Was Mick too nice to take us to the next level??

[Taipeiwolf]

A lot has been said about the Roger Johnson captain clause and I was thinking that if true then Mick must have agreed to it before signing him.
If that was the case then to avoid the dressing room spats that seem to have been the cause of this season's abortion, shouldn't Mick have moved on Karl Henry to give his new captain a clean slate?

Think about it. Top managers are ruthless sometimes move even their top players on when they become a problem. Think Alex Ferguson and Beckham. There must be other examples....

So, was Mick too nice to succeed at the top???

Not trying to be controversial , but was just thinking if anyone agrees with this...

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

No he was just to stubborn.

 

[wanderer24]

No he was too stupid

 

[WolvesAreBoringOnCeefax]

Kind of maybe. He perhaps didn't want to move on the lads he knew gave everything for him for some overseas mercenaries - although the later strategy may have actually seen better results and still have him in a job.

 

[Mugwump]

No, he was just simply not good enough.

 

[IrchyWolf]

Put it another way - Was Karl Henry not professional enough to take it on the chin and get on with his football without it causing disruption and engendering bad feeling in the dressing room?

 

[Mugwump]

Put it another way - Was Karl Henry not professional enough to take it on the chin and get on with his football without it causing disruption and engendering bad feeling in the dressing room?

Did he? i havent seen any evidence of this.

 

[Big Mack]

Judging by that snippet of an interview Mick did the other day, even he admits he was too loyal to some players.

 

[Burton Wolf]

Judging by that snippet of an interview Mick did the other day, even he admits he was too loyal to some players.

It's about time he owned up to some of his $$$$ ups. Of which there were many.

 

[IrchyWolf]

Did he? i havent seen any evidence of this.

Villa?

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

MM was full of spin when he was manager here so why would we think that stops when he leaves here?
Too nice? Ask the players who didn't fall in line with this 'yes' man. The biggest spin was the creation of honest Mick. No just the Paul McKenna of football managers. Implant something in someone's mind and they will believe it.
His way or no way. That is why we are by a margin the worst performing team in the league. He has taken good footballers and got them playing like poor robots.
Some on here are blaming the players as not being good enough but then why are we seeing that other premiership clubs are linked with our players?
He may have been able to make them get to a workrate that took us out of the championship but his style is too limited and backward to progress in the premiership.

 

[Phitsanulok (Poole) Wolf]

Too nice, too stubborn, too thick, too Irish, too defensive, too 'damaged goods', too loyal and here too long.

 

[The_Blade]

Stubborn and very blinkered. Maybe in his next job he will learn from it.

 

[Golden_Wolf]

Too loyal I think is the right phrase to use. And in the end he paid for it and sadly, so have we.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Too loyal I think is the right phrase to use. And in the end he paid for it and sadly, so have we.

Too loyal to whom? And in what way?

 

[Mugwump]

Villa?

I must have missed that, what happened there?

 

[Sandwell Wolf]

Why is it that when someone who speaks positively about Mick starts a thread does he get told to "move on" and "stop crying about it" but on the other side of the coin it's OK for the people who want to have a bash at Mick to make a thread and hurl abuse towards him despite him being long out the door yet they don't get told to "move on" or "stop crying about it"?

So it's not OK to reminisce about the good times under Mick but it's perfectly alright to slag him off at any given opportunity and talk only about the rubbish that happened towards the end of his tenor here?

Yeah, nice and fair that lads, really good of you that is.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

Too nice and too stubborn.

But 90% of wolves fans are equally stubborn when refusing to admit what a good job he did here.

 

[cobweb]

I don't believe he was too nice to take us to the next level, it was more a case of him being to limited, closed minded and not having enough intelligence to change things when they needed to be changed.

Maybe his hands were tied from above, that's something we'll never know, but to become a manager of a PL club, being 'nice' is not something that I believe, will get you very far.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Why is it that when someone who speaks positively about Mick starts a thread does he get told to "move on" and "stop crying about it" but on the other side of the coin it's OK for the people who want to have a bash at Mick to make a thread and hurl abuse towards him despite him being long out the door yet they don't get told to "move on" or "stop crying about it"?

So it's not OK to reminisce about the good times under Mick but it's perfectly alright to slag him off at any given opportunity and talk only about the rubbish that happened towards the end of his tenor here?

Yeah, nice and fair that lads, really good of you that is.

This thread asked a question. The question is being answered. You just dont like the answers.
McCarthy has gone and the main reason he is still being spoken about is because he and others keep on going on about him.

 

[Japan Wulf]

This thread asked a question. The question is being answered. You just dont like the answers.
McCarthy has gone and the main reason he is still being spoken about is because he and others keep on going on about him.

I don't dislike the answers but feel that Sandwell may have a point. You may not like that answer either.

 

[JR's Boots]

Steve Morgan was too loyal to Moxey and Mick and they remained at the club too long. Both should have gone in the summer to progress further. Mick was too loyal to his squad (Ward, Edwards, Elokobi, Stearman, SEB etc), as he admitted, and should have been more ruthless. He should also have improved his feeble coaching team.

As a club we've been too nice and naive. Hopefully SM will not make the same mistake again. We need to be more savvy and employ better calibre people to take the club forward.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

I don't dislike the answers but feel that Sandwell may have a point. You may not like that answer either.

Its your answer. i have no problem with that.
My only concern is who we get in as the new manager and what the set up will be here to support him.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Judging by that snippet of an interview Mick did the other day, even he admits he was too loyal to some players.

Hit the nail smack on the head! He tried to come over as the hard man but his loyalty was totally misplaced. Should have been ruthless on promotion and at the end ofboth Prem season 1 and 2 and shifted out players. That 8 of our CCC side still feature is the main reason we are going down imo.

 

[Japan Wulf]

Its your answer. i have no problem with that.
My only concern is who we get in as the new manager and what the set up will be here to support him.

Absolutely no disagreement with you there. Going down isn't a complete disaster, but choosing the wrong manager will be.

 

[WalsallWolf]

Nice doesn't come into it. He just wasn't good enough to take us to the next level.

 

[Monkey Man]

Nice doesn't come into it. He just wasn't good enough to take us to the next level.

Will always get outthought by more experienced manager's but for some reason got hugely lucky against big clubs who underestimated us.

Great guy but we should have got shot in the Summer after we stayed up by luck not judgement.

 

[Wagstaffe Was Magic]

why is it that when someone who speaks positively about mick starts a thread does he get told to "move on" and "stop crying about it" but on the other side of the coin it's ok for the people who want to have a bash at mick to make a thread and hurl abuse towards him despite him being long out the door yet they don't get told to "move on" or "stop crying about it"?

So it's not ok to reminisce about the good times under mick but it's perfectly alright to slag him off at any given opportunity and talk only about the rubbish that happened towards the end of his tenor here?

Yeah, nice and fair that lads, really good of you that is.

+1

 

[Golden_Wolf]

Too loyal to whom? And in what way?

Too loyal to those who got us into the league and scrapped to keep us in there. Like he said there were 7/8 (I think) that were spent or whatever phrase he used.

For me too much loyalty was shown to the likes of:
Stears (even though he had some stellar performances alongside Berra last season)
KH (in the sense he never really bought a replacement or someone for KH to battle it out with and he played him even when his form was poor),
Wardy & Elokobi (never in a month of Sundays are they 1st choice PL left backs),
Edwards (should have gone after last season because he's just not good enough).
Vokes (always sending him out on loan but never getting rid of the guy always boggled me. Don't think this can be put down to loyalty but I just found it annoying. Either keep him & play him or sell him)
Ebanks (to be fair he's never had a really sustained run in the side since we've been promoted and he's chipped in with a few goals but I just don't think he's a PL striker at least not for us. Our midfield and defence isn't good enough to play 4-4-2 on a consistent basis and Ebanks can't play the lone striker role).

These players aren't good enough if you have ambitions of progressing as a PL club IMO.

 

[Tettenhall Wolf]

Mick was many things.

Ultimately he was not a talented enough tactician and coach + he was bloody stubborn.

Not a good mix, especially if you have club ownership who let him get on with it year in year out.

 

[MK Panther]

He got us back into the Premiership but it was clear after the first season he had little idea what to do to move us up the ladder. We always played like we were newcomers, and seemed to be easy fodder for most teams in the league. Nice not sure what that means Sir Alex is nice to his wife, he was simply a reasoanably good manager out of his depth in the Premiership nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

So amusing reading all these posts saying how he was out of his depth and the like but I don't remember many on here saying this over the last 3 seasons though it was patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about football????

 

[Deleted member 3751]

I don't believe he was too nice to take us to the next level, it was more a case of him being to limited, closed minded and not having enough intelligence to change things when they needed to be changed.

As well as that though he was also too fearful of new tactics. At the start of the season all the noises coming from the club were saying we'd play a more possession based game, that soon went out of the window. Contrast that to Martinez at Wigan who after the other night said they train to play a certain way so they stick with it because they believe it, there was no point chopping and changing because it would confuse the players. It took them longer to get going than he wanted but he never changed his plans to try and play it safe.

 

[jrpb-3]

I think he did have a lot of loyalty to those players who got us promoted, and rightly so to a degree. The problem was some of the newer purchases wer'nt instant hits, took a time to settle (some maybe were just bad purchases) and when they were a little inconsistent /not immediately better than those bought to replace compete with Mick as too ready to revert back to those player he was loyal too, and others maybe didn't get the extended run in the team they needed to settle.
I think some or our squad from the championship played well and probably over acheived at times in the prem, but you can't keep doing that year after year, and this year it all started to unravel a bit plyaer no longer over acheiving and newer players still not fully settled into the team

 

[cobweb]

So amusing reading all these posts saying how he was out of his depth and the like but I don't remember many on here saying this over the last 3 seasons though it was patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about football????

I remember reading plenty of posts by people worried he'd taken the club as far as he could due to his limited intellect at the very top level. Me being one of them.

Just because they/we weren't pointing it out in an OCD manner every single day, doesn't mean I/we weren't fearful that he'd taken us as far as he could. Particularly at the end of last season.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Too loyal to those who got us into the league and scrapped to keep us in there. Like he said there were 7/8 (I think) that were spent or whatever phrase he used.

For me too much loyalty was shown to the likes of:
Stears (even though he had some stellar performances alongside Berra last season)
KH (in the sense he never really bought a replacement or someone for KH to battle it out with and he played him even when his form was poor),
Wardy & Elokobi (never in a month of Sundays are they 1st choice PL left backs),
Edwards (should have gone after last season because he's just not good enough).
Vokes (always sending him out on loan but never getting rid of the guy always boggled me. Don't think this can be put down to loyalty but I just found it annoying. Either keep him & play him or sell him)
Ebanks (to be fair he's never had a really sustained run in the side since we've been promoted and he's chipped in with a few goals but I just don't think he's a PL striker at least not for us. Our midfield and defence isn't good enough to play 4-4-2 on a consistent basis and Ebanks can't play the lone striker role).

These players aren't good enough if you have ambitions of progressing as a PL club IMO.

Its a funny thing loyalty. You see I think that there are those who stick by MM because of too much loyalty. So at least Mick has come out and admitted he was too loyal to several players so maybe some on here might come out and admit they have been too loyal to Mcik.
This season Mick has made a point many times that our players aren't good enough but he is the one that choose them, trained them and coached a lot of the goodness out of them.
If we had good coaches and these players failed I might agree with your points but i wonder how the above players would have been with better coaches. Being loyal is giving the players the help they need not just relying on them to perform for you.
McCarthy is gone and I have no regrets about that except I would have like to have seen him stay until the end of the season to blow away all of the doubters who still claim he would have saved us.

 

[Bull Army]

Too nice and too stubborn.

But 90% of wolves fans are equally stubborn when refusing to admit what a good job he did here.

Most people will acknowledge he did a good job to get us up and keep us there, but recognise that during his last 12-18 months, a lot of that work has been undone, and his legacy somewhat tarnished.

 

[RJs Tankard]

I think he did have a lot of loyalty to those players who got us promoted, and rightly so to a degree. The problem was some of the newer purchases wer'nt instant hits, took a time to settle (some maybe were just bad purchases) and when they were a little inconsistent /not immediately better than those bought to replace compete with Mick as too ready to revert back to those player he was loyal too, and others maybe didn't get the extended run in the team they needed to settle.
I think some or our squad from the championship played well and probably over acheived at times in the prem, but you can't keep doing that year after year, and this year it all started to unravel a bit plyaer no longer over acheiving and newer players still not fully settled into the team

Spot on!

As you said, I think Mick had intended to replace those players he'd been loyal too - but the majority of his signings in the Premiership were poor and didn't work out or appear to be anything better than what we already had (Eggert Jonsson for example).

The only thing we'll never find out is, were the poor signings down to Mick being out of his depth in the Premiership and therefore not being able to spot a Premiership player - or was he restricted by Moxeys strict wage structure and reluctance to splash the cash on transfer fees?

Frimpong was exceptional during his brief stay here - so you could argue that Mick can spot a decent player after all - but he could only sign those kind of players on loan because we can't afford to permanently sign anyone of that quality.

So were we restricted to poor signings (and therefore having to revert back to our old Championship players) due to Moxeys financial restrictions - or Micks inability to spot a Premiership quality player?

I don't think we'll ever find out the answer to that question.

 

[wolfyjoe]

So amusing reading all these posts saying how he was out of his depth and the like but I don't remember many on here saying this over the last 3 seasons though it was patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about football????

That's bull$$$$. You talk complete and utter $$$$. He kept us up for two seasons and wasn't given a chance to finish the job this year. Our form was $$$$ and we had some serious let downs but that's football.

When would you have sacked Mick? After we got promoted? That would have been a great start!

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

Mick McCarthy will be remembered as a great Wolves manager
He is certainly one of the best Wolves managers I have seen during my long time supporting our great club
He has his faults, stubborn and loyalty been just two

However if their was a Mick Mccarthy out there right now we would have him top of our radar charts as the type of manager that could get us back to the Premier League.

Instead we have TC and no real targets