RaidenYeltz wrote:
I rather Johnn as a manger.
I wouldn't. People can hide behind the budget thing as long as they like, but, John Hill sets the team up to play, has bought these players and should motivate them. Even when results were good I wasn't happy with what was going on and I wanted a change.
I am going to sound like I'm being really harsh here, and it's not intended to be how many will take it, I'm just saying something that I think. In the past, we have had managers like Martin O'Connor, and assistants such as Graham Hyde and Darren Caskey. Whether you liked them as managers, you couldn't argue that they had real knowledge from playing at the very top level. Minor things they would know from their playing days. John Hill, through no fault of his own, doesn't have that experience. It's a bit like Peter Moores and the England cricket team. You knew when he was appointed he would be useless and it turned out that way. Get Bayliss in and look at the difference. John Hill managed at Tipton for 10 years, lower than the Yeltz level, and did extremely well when we were in the division below. But this is where I felt we have been found out, I think this is the maximum level this management team can get to, I don't think there is anything more there. John knows the leagues below us well, and will know those players. But does he know the players that are required at our level as well? You hear it at higher levels about managers buying players they are comfortable buying, is this what has happened here? If people know it genuinely is the budget then I apologise but as you obviously know, I've had my serious doubts about this management team for nearly two years now
