Should We Have Kept Cifuentes?

[South Shire Fox]

No. We were outplayed in 95 percent of games and were saved by Jordan James or Fatawu wonderstrikes. Eventually the wonderstrikes ran out and James got injured so he was well and truly found out. Horrendous manager

[Manwell Pablo]

😂 Such an odd question to ask and to be honest you, I just get blue in the face answering questions like this that are so out of touch. 
 

The question isn’t should we have kept him the answer is no we shouldn’t even have appointed him in the first place. 😂
 

Everything comes back down to top and Rudkin. 

[Chelmofox]

No - we were right to get rid. At the time we were hoping to be in touching distance of play offs and Marti was drifting away from that.

 

BUT, we massively messed up the next steps. The exact same issue happened as in the first PL relegation season. We just presumed if we handed to job to King everything would be ok. Those 3 games were crucial.

 

We waited 3 games to appoint someone far worse than what we already had. Rowett was possibly the most dreadful choice we could have made, and far worse than Marti.

 

So my feeling is, if Marti stayed i think we would have stayed up, but we would all still be considering the season a massive failure. The right thing to have done was to sack Marti and get someone good in quickly. Massive failure.

 

We have to remember that at worst Marti was mid table. Rowett has put us in the bottom 3 even if you were to remove the points deduction.

Edited 18 April by Chelmofox

[funkyrobot]

Yes. Clearly there was no plan for who to bring in. Cifuentes was a poor manager but Rowett is even worse. That’s a statistical fact. Rowett has a worse PPG than he even had at Oxford. Getting two Championship clubs relegated in one season. Wow. 

[Clogger_]

Dunno. Wouldn't have changed the outcome. Is it better that we're even more financially f****d, i.e. closer to shaking off KP fleas? Time will tell 

Edited 18 April by Clogger_

[Headcase]

1 hour ago, shiv said:

Our fans have a weird sense of recency bias with every appointment. The last 4 managerial appointments, collectively, have all been horrendous and I don’t think our outcome would be any different.

 

Having said that, this definitely runs deeper than the manager. We have the most unmanageable squad in the entire football league. 

Our last 4 managers could literally be the same .manager, because nothing changed. Not even slightly. Which makes you wonder who really was running the team

[STUHILL]

No, we had to roll the dice. We were going down with Cifuentes, but it didn't work, and I now believe that these players would have struggled to perform under any new Manager. They are so lazy, and just don't care about the future of the club. 

I just hope the rats leave the sinking ship now, only positive to this relegation. 

[fox_favourite]

No because the players gave up with him long before he was sacked. His tactics were flawed. We were heading down whoever was managing us. The club is broken from all angles, keeping Marti wasn't going to stop the rot. 

[foxinsox]

The big difference was not Rowatt for Cifuenties it was Jordan James becoming unfit. He was the only good thing this season. If he had stayed fit we wouldn't have been relegated. Our midfield has been pants without him.

[Number 6]

No, he should have been sacked sooner. I really worry about how a Cifuentes team would have handled the deduction. Think form would have plummeted under him too.

 

On the managerial side we've made the same mistakes we made in 23: hung on to a manager for too long, left a caretaker in charge for vital games, got in a poor manager with no skin in the game beyond a limited number of games.

 

Glad that internal review meant we learnt from all of our mistakes.

[Mike Oxlong]

Think we could have got Rohl before Cifuentes. The answer to the question is that we shouldn't have got Cifuentes 

[Les-TA-Jon]

9 hours ago, Guest said:

I think it's two different questions really:

 

Should we have kept Cifuentes? No. Things were pretty clearly only heading in one direction, and it was the direction anyone could have told you they would head in as soon as Fatawu and James stopped trading wondergoals every weekend.

 

Should we have sacked Cifuentes if that meant handing the reins to someone with literally zero managerial experience for almost an entire month before appointing Gary Rowett? Probably also no.

This. The club keeps making the same mistakes again and again. 
 

delay sacking a manager. Then do so, with no plan on the replacement. Waste vital games with an under-qualified caretaker, then appoint someone who isn’t even better than the predecessor.
 

it’s happened with  3 out of the last 4 changes: 

Rodgers > Smith

Cooper > RVN

Cifuentes > Rowett 

[Tom12345]

Yes we should have because of who we appointed after him.

 

He was poor with QPR.

 

Rowett was even worst. He relegated a few other teams?

 

Why the history with these managers were not considered as part of the recruitment process I don’t know, but if anyone had a sense that was relevant, we should never have appointed either.

 

We needed to appoint winners like Lampard (even if inexperienced), but we appointed losers (with experience in being a loser too!).

[Sunbury Fox]

27 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Think we could have got Rohl before Cifuentes. The answer to the question is that we shouldn't have got Cifuentes 

Rohl was the obvious choice and might have been able to get a tune out of this lot. But wasn't it the need to pay compensation to Wednesday that scuppered that happening? Or did Rudkin think Cifuentes was the better bet?!

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, Sunbury Fox said:

Rohl was the obvious choice and might have been able to get a tune out of this lot. But wasn't it the need to pay compensation to Wednesday that scuppered that happening? Or did Rudkin think Cifuentes was the better bet?!

I'm not sure SF 

 

Either way Cifuentes was another bad appointment 

[FrankieADZ]

9 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

No. We were outplayed in 95 percent of games and were saved by Jordan James or Fatawu wonderstrikes. Eventually the wonderstrikes ran out and James got injured so he was well and truly found out. Horrendous manager

pretty much spot on, 

in MC's last win in the league as manager was against WBA, and we got hammered and got the win thanks to a fatawu worldie

even if we kept him it was only going one way

[Edingleyfox]

I think if Cifuentes had been supported in the market with a proper striker or fit number 10  he might have done OK although he was running out of ideas. But yes if you are making a change it needs to be planned with someone in mind. There was still this complacency that the squad was good enough and exactly the same hesitancy we saw a couple of years back in appointing anyone. 

[Dames]

It doesnt matter who the manager is or was the same outcome would have happened. When the inevitable documentary comes out in a few years when KP have disappeared we’ll find out truly how bad things are and how much the board meddled. 
 

Certain style of play must be adhered to no matter whos in charge. Same overpaid under performing players picked without question and if you dared question it you got frozen out (Ruud). 
 

Theres only one reason we’ve stuck doing the exact same thing, with the exact same players for two seasons straight despite everyone else seeing it failing. That reason is the spoilt nepo baby that now runs our club. 

[Globalfox]

I think it was irrelevant. Just before Christmas was present at a series of conversations with him that gave an insight into the impossible position I think all the managers have faced. Toxic players with a direct line to the DOF and owner who interfere with the managers attempts to improve things and discipline players. It was clear that day he was a genuine individual who could not last under the regime. The owner who has no footballing knowledge has his fingers too embedded in directing things . He acts like a star struck teenager and it’s impossible to break. He continues to surround himself with sycophants who have no backbone to drive through the right things.

[trooky]

Bournemouth, a well run club replaces their manager with someone with a similar philosophy that suits their squad. 

 

A badly run club replaces their managers with random choices without any continuity of philosophy that doesn't suit the squad. 

 

Only the clueless c*u*n*t*s Topkin would go from Enzo, Cooper, RVN, Cifuentes and the finally Rowett, 

 

Nothing will change in this club until Topkin leave. 

 

 

Edited 19 April by trooky

[Gerard]

10 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

No - we were right to get rid. At the time we were hoping to be in touching distance of play offs and Marti was drifting away from that.

 

BUT, we massively messed up the next steps. The exact same issue happened as in the first PL relegation season. We just presumed if we handed to job to King everything would be ok. Those 3 games were crucial.

 

We waited 3 games to appoint someone far worse than what we already had. Rowett was possibly the most dreadful choice we could have made, and far worse than Marti.

 

So my feeling is, if Marti stayed i think we would have stayed up, but we would all still be considering the season a massive failure. The right thing to have done was to sack Marti and get someone good in quickly. Massive failure.

 

We have to remember that at worst Marti was mid table. Rowett has put us in the bottom 3 even if you were to remove the points deduction.

 

Just had a look, we've won one game in 15 since he was sacked. That's Leicester City in the Championship. The club is absolutely rotten to the core.

[honeybradger]

Anyone who bins off the likes of Winks and Faes gets a thumbs up from me. We need to prioritise getting these cockroaches out of the club, it's more important than results on the pitch even.

 

Although as we've seen the results inevitably go tits up if you keep them around.

[Pliskin]

The only thing that SHOULD happen is that useless cųnt of an owner sells up, ****s off and takes his band of ****wits with him. 

[Brizzle Fox]

Well we shouldn't have appointed him in the first place but that's a whole different thread I suppose.

 

My answer to this question would be, well if you're only going to replace him with someone as useless as Rowett then yes.

 

Could have saved ourselves some pennies.

[Nalis]

We were lucky to be in the play off spots under him for so long at the start of the season