Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I hate stories about Jim Gannon on here, Steve falls out with everyone <_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCC Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Gannon himself is a bit of a primadonna, not all the players fault. Everywhere he has been he has fallon out with chairmen, or refs, or players He is a legend at Stockport <_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He is a legend at Stockport Cause he played there for 10 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Youngy offered gannon a square go & he shat it. All mouth & nae troosers yer man gannon. Down by the Birdies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 A team which was sitting comfortably in line for promotion, 1 win since November against a team who are 1 point from bottom. Gannon already spouting off about players and everyone else, face it, the guy is a nut job, so glad we got rid of him, as we would be playing first division football if he stayed and kept insisting on us passing the ball to the right back at every goal kick. Terrible manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He had the right idea re youth etc. And as someone said earlier Le Guen and Collins had a similar outlook and both got laughed out of Scotland as well. We (Scotland) wonder why we are crap when our players are going for kebabs and having beers near games, while other countries are behaving like athletes. Gannon has the right ideas but obviously his personality is holding him back somewhat. Eye for a player as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper_no1 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Dundalk - manager for 17/18 months, mid table finish. Stockport - got them promoted and then they went bust of something, though not his fault. Motherwell - Seemed to be doing alright but then things went a bit warped - booted after 6 months. Peterborough - fail in all honesty port Vale - things not going well. Whatever happens with the man he doesn't hang about long at any club with the obvious exception of Stockport. What is clear is that he has a vision of how football should be played - nice tippy tappy free flowing stuff. Sadly hanging about the SPL and lower leagues of England isn't going to get you that sort of football. It's rough and tumble stuff, mainly to make up for a lack of ability. Bet he'd make a cracking manager in a league where they don't hack the fuck outta each other much - wherever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He had the right idea re youth etc. Did he though? There is playing young players/youth players because they are better than what we have, but then there is playing young players to make yourself look good. You cannot honestly say putting on Meechen against Celtic was a great idea when we had John Sutton on the bench, and needed a goal. And for the record, we're still got one of the youngest squads in the league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I hate stories about Jim Gannon on here, Kind of getting that way myself. Clearly there's a will to still discuss him in depth given the frequency these threads pop up. Personally I think most have pretty entrenched views on the guy that aren't going to be changed now and I don't think there's that much to be gained continually going over the same ground time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Kind of getting that way myself. Clearly there's a will to still discuss him in depth given the frequency these threads pop up. Personally I think most have pretty entrenched views on the guy that aren't going to be changed now and I don't think there's that much to be gained continually going over the same ground time and time again. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Did he though? There is playing young players/youth players because they are better than what we have, but then there is playing young players to make yourself look good. You cannot honestly say putting on Meechen against Celtic was a great idea when we had John Sutton on the bench, and needed a goal. And for the record, we're still got one of the youngest squads in the league... I think he did yes. You can argue all day long about it though, won't make a bit of difference apart from wasting your time As for your last statement, more through necessity now I'd say rather than design. Andy P you're right, my views are totally entrenched as are many others but I do remember you asking the question who kept bringing the subject up. I don't remember me or Steve bringing it up except in response to a dig at him. Here's your answer. As long as someone aims to put him down we'll respond, no doubts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 +1 + 2 move on its getting boring now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 +1 + 2 move on its getting boring now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 apologies for the double post, laptop problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 This is what happens when we don't sign a striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think he did yes. You can argue all day long about it though, won't make a bit of difference apart from wasting your time What fuck the result as long as I throw in at least one debutant every so many games, even if I have the perfect(ish) player on the bench to sort out our current problem? Aye excellent plan... On paper Gannon had the right frame of mind regarding "playing" football, but he was unable to put that across as his form of good football (defensive possession football) is useless in a British League. Good football is not impossible (we've shown that at times under all our managers, but it has to be quick attack-minded football). As for your last statement, more through necessity now I'd say rather than design Aye it's by necessity but then again - we've not gone out and signed 11-15 veterans over the last two managers have we? So it is still a youth based squad from Brown and now McCall at this time. The way Gannon was going we could have lost 10 First Team players in either Janaury or the Summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The way Gannon was going we could have lost 10 First Team players in either Janaury or the Summer.Given his track record for delivering exactly the signings he said he'd bring in, that wouldn't have been too big a deal. It would only have mattered if we lost 10 first team players every summer - which was unlikely given that the guys that came in obviously wanted to work with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Jennings and Hateley he brought in - would have been 2 of those 10.... While another 3 (Ruddy, The Juke and Yass would have been sent back in January - although maybe Yass would have stayed as Gannon liked him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 What fuck the result as long as I throw in at least one debutant every so many games, even if I have the perfect(ish) player on the bench to sort out our current problem? Aye excellent plan... But that's what he told us all would be happening - very explicitly when he came in. - We'll take some pain at the expense of building a young team and giving them experience. On paper Gannon had the right frame of mind regarding "playing" football, but he was unable to put that across as his form of good football (defensive possession football) is useless in a British League. Good football is not impossible (we've shown that at times under all our managers, but it has to be quick attack-minded football). I think he wanted that too - we just didn't deliver at times. You telling me Gannon's philosophy was to play football across defence and NOT try to attack. He used to scream at Craigan for his losing possession ant that was the reason for his regular hook. He also encouraged HUtch and Reynolds to push forward from defence and try and link in the midfield Aye it's by necessity but then again - we've not gone out and signed 11-15 veterans over the last two managers have we? So it is still a youth based squad from Brown and now McCall at this time. The way Gannon was going we could have lost 10 First Team players in either Janaury or the Summer. Depends who they were - whether that's a problem. Coupled with the track record in bringing replacements in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Jennings and Hateley he brought in - would have been 2 of those 10.... While another 3 (Ruddy, The Juke and Yass would have been sent back in January - although maybe Yass would have stayed as Gannon liked him). So how long have you wasted typing all that and you still haven't changed my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottW1886 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He's left - why the constant desire to predict what might have happened if he had stayed? But, for what it's worth, a lot of people on here want Craigan dropped and the young players to be given their chance - something Gannon did but yet is viewed by the majority as an error on his part. In my opinion there was a split in the squad, based on the behaviour of the players at Craigan's testimonial race night. I'm not suggesting any fall outs between the players, but those reported to be against Gannon were all drinking, while the youngsters and those playing were all on soft drinks. He had a long term vision for the club, but it didn't come to pass. For me, one of his biggest errors was trying to change too much too soon and the performances eventually suffered. As for him not being liked by the players (some of them) and the other staff at the club - he was employed to get results on the park, not be everyone's best pal. We'll never know if he'd have been a success had he stayed, and 6 months isn't long enough to categorically state that he would have failed either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 He's left - why the constant desire to predict what might have happened if he had stayed? But, for what it's worth, a lot of people on here want Craigan dropped and the young players to be given their chance - something Gannon did but yet is viewed by the majority as an error on his part. In my opinion there was a split in the squad, based on the behaviour of the players at Craigan's testimonial race night. I'm not suggesting any fall outs between the players, but those reported to be against Gannon were all drinking, while the youngsters and those playing were all on soft drinks. He had a long term vision for the club, but it didn't come to pass. For me, one of his biggest errors was trying to change too much too soon and the performances eventually suffered. As for him not being liked by the players (some of them) and the other staff at the club - he was employed to get results on the park, not be everyone's best pal. We'll never know if he'd have been a success had he stayed, and 6 months isn't long enough to categorically state that he would have failed either. Dropping Craigan was the best thing Gannon did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoF Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 But, for what it's worth, a lot of people on here want Craigan dropped and the young players to be given their chance - something Gannon did but yet is viewed by the majority as an error on his part. I don't think that's what's viewed as the error. Dropping the regulars then refusing to discuss the matter with them, refusing to tell them if/how they can get back into the first team then making them train with the under 19's was the error. I think leaving players who may only have a few years left in the game in complete limbo was the problem within the team. Obviously this is just hearsay but there's a lot more evidence pointing in this direction than anything about a players strop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 This is what happens when we don't sign a striker Bring back Alex Burns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris*Kaizer 2*Nunn Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 This is what happens when we don't sign a striker Bring back Alex Burns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts