Help Needed - How to get rid of Mick McCarthy

[Sid]

Milwall didn't sack him, he went to Ireland. The others sacked him because he WAS taking them down.

he left millwall 14 points clear of relegation - they were relegated
he was sacked by sunderland with 10 games to go - they were relegated
he was sacked by wolves with 13 games to go and out of the bottom 3 - they were relegated

it may be your opinion that they were going down but it's not the fact.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

We were in VERY serious danger of going down.

Sunderland were as good as dead.

It's fact.

 

[YoungWolf]

We may not have gone done without a win after the Albion game had he been kept on but we still would have easily gone down. The players had given up, there was clearly a divisive environment within the group, and we just didn't have the quality either.

 

[Tony Towner]

he left millwall 14 points clear of relegation - they were relegated
he was sacked by sunderland with 10 games to go - they were relegated
he was sacked by wolves with 13 games to go and out of the bottom 3 - they were relegated

it may be your opinion that they were going down but it's not the fact.

Here are the facts:
We WERE in the bottom 3 when he was sacked
We had a really difficult run in
We had just been thrashed 5-1 at home with possibly the worst team selection I've ever seen at Wolves including a clearly unfit O'Hara in a midfield two.
We were in terrible form, 1 win in 13 and that only because of a stupid red card at QPR.
Wigan won 7 of their last 9 games

He was taking us down, we would have got more points if he'd stayed, but we would still have gone down of that there is no doubt in my mind. Anyone who argues otherwise is either being contrary or is deluded.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The table when Mick was sacked by Sunderland:

http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2005-2006/table/2006-03-05

Sure, mathematically they could have stayed up, just like mathematically we could still win the league this season. But they were down.

Edit: Portsmouth ended up finishing 17th on 38 points, so whoever came in would have needed to win nine and draw one of those final 10 games to possibly save them on GD, or win the lot to make sure.

 

[Sid]

The table when Mick was sacked by Sunderland:

http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2005-2006/table/2006-03-05

Sure, mathematically they could have stayed up, just like mathematically we could still win the league this season. But they were down.

Edit: Portsmouth ended up finishing 17th on 38 points, so whoever came in would have needed to win nine and draw one of those final 10 games to possibly save them on GD, or win the lot to make sure.

would you accept then that no club who parted company with mick has seen any marked improvement in their fortunes as a result ?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You could argue Sunderland did, they went straight back up under Keane and in a decade since haven't been relegated (though this might be the year).

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I would.

If Ipswich bumble along to the end of the season they shouldn't go down either way from their current position. It sounds like Mick's time has come and the fans have had enough of his football. Saying that, he is a bloody good manager at this level so they will be struggling to replace him with someone guaranteed to be better results wise.

 

[Sniffer]

Agreed re Sunderland, I don't think there is a manager around who could have kept them up with that squad and budget.

That is the reason why I was so happy to get MM at the time. He took them up as Champions without really spending anything.

You could argue Sunderland did, they went straight back up under Keane and in a decade since haven't been relegated (though this might be the year).

Didn't a new owner come in who threw money at Keane? I'm sure that in similar circumstances Mick would have done as well as Keane.

 

[Sid]

You could argue Sunderland did, they went straight back up under Keane and in a decade since haven't been relegated (though this might be the year).

and continue in the same situation as under mick, so no marked improvement.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

That is the reason why I was so happy to get MM at the time. He took them up as Champions without really spending anything.



Didn't a new owner come in who threw money at Keane? I'm sure that in similar circumstances Mick would have done as well as Keane.

Yep, an Irish Consortium with Niall Quinn involved took them over, with (for the time) a decent wedge of cash to spend

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

and continue in the same situation as under mick, so no marked improvement.

Not really, Mick's PL record with Sunderland was P37 W2 D4 L31. It's true that Keane, Bruce, O'Neill had a lot more to spend than he ever had but Mick never even came close to putting together even competent form in the top flight for them.

 

[Lycan]

I'm sure Mick's record in the transfer market was sketchy at best with Sunderland as well. I seem to remember them saying that what little money he did have he wasted.

 

[Sniffer]

I'm sure Mick's record in the transfer market was sketchy at best with Sunderland as well. I seem to remember them saying that what little money he did have he wasted.

According to Wiki (I know!)
In his first close season with them he spent nothing (all frees and loans) and sold £13.4m
In his second close season he spent £200k and the players leaving were all frees. (Promoted as Champions)
In his Premier League season he spent £4.25m and sold £0.25m

The crux of the matter to me is that he won the league with a team of Championship players (at best) and didn't have sufficient funds to upgrade the squad. I wouldn't argue with you that the £4.25m spent on Jon Stead (£1.8m), Kelvin Davies (£1.25m), Daryl Murphy (£0.1m) and Andy Gray (£1.1m) was not successful.

Edit: Roy Keane sold Jon Stead for £1.25m and Kelvin Davies for £1.25m. Some of Mick's freebies sold by Keane were Liam Lawrence £650k, Steven Cauldwell £400k and a few that he signed for Wolves (Elliot and Collins) so they more than re-couped anything he ever spent.