Page 4 of 4
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:18 pm
by Mistadobalina
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:08 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Always a bit baffled by bad appointments being Ling's fault, but good appointments being luck. Wellens is probably the best manager I've seen at Orient. Ling has obviously played a part in bringing and keeping him here.
Steve Davis, Ross Emblefud (multiple times), Carl Fletcher, Jobi, Kenny Jackett were all duff appointments. Clearly the trend is to make bad appointments.
Justin and Richie are outliers in this data set.
Personally willing to cut a lot of slack to how the club handled the managerial situation post Edinburgh. It was horrid and I can see why they erred towards familiar faces to make what was essentially a grieving period a bit easier for everyone.
Fletcher was a complete, weird disaster, 100%.
Jackett was on paper the most successful managerial appointment we've probably made over the last few decades. Obviously didn't work out but think people were chuffed to bits at the time.
Davis was awful but again extenuating circumstances in that Ling was also building an football club from scratch.
Most managers don't really work out. But 6 years of near continuous improvement despite often difficult circumstances isn't bad.
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:35 pm
by OyinbO
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:18 pm
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:08 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:34 pm
Always a bit baffled by bad appointments being Ling's fault, but good appointments being luck. Wellens is probably the best manager I've seen at Orient. Ling has obviously played a part in bringing and keeping him here.
Steve Davis, Ross Emblefud (multiple times), Carl Fletcher, Jobi, Kenny Jackett were all duff appointments. Clearly the trend is to make bad appointments.
Justin and Richie are outliers in this data set.
Personally willing to cut a lot of slack to how the club handled the managerial situation post Edinburgh. It was horrid and I can see why they erred towards familiar faces to make what was essentially a grieving period a bit easier for everyone.
Fletcher was a complete, weird disaster, 100%.
Jackett was on paper the most successful managerial appointment we've probably made over the last few decades. Obviously didn't work out but think people were chuffed to bits at the time.
Davis was awful but again extenuating circumstances in that Ling was also building an football club from scratch.
Most managers don't really work out. But 6 years of near continuous improvement despite often difficult circumstances isn't bad.
Actually agree with Hoov's general argument, but some qualifications: Jobi never really had the chance to prove himself, he was actually on a decent run until Ling told most of the squad that their contracts would not be renewed. He was also the first appointment that was taken out of Ling's hands. Since then, the appointments have been a group decision with him playing a much less central role (hence the infamous "take him for a coffee" stuff when Jackett was appointed).
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:47 pm
by The Reverend
Has anyone entertained the idea that Ling is a decent DoF but doesn’t get everything right 100% of the time, with him being human and all?
Seems like the choice is between “Ling is god” or “Ling must go”. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:51 pm
by Mistadobalina
I think that's what those of us defending Ling's overall record are saying. He's just above par for me, with a real question to be asked as to whether he's hit his limit now there's a greater need to over perform on our budget from both a footballing perspective and also financial seeing as we need to start flipping players.
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:57 pm
by Long slender neck
Most clubs would kill for a DOF that gets you 2 titles and promotions in 5 years.
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 3:35 pm
by OyinbO
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:57 pm
Most clubs would kill for a DOF that gets you 2 titles and promotions in 5 years.
Amazing that we've managed to hold on to him then, isn't it?
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 6:25 pm
by Qin
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:57 pm
Most clubs would kill for a DOF that gets you 2 titles and promotions in 5 years.
Justin & Richie gave us 2 titles in 5 years
We achieved that despite Ling, not because of him
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 6:35 pm
by Proposition Joe
See that now we've signed an experienced player who's almost exclusively played at Championship level, it's not being referred to on this thread? Assume Ling is on holiday and had nothing to do with it
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 6:39 pm
by Mistadobalina
'He's a sick note', 'why didn't we sign him earlier, other clubs seem to get their business done way before us' etc.
Re: Would we be better off without Martin Ling?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 7:59 pm
by Long slender neck
Qin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 6:25 pm
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 2:57 pm
Most clubs would kill for a DOF that gets you 2 titles and promotions in 5 years.
Justin & Richie gave us 2 titles in 5 years
We achieved that despite Ling, not because of him
And who appointed them? Who signed players for them?
