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Being paid or not greenjock it is a generally accepted that the squad, lots of kids, were poor and inexperienced. Just because somebody gave them some money did not make them better players only happier. The influx of more experienced players was still to come and not in place for a good many more matches. People talk about us being 9 games behind the rest but in truth that was at least another 6 or 7 and it is quite a turn around to be at least in a position to stay up. Had there been no Administration and had there been a proper and full season with Fletcher at the helm and we be in this same position then I think kicking him hard would be justified.

I bet people will still be praising him down to the ground for nearly taking us to the Blue Sqaure play offs.

Just out of interest and I've yet to receive an answer to this, if he is such an amazing managerial talent and a roaring success, why is he only contracted to the end of the season???