Why was McLeish sacked?

[neo_Villan]

Our current squad will really struggle against championship sides, as will be proven tonight.

Bradford aside it hasn't really struggled in recent league/FA cup games.

I'm not sure the cups are and indicator of the lower leagues though. Most lower league teams don't take the cups too seriously.

Swindon took it pretty seriously, on the other hand we only narrowly beat them.

And we only beat them thanks to Benteke, one of the few Prem quality players we still have. We won't have that luxury next year after we go down.

[regular_john]

McLeish was sacked because he produced dire, boring football and showed no signs of improving the team in any area in either the short or the long term, especially given that the side available to him was quite experienced.

Lambert, while not brilliant, is not yet as bad as McLeish in my mind. I very much doubt that his decision to bring in lots of young players was based solely on football, I'd imagine it was mostly based on bringing in players who would agree to low wages with a view to keeping these low-paid players together as a team for a good few years. I still think Lambert is the man for the long term, but he needs to be able to bring in experienced players in the next week in order to secure our short term status in the Prem. If he fails to do that it will be a reflection of a lack of funds, which indicates failure at board level, and we will almost certainly be relegated.

The conditions that we currently face are not solely of Lambert's making, and I struggle to see how any other manager could come in and do a better job with the players and finances available.

[eastie]

We know why mcleish was sacked .
Why didnt barry take the penalty?

[N'ZMAV]

Why didnt barry take the penalty?

What penalty?

[paul_e]

The conditions that we currently face are not solely of Lambert's making, and I struggle to see how any other manager could come in and do a better job with the players and finances available.

I agree that a large number of the problems aren't of his making, and I also agree that, long-term, he could turn out well but I think there are plenty of other managers who would've reacted differently to conceding early against Chelsea and not allowed it to lead to a confidence draining battering that we've shown no signs of recovering from.  He needs to find a way for us to deal with some pressure that doesn't involve abandoning the midfield and using Benteke as a head on a stick.

[TheSandman]

I prefer to ask 'Why was McLeish appointed?'. I still haven't worked that one out.

[not3bad]

I prefer to ask 'Why was McLeish appointed?'. I still haven't worked that one out.

He had the best answer for why Barry didn't take the penalty.

[rob_bridge]

Why was he appointed a much better question

Sacked - well 4 points from the last 11 games didn't help his cause much did it?

[Villafirst]

McLeish had a better record at this stage last season than PL on less money to spend

[russon]

he should never have been sacked by virtue of the fact that he should never have been appointed

[Matt C]

I'd imagine if you factor in the wages of Given, Hutton, Jenas & N'Zogbia he spent far more than Lambert has.

[Concrete John]

McLeish had a better record at this stage last season than PL on less money to spend

He also inherited a much better squad than Lambert did.

[Monty]

McLeish had a better record at this stage last season than PL on less money to spend

He also inherited a much better squad than Lambert did.

I'm not so sure, other than the injury to Dunne it's largely the same players. The one thing I'd say was that he'd inherited a team with young players in it who'd just had a year, albeit a fairly disruptive one, with GH in which they'd finally been given a little playing time and perhaps the right sort of coaching. For many of them, you have to feel that last season was the last chance for them to develop before we should be expecting more of them, and Eck's 'development' of them was actually terrible.

[Villain1874]

I think he was sacked because they realised it was all a huge mistake in the first place.  The football he presented wasn't good to watch, wasn't successful, wasn't progressive and was designed not to lose rather than to try and win.  There appeared to be little chance of it ever developing.  McLeish  simply didn't have the ability, knowledge  or imagination do it any other way. 

Lambert on the other hand appeared to have a long term strategy that involved modern tactical thinking, developing young players in the right way, and playing an entertaining game based on passing and moving.  In theory it was the right call. Up to the Chelsea game things were iffy but looked like they were improving, and I think after the Liverpool game most of us probably thought we would just about be okay this season and then build on it next season when a few more of the higher earners were off the books.

I don't think anyone could have predicted just how spectacularly tits up it would go, but it's hard to see how Lambert is going to turn it around without new players and a long hard look at his "tactics".

Excellent summation.

Agreed, could not have put it better myself....

[Concrete John]

McLeish had a better record at this stage last season than PL on less money to spend

He also inherited a much better squad than Lambert did.

I'm not so sure, other than the injury to Dunne it's largely the same players. The one thing I'd say was that he'd inherited a team with young players in it who'd just had a year, albeit a fairly disruptive one, with GH in which they'd finally been given a little playing time and perhaps the right sort of coaching. For many of them, you have to feel that last season was the last chance for them to develop before we should be expecting more of them, and Eck's 'development' of them was actually terrible.

Wehn I say that it's largely based on a squad that finished 9th in 2010/2011, compared to one that finished 16th in 2011/2012.