Go Let It Out

[matty_f]

Ep 259 Go Let It Out

We pick the bones out an awful result for Hibs and ask what this means for Monty and those above him at the club.

🎧 https://pod.fo/e/22e887
📺 https://youtu.be/SSMyDjMbKk8?si=saweJ0T38oNfxJxj

[Bridge hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ep 259 Go Let It Out

We pick the bones out an awful result for Hibs and ask what this means for Monty and those above him at the club.

🎧 https://pod.fo/e/22e887
📺 https://youtu.be/SSMyDjMbKk8?si=saweJ0T38oNfxJxj

Listening now, cheers guys 👍

Liking the replays for talking points too 👍

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Listening now, cheers guys 👍

Liking the replays for talking points too 👍

Cheers! It was a very cathartic episode!

[bingo70]

Pishing myself at the suggestion Hibs corner routines work well in training because we’re practicing against Hibs defenders, great shout that 😂

I think john or it might have been people on here craving stability from an appointment like McInnes and giving him 2/3 years but for me that’s cloud cookoo land stuff if a manager thinks he’ll get that length of time without making progress. It’s a nice idea in theory but it’s not realistic for supporters of big clubs (in Scottish football terms) to be expected to put up with 2 or 3 bad years in the hope they might get one good season at the end of it (history tells us for any club, success as 3rd place is very difficult to sustain).

There needs to be clear signs of progress and for Montgomery I suspect his time is about to run out.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pishing myself at the suggestion Hibs corner routines work well in training because we’re practicing against Hibs defenders, great shout that 😂

I think john or it might have been people on here craving stability from an appointment like McInnes and giving him 2/3 years but for me that’s cloud cookoo land stuff if a manager thinks he’ll get that length of time without making progress. It’s a nice idea in theory but it’s not realistic for supporters of big clubs (in Scottish football terms) to be expected to put up with 2 or 3 bad years in the hope they might get one good season at the end of it (history tells us for any club, success as 3rd place is very difficult to sustain).

There needs to be clear signs of progress and for Montgomery I suspect his time is about to run out.

I tend to agree - it takes an exceptionally strong board to stand by a manager that shows minimal signs of getting it right, though I do think that there is a case for stability and if you are certain you have the right guy then it's probably right to give him time.

Chances of it happening in reality though....

[Nicho87]

As **** a result / season it’s been

Can always count on longbangers

Nice one

[LongJohnBanger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pishing myself at the suggestion Hibs corner routines work well in training because we’re practicing against Hibs defenders, great shout that ��

I think john or it might have been people on here craving stability from an appointment like McInnes and giving him 2/3 years but for me that’s cloud cookoo land stuff if a manager thinks he’ll get that length of time without making progress. It’s a nice idea in theory but it’s not realistic for supporters of big clubs (in Scottish football terms) to be expected to put up with 2 or 3 bad years in the hope they might get one good season at the end of it (history tells us for any club, success as 3rd place is very difficult to sustain).

There needs to be clear signs of progress and for Montgomery I suspect his time is about to run out.

For a bit more context on the McInnes discussion and my suggested need for managerial stability was around Kilmarnock being 4th now but finishing 3rd bottom last season after getting them out the Championship.

The expectation level might be different at Kilmarnock but at this moment in time at least, they appear to be benefitting from an approach that we're consistently unwilling to take. McInnes has had 108 games in charge of Kilmarnock - since sacking Jack Ross our 'permanent' managers and their caretakers have a combined 114 games in charge (give or take, I had to combine a few sources).

Since Alex Miller, Hibs managerial appointments have ended the following ways with managers averaging 18 months in charge. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs#cite_ref-55)

Sacked
Moved to Rangers
Sacked
Moved to Plymouth Argyle
Moved to West Brom
Resigned
Mutual consent
Mutual consent
Sacked
Resigned
Sacked
Moved to Rotherham
Conscious uncoupling
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked

I acknowledge that there's no guarantee that sticking with a manager through a bad season(s) means we're more likely to see an improvement on the pitch. It could also lead to scenarios like Terry Butcher where we're relegated. What I'm most concerned by however is that we seem to be stuck in a doom spiral of sacking managers that has not led to any demonstrable improvement in the club's success on the pitch; with that in mind, why would we do it again?

Something has to change.

[LustForLeith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For a bit more context on the McInnes discussion and my suggested need for managerial stability was around Kilmarnock being 4th now but finishing 3rd bottom last season after getting them out the Championship.

The expectation level might be different at Kilmarnock but at this moment in time at least, they appear to be benefitting from an approach that we're consistently unwilling to take. McInnes has had 108 games in charge of Kilmarnock - since sacking Jack Ross our 'permanent' managers and their caretakers have a combined 93 games in charge.

Since Alex Miller, Hibs managerial appointments have ended the following ways with managers averaging 18 months in charge. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs#cite_ref-55)

Sacked
Moved to Rangers
Sacked
Moved to Plymouth Argyle
Moved to West Brom
Resigned
Mutual consent
Mutual consent
Sacked
Resigned
Sacked
Moved to Rotherham
Conscious uncoupling
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked

I acknowledge that there's no guarantee that sticking with a manager through a bad season(s) means we're more likely to see an improvement on the pitch. It could also lead to scenarios like Terry Butcher where we're relegated. What I'm most concerned by however is that we seem to be stuck in a doom spiral of sacking managers that has not led to any demonstrable improvement in the club's success on the pitch; with that in mind, why would we do it again?

Something has to change.

True!

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For a bit more context on the McInnes discussion and my suggested need for managerial stability was around Kilmarnock being 4th now but finishing 3rd bottom last season after getting them out the Championship.

The expectation level might be different at Kilmarnock but at this moment in time at least, they appear to be benefitting from an approach that we're consistently unwilling to take. McInnes has had 108 games in charge of Kilmarnock - since sacking Jack Ross our 'permanent' managers and their caretakers have a combined 114 games in charge (give or take, I had to combine a few sources).

Since Alex Miller, Hibs managerial appointments have ended the following ways with managers averaging 18 months in charge. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs#cite_ref-55)

Sacked
Moved to Rangers
Sacked
Moved to Plymouth Argyle
Moved to West Brom
Resigned
Mutual consent
Mutual consent
Sacked
Resigned
Sacked
Moved to Rotherham
Conscious uncoupling
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked

I acknowledge that there's no guarantee that sticking with a manager through a bad season(s) means we're more likely to see an improvement on the pitch. It could also lead to scenarios like Terry Butcher where we're relegated. What I'm most concerned by however is that we seem to be stuck in a doom spiral of sacking managers that has not led to any demonstrable improvement in the club's success on the pitch; with that in mind, why would we do it again?

Something has to change.

The thing is, I don’t think any of our managers (arguably ever) have been absolutely unequivocal failures where every single person would be 100% sure that they should be ejected, Butcher obviously being the closest.

LJ, Maloney, Ross, Hecky, Lennon, go back almost as far as you want and there are either serious mitigating factors regarding their results or a positive case that can be made to give them more time.

Monty is no different - there’s a case to keep him, a case to punt him.

Eventually you have to ask yourself what kind of a club you want to be - be a club who gives managers time, benefit of the doubt and backing that eventually medium to long term planning can bear fruit. Or you can be the kind who bow to fan pressure, who ejects managers regularly, who are always looking for the new manager bounce etc etc…

I was as concerned as everyone on Saturday and I did watch the same game as everyone else. It was drivel and there negative features of the game that had Monty’s fingerprints all over it.

But there remains a case to keep him in position (albeit I’d take some convincing) - in the hope that working alongside a DoF, the recruitment department to bring about the required arrivals over the summer etc then we might feel the benefit of trying to see out a longer game rather than going back to square one and spinning the managerial tombola again.

[Donegal Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For a bit more context on the McInnes discussion and my suggested need for managerial stability was around Kilmarnock being 4th now but finishing 3rd bottom last season after getting them out the Championship.

The expectation level might be different at Kilmarnock but at this moment in time at least, they appear to be benefitting from an approach that we're consistently unwilling to take. McInnes has had 108 games in charge of Kilmarnock - since sacking Jack Ross our 'permanent' managers and their caretakers have a combined 114 games in charge (give or take, I had to combine a few sources).

Since Alex Miller, Hibs managerial appointments have ended the following ways with managers averaging 18 months in charge. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs#cite_ref-55)

Sacked
Moved to Rangers
Sacked
Moved to Plymouth Argyle
Moved to West Brom
Resigned
Mutual consent
Mutual consent
Sacked
Resigned
Sacked
Moved to Rotherham
Conscious uncoupling
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked

I acknowledge that there's no guarantee that sticking with a manager through a bad season(s) means we're more likely to see an improvement on the pitch. It could also lead to scenarios like Terry Butcher where we're relegated. What I'm most concerned by however is that we seem to be stuck in a doom spiral of sacking managers that has not led to any demonstrable improvement in the club's success on the pitch; with that in mind, why would we do it again?

Something has to change.

Since the Pozzo family have taken over at Watford in 2012 they are now on their 20th manager i believe and are sitting 14th which isn't exactly great . In that time they've had managers like Sean dyche, Roy hodgson and Marco Silva who have all went on to do well.

https://www.hornetsreview.co.uk/2024...0were%20sacked.

On Monty's position though while it's not been good and I can understand why folk want him gone though is one January transfer window really enough time for any manager to turn things around ?. I'm really not so sure it is tbh . I'd love to see us give someone a proper chance rather than going down road Watford's been on since 2012 without making any progress .

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For a bit more context on the McInnes discussion and my suggested need for managerial stability was around Kilmarnock being 4th now but finishing 3rd bottom last season after getting them out the Championship.

The expectation level might be different at Kilmarnock but at this moment in time at least, they appear to be benefitting from an approach that we're consistently unwilling to take. McInnes has had 108 games in charge of Kilmarnock - since sacking Jack Ross our 'permanent' managers and their caretakers have a combined 114 games in charge (give or take, I had to combine a few sources).

Since Alex Miller, Hibs managerial appointments have ended the following ways with managers averaging 18 months in charge. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rs#cite_ref-55)

Sacked
Moved to Rangers
Sacked
Moved to Plymouth Argyle
Moved to West Brom
Resigned
Mutual consent
Mutual consent
Sacked
Resigned
Sacked
Moved to Rotherham
Conscious uncoupling
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked
Sacked

I acknowledge that there's no guarantee that sticking with a manager through a bad season(s) means we're more likely to see an improvement on the pitch. It could also lead to scenarios like Terry Butcher where we're relegated. What I'm most concerned by however is that we seem to be stuck in a doom spiral of sacking managers that has not led to any demonstrable improvement in the club's success on the pitch; with that in mind, why would we do it again?

Something has to change.

Agree with you there. Good post