Next CCM Manager

[euromariner]

There has been a lot of gossip about Okon over the last few years.....most of it was not positive. How much of it is true, I have no idea.

There has been a lot. Nothing against anyone in particular. I felt I could clear that one up though.

We played Wellington! For a sketchy win.

It was a sketchy win for sure! Winning ugly is the sort of thing we couldn't have done that night without our 3 most experienced players.
Wout in particular I thought was great in the second half of that game. He was consistently winning little fouls or throw ins to relieve the pressure when we were under the pump.

Having quality, experienced players isn't just about playing well. It's often about having the nous to win games when you aren't.

 

[euromariner]

We actually agree on a lot Gratis! We've split off in a couple of directions, so I'll try to order things a bit.

I don't buy that as being the difference. I agree lack of depth cost us games. Indeed I said during pre-season, on here, that lack of depth would lose us a whole bunch of games that we should win and would be something we'd just have to wear. I still maintain that would have happened regardless of tactics.

Completely agree! The lack of spending has cost us points.

Wout, Tom and Baro are clearly our top players. That said, we have enough quality in the squad with one or two of them out to still win some games. Certainly more than 4.

Again, completely agree. There are more games that we should have won (plenty more!), but more often than not that has come down to our inability to take our chances. The reality is, since we lost Asdrubal (as much as opinions differ on him), we’ve never had a player up front on more than $75k. That is between ¼ and 1/18 of the starting 9s at any other club.

It should be impossible for us to compete, but we have been, even in games where 2 players in the opposition lineup are on more than our whole starting lineup!!!

We simply need more chances than other teams to score, because we lack quality in the squad.

And unless one knows absolutely nothing about the game what unfolded over the season is as clear as day. We ran the same passing patterns, structure and game plan game after game after game, and regardless of personnel or how the game was going. In short - every time we got possession the opposition had no trouble setting their defence accordingly and then we tried to crack through a 9 or 10 man defence designed to shut down our passing structures. [*Edit: we did actually try something different in the first half of the WSW game. It didn't work but at least we tried].

Fine to not have a plan B if it worked occasionally. In the first 3rd of the season we lost a lot of games due to bad luck. Definitely, heartbreakingly. Then we got hammered by depth issues. Absolutely. But in the last half to third of the season it was the same playbook, again and again against oppositions who knew exactly how to shut it down.
When you then see absolutely no variation in tactics at that point - that's on the coach.

I agree that ultimately the tactical decisions are on the coach. My point is that this 'Plan B’ thing seems to come from the idea that it’s either a drastic formation and style change, or it is exactly the same.

As you mentioned in your edit, we did play 2 up front at the start of the WSW game, but there was a number of small tactical changes this season.

These are just my observations, but off the top of my head -

• We’ve built with a Back 4
  
• We’ve built with a Back 3 (with a 6 dropping between the CBs)
• We’ve built with the LB deeper and Pain higher, so more space in MF
  
• Sometimes Pain was deeper, which drew out the RB for runs behind eg. the 4-1 vs the Nix
  
• In a few games, we didn’t even try to play out (especially early in games)
• In the win against Sydney, it looked like we had some sort of asymmetric 3-5-2 thing happening.

Early on we played more with Pain wide and Hoole tucked inside like a second 10. As the season went on (especially when Pain got injured) we saw both wingers play wide, then both inside. It looked like they were starting to be given more freedom, depending on the fullback’s position. I'm guessing this is why Storm played on the left more (I think?). He could get higher and that let Hoole come inside while he was replacing an injured Pain on the left.

We’ve played with 1 up front (mostly), 2 up front (as you said), we’ve dropped off in a 4-4-2 and sometimes we pressed higher, with our front 4 slightly flatter.

Most good teams make little changes throughout the season. I agree that results weren't what we'd hoped for (blame who you want for that), but it's not through lack of trying.

EDIT: Sorry for all the edits! I didn't realise the post would take up so much room!

 

[Wombat]

There has been a lot. Nothing against anyone in particular. I felt I could clear that one up though.



It was a sketchy win for sure! Winning ugly is the sort of thing we couldn't have done that night without our 3 most experienced players.
Wout in particular I thought was great in the second half of that game. He was consistently winning little fouls or throw ins to relive the pressure when we were under the pump.

Having quality, experienced players isn't just about playing well. It's often about having the nous to win games when you aren't.

Spot on.

My biggest criticism has been how DUMB we are as a Football side. Part of that is dumb players ( i wont name them) but mostly that is down to the Coaching staff.
Most of us were only average players but probably all of us had the intelligence to close out a game when needed.
The Adelaide game was where Paul lost me as a supporter (Jolic NEVER had me) and i changed my vote to Okon OUT.

I'm probably the most vocal person on this forum against Pikey but the last 8 weeks were sub Warmsley.

Slater is right MC is a terrible owner BUT Okon probably had more chances than Tony was ever given for exactly the same result...................and Moss was just a clueless clusterf**k.

 

[Wombat]

BTW
Im very much enjoying your opinions thus far even if i dont agree with all of it....or most of it lol.

 

[Big Al]

BTW
Im very much enjoying your opinions thus far even if i dont agree with all of it....or most of it lol.

Paul could of used him a few weeks ago.

 

[Wombat]

Sounds sharper than Greedy!

 

[finally retired]

We actually agree on a lot Gratis! We've split off in a couple of directions, so I'll try to order things a bit.

These are just my observations, but off the top of my head -

• We’ve built with a Back 4
  
• We’ve built with a Back 3 (with a 6 dropping between the CBs)
• We’ve built with the LB deeper and Pain higher, so more space in MF
  
• Sometimes Pain was deeper, which drew out the RB for runs behind eg. the 4-1 vs the Nix
  
• In a few games, we didn’t even try to play out (especially early in games)
• In the win against Sydney, it looked like we had some sort of asymmetric 3-5-2 thing happening.

Early on we played more with Pain wide and Hoole tucked inside like a second 10. As the season went on (especially when Pain got injured) we saw both wingers play wide, then both inside. It looked like they were starting to be given more freedom, depending on the fullback’s position. I'm guessing this is why Storm played on the left more (I think?). He could get higher and that let Hoole come inside while he was replacing an injured Pain on the left.

We’ve played with 1 up front (mostly), 2 up front (as you said), we’ve dropped off in a 4-4-2 and sometimes we pressed higher, with our front 4 slightly flatter.

Most good teams make little changes throughout the season. I agree that results weren't what we'd hoped for (blame who you want for that), but it's not through lack of trying.

EDIT: Sorry for all the edits! I didn't realise the post would take up so much room!

I think you are VERY knowledgeable.........are you really Paulo ?????

 

[Gratis]

We actually agree on a lot Gratis! We've split off in a couple of directions, so I'll try to order things a bit.



Completely agree! The lack of spending has cost us points.



Again, completely agree. There are more games that we should have won (plenty more!), but more often than not that has come down to our inability to take our chances. The reality is, since we lost Asdrubal (as much as opinions differ on him), we’ve never had a player up front on more than $75k. That is between ¼ and 1/18 of the starting 9s at any other club.

It should be impossible for us to compete, but we have been, even in games where 2 players in the opposition lineup are on more than our whole starting lineup!!!

We simply need more chances than other teams to score, because we lack quality in the squad.



I agree that ultimately the tactical decisions are on the coach. My point is that this 'Plan B’ thing seems to come from the idea that it’s either a drastic formation and style change, or it is exactly the same.

As you mentioned in your edit, we did play 2 up front at the start of the WSW game, but there was a number of small tactical changes this season.

These are just my observations, but off the top of my head -

• We’ve built with a Back 4
  
• We’ve built with a Back 3 (with a 6 dropping between the CBs)
• We’ve built with the LB deeper and Pain higher, so more space in MF
  
• Sometimes Pain was deeper, which drew out the RB for runs behind eg. the 4-1 vs the Nix
  
• In a few games, we didn’t even try to play out (especially early in games)
• In the win against Sydney, it looked like we had some sort of asymmetric 3-5-2 thing happening.

Early on we played more with Pain wide and Hoole tucked inside like a second 10. As the season went on (especially when Pain got injured) we saw both wingers play wide, then both inside. It looked like they were starting to be given more freedom, depending on the fullback’s position. I'm guessing this is why Storm played on the left more (I think?). He could get higher and that let Hoole come inside while he was replacing an injured Pain on the left.

We’ve played with 1 up front (mostly), 2 up front (as you said), we’ve dropped off in a 4-4-2 and sometimes we pressed higher, with our front 4 slightly flatter.

Most good teams make little changes throughout the season. I agree that results weren't what we'd hoped for (blame who you want for that), but it's not through lack of trying.

EDIT: Sorry for all the edits! I didn't realise the post would take up so much room!

great post - please be sure to hang around on the forum and keep adding your two bob

i think it's fair to say that everyone on here loves the club and wants it to succeed. we often differ in opinion and perspective but typically most people value everyone else's contributions and i like the fact this is a place a genuine discussion about what goes on rather than simply a place to vent like you find elsewhere online

 

[Woollybutt]

While things weren't perfect, there was clear progress (with no more resources) across his tenure. I can't understand why people are now making stuff up (like the whole commute being an issue thing).

Maybe you should check things before you post. I don't appreciate being accused of making stuff up for expressing an opinion that was clearly framed as such. I didn't like the fact Okon didn't move to the Coast, and felt it was symptomatic of the fact he's a decent coach who didn't really buy into the culture of the club. I stand by that completely. I also stand by the fact that long commutes are physically and mentally draining and aren't ideal for either players or coaches, and that the next coach should actually be based in the community. Not sure how you interpreted that as making stuff up...

 

[Ozhammer]

Without wishing to unnecessarily fan the flames of what is in truth a dying fire, Okon’s demise still comes down to some wholly avoidable failings, whilst acknowledging that he had little control over some things (such as injuries, international absences and suspensions).

Firstly, he allowed a drinking (and possibly worse) culture to exist within the younger playing group, meaning those players were never likely to be as focused as they could/should have been.

Secondly, he allowed Jolic to dilute what Balder was trying to do with the team’s training regime, meaning the boys were not as fit as they could have been (fitter players typically make better decisions on field than fatigued ones).

Thirdly, his dogmatic approach to games (for instance substitutions were more often than not pre-planned rather than being decided in response to the actual game situation) meant that our play became stale and largely predictable. To my eyes at least, the team stopped believing in Okon’s game plan at around the mid-season point, meaning our results reflected that.

Lastly, his failure to be willing to listen to those around him who could have helped and the removal of anyone that he perceived might threaten his authority, meant he was always likely to run out of excuses at some point. In football, as in most walks of life, it is about utilising the strengths of those around you to achieve the best possible outcome, as unity will alway triumph over division. Okon should have been willing to accept that others around him had valid opinions that could have made a material change but he is a notoriously stubborn person. Whilst any coach must believe in their core principles, they also need to be wise enough to seek and accept the counsel of others whenever necessary.

Only time will tell if his departure will spur some kind of renaissance at our club but the fact that he was removed (and please don’t be fooled by the public statements about him leaving) meant that the club clearly had issues with what he was doing and how he was doing it. This wasn’t simply a case of looking for a scapegoat to cover for the continued lack of player investment. Whether MC will ever see the fallacy of his current budgetary policy remains to be seen but hopefully the example of the Jets this season, might be the most relevant illustration we could have asked for.

Keep the faith guys, hopefully the halcyon days will return sooner than later and before this wonderful club becomes nothing more than a footnote in the history of the HAL.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

Paul may not have had a lot of money to spend, but he managed to put together a squad of players that should have done a lot better.
The defence was improved but still relied on two excellent DMs and should have been a lot better than it was.
The biggest problem with the team that everyone recognised but has been missing in this thread was the lack of attack in the final third.
There were enough decent players and plenty of speed, to score enough goals to make the six comfortably if used correctly.
There was absolutely no idea in the team of what to do in the final third.
We had pace on the wings, Paine (until injured), Buhagier (rarely used), Hoole (very dangerous, but always dribbled back into trouble), Appiah (pace and ability to beat players, but shifted to striker where he was useless).
We had an #10 for the future who never seemed to have support and dribbled in circles.
We had an expensive striker who was possibly ok but suffered homesickness (who wouldn't playing in that clueless front third, even Berisha would have gone back home).
We had Bingham as a reserve striker who was played on the wing whenever he had a run.
We had Buhagier who was never even tried.
We had no attacking triangles, movement, one twos, or players running into holes in the front third.
The inability to score goals was not down to lack of money, it was down to clueless coaching.

 

[Big Al]

Paul may not have had a lot of money to spend, but he managed to put together a squad of players that should have done a lot better.
The defence was improved but still relied on two excellent DMs and should have been a lot better than it was.
The biggest problem with the team that everyone recognised but has been missing in this thread was the lack of attack in the final third.
There were enough decent players and plenty of speed, to score enough goals to make the six comfortably if used correctly.
There was absolutely no idea in the team of what to do in the final third.
We had pace on the wings, Paine (until injured), Buhagier (rarely used), Hoole (very dangerous, but always dribbled back into trouble), Appiah (pace and ability to beat players, but shifted to striker where he was useless).
We had an #10 for the future who never seemed to have support and dribbled in circles.
We had an expensive striker who was possibly ok but suffered homesickness (who wouldn't playing in that clueless front third, even Berisha would have gone back home).
We had Bingham as a reserve striker who was played on the wing whenever he had a run.
We had Buhagier who was never even tried.
We had no attacking triangles, movement, one twos, or players running into holes in the front third.
The inability to score goals was not down to lack of money, it was down to clueless coaching.

Well said.

Also when the cracks came Paul couldn’t and appeared wouldn’t adapt.

His sideline demeanor changed significantly as the season progressed.

He let the money affect him. Instead of getting on with the job and being more invested he wilted and barely said boo in the last couple of games.

When the club needed a fighter we had a quiter.

That guy saluting the crowd pumping his fists against SFC had gone and it’s wasn’t just the loosing that was responsible.

 

[Gratis]

There was absolutely no idea in the team of what to do in the final third.

Ah yes, this.

 

[Gratis]

Daniel McBreen just got his A-licence.

I know that the new coach will want his own number 2, but I would love to see Macca as the assistant next season. He'd return some of the culture of old in the players and coaching staff and it would please the fans no end.

 

[Big Al]

Daniel McBreen just got his A-licence.

I know that the new coach will want his own number 2, but I would love to see Macca as the assistant next season. He'd return some of the culture of old in the players and coaching staff and it would please the fans no end.

The assistant is a very important position and I agree should be the coaches decision.

I am not sure how many are allowed to be on the bench but I’d love a 2nd assistant job for McBreens Monty Hutches of our world. They could work as work interns or work experience what ever. They could do a day a week what ever suits.

They say our club is under resourced so we get an extra coach to help out. E.g McBreen works with the strikers or attack one session a week.
The club keeps the community feel and fans are happy to see there heroes still around. Danny could then still do fox as well.

Also we get an indication if they are a good coach and worth putting in the academy system or the seniors if the assistant or coach left.

Would take a flexible coach to help out but we can demand that as part of the job description.

However at some point if they are legitimate about being coaches they need to go get their own team somewhere as nothing beats being the coach.

 

[Wombat]

Ah yes, this.

Coached by two defensive players in their day............maybe a less ego driven manager would have brought in a specialist??

 

[Wombat]

Daniel McBreen just got his A-licence.

I know that the new coach will want his own number 2, but I would love to see Macca as the assistant next season. He'd return some of the culture of old in the players and coaching staff and it would please the fans no end.

There is ALOT to like about Macca.

 

[Ozhammer]

I agree that the club should stipulate to any applicants that they will have to accept someone like Monty or Macca as their assistant if not both.

That way, we would have no doubt that the Mariners’ culture was being reinforced within the playing group.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I agree that the club should stipulate to any applicants that they will have to accept someone like Monty or Macca as their assistant if not both.

That way, we would have no doubt that the Mariners’ culture was being reinforced within the playing group.

I respectfully disagree Ozhammer. While Montgomery and McBreen are terrific individuals and embody what once made the Mariners great, we need to allow the new coach to select the assistant they believe is the right fit and will best help them excute their vision of the future. McBreen and Montgomery should definitely be involved with club decision making, as Montgomery is now, but forcing them on a new and already under resourced coach is unfair. If additional positions can be made I am all for it but if we are sacrificing the sort of main assistant role with no other option I fear that would be a mistake.

 

[Woollybutt]

We used to have Tobin and Ferguson on the bench with Lawrie back in the early days, so I assume you're allowed to have a 'first team coach' in addition to an assistant. I think Sydney have both Moss and Corica as assistants as well. I like the idea of letting the coach bring in an assistant of their choice, but telling them that there'll be a first team coach of the club's choice as well. A consultant coaching job could also work well for someone like McBreen, coming in two days a week to work with the strikers across U12s to academy to first team or something. I'd love to see us offer a similar thing to Sterjovski as well. The respect guys like Ryan and Sainsbury have for him makes me think we're missing something by not offering him something just to keep him involved with the club.