Vladimir Ivic - Sacked

That’s the thing, it doesn’t add up. Why would Ivic make the statement that no player is bigger than the club? Because Deeney finished off a massage?

The reason it doesn’t add up is because as like probably all of our previous managers, part of his severance agreement was likely to involve some sort of NDA, hence why we’ve barely heard a peep from any of them since they’ve left. I think the most we’ve ever heard is from QSF? When he didn’t like Giraldi making notes at training. Pearson apparently didn’t even know why he was sacked with two games of the season to go and locked out of the training ground. Seems rather odd, unless of course you assume he can’t legally say anything, then it makes more sense.

So what we get is the clubs PR machine pumping out their version of events, and Duxbury making a bizarre tweet backing Troy.

 

Ivic got sacked because the football was poor, results were slipping and there was no sign of improvement .

No other reason.

Deeney didn’t get Ivic sacked or any other manager for that point .

Gino does exactly what he wants , I doubt he even listens to Duxbury. Duxbury is just an operations manager who takes care of the day to day running if the club whilst Gino ducks off doing whatever uber rich people do with their days .

Perhaps Gino needs to listen to advisers more , because he might not sack managers so readily, especially good ones like Javi and Pearson , but to think he relinquishes control or influence to someone as insignificant as a player is ridiculous.

 

I disagree on that one. Deeney spoke out I think. Others probably backed him and it showed on the pitch with a very poor show in Ivic's final game from reports. Once they stop playing for the manager its curtains. There was even a post where Duxbury stated that he was satisfied that Deeney was 'on form'. Duxbury issued that statement as, like you say, Duxbury is the day to day op manager. So in my view Deeney must've been involved. And results weren't slipping coz we were still in a play off spot and had won 2 of the previous 3 and drawn the 3rd (Brentford). I don't believe he would've been sacked at that time if he had got a result in the Huddersfield game coz..... (a) it means the players were still behind him and pushing for a result..... and (b) that would've been 3 wins in 4 and a draw in the other one. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been sacked because once there is players' unrest and a big fuss is made there is usually no future for the manager, I just don't buy the theory that Deeney (and maybe others) were squeaky clean.

 

I agree with this but also with some of what BRLR said.

The Deeney incident just added weight to the overall decision made by the board. Had it been an isolated incident and everything in the garden was rosy, then of course nothing would have been done. However, the board do react to things, for example the Pearson dismissal. It's clear whatever happened at half time at West Ham had a major impact on the club's decision to sack him.

The hierarchy seem to take a lot of notice from the overall attitude in the camp and of course Deeney plays a pivitol role in this.

It's no coincidence that Zola and Gracia were our longest retained coaches. The players liked playing for them. Tyrants do not last too long. This tells me the board take a lot of stock in the harmony of the squad.

With that in mind, Munoz should be given more time than most in order to shape the squad, as I suspect the players will enjoy playing for him.

 

Being linked to the Sheffield Wednesday job. He's going to steady the ship there then finish above us next season, isn't he?

 

Isn't their chairman a bit of a nutter, and didn't they just sack Tony Pulis for his dreary negative football?

 

...after signing Deeney & Gray for £2.5m combined ?

 

I'm in the minority of one that didn't think Ivic wanted us to play that way, we just didn't have the players to implement what he did want!

 

Poor Vlad, from one circus to another

 

Yes but Pulis had them playing dreary negative football which didn’t get them any points. Ivic may well be able to change that part at least.

 

If he does take a new job, I wonder if that leaves us less on the hook for termination compensation?

 

I’m pretty sure that’s how it works, don’t know the full ins and outs but it’s why Poch didn’t work for a year.

 

Anyone think that if he'd smiled a bit more he'd be in a job still? Clearly much more astute than Xisco, and although he's not the most attacking manager, I'm sure if he had the players more on board we'd have gone for it a bit more

 

Should've backed him and got a left back in. Should've backed him against Deeney. Should've backed him in the January transfer window.

He was never the problem. The players are. Both in terms of ability and application.

Bearing in mind the players he had available to him, he did an incredible job.

 

I was as mad and pee’d off with the turgid football as everyone else but in hindsight I think we got this one wrong.

 

With the situation the way it was, he couldn't have continued, it wouldn't have worked, and that's why he was sacked. If the hierarchy had made the bold/intelligent/however you individually see them choices and supported him, it's a lot more possible that he might have gone on to do well and take us up, or at the least manage to install a system of playing that didn't leave us reaching for our mother-wives' brooches.

 

Completely right that he had to go as it was all falling apart, but they chose to cave into the players from the day he was appointed and didn't give him the backing or squad cover he clearly needed and wanted.

Set up to fail, when maybe he could have been a success.

Now we've got a hybrid of a work experience kid and a Butlins Redcoat at the helm.

 

He got about half an hour of football out of Will Hughes, and even less from the only genuine left-back at the club looool. So strange to look back at the pre-season friendly against Tottenham, with everyone busting a gut, to then have players revolting against him a few months later...almost as if most of the players are solid lads and Deeney on his own is enough to absolutely ruin the atmosphere at the club?

 

I'm going to say it, we should not have sacked Vlad!!!

His football may have been boring most of the time, but he did a bloody good job results wise with what he had to work with especially before the Summer window closed, if anything it was when the **** we could not shift and the players who did not want to play for the team came into play that our performances slightly dipped.

Overall had he been given a chance I think we would be in a better league position right now and more likely to gain automatic promotion. The football may not have been all that entertaining, but he would have got the job done and got us promotion, which is what his brief was after all.

The irony would have been that his reward probably would still have been the sack as I doubt the club would have renewed his contract which remember was only for one year.

 

Remember that photo of Deeney pulling his shirt on as he waited to come on as sub against Luton? And how out of shape he looked?

We didn't see him for six weeks after that and whenever Ivic was asked about it he said he was working towards getting into the right condition. Not that he was injured. He wasn't prepared to play an overweight Deeney.

Before this time there were no grumblings about his methods. That's what sealed his fate. He wanted Deeney to go and get himself fit before he could be considered for selection. Then lo and behold, all of a sudden the dressing room start to fall out with him...

 

I have a hunch that Ivic was completely undermined. It's obvious he was a disciplinarian on the training ground and he knew the flaws in the team. His press conferences were quite candid and an eye opener, especially when he said he didn't have a natural left back available.
Did the players deliberately undermine him with sub-par performances because they didn't like his disciplinarian ways? We can only speculate.

 

A lot of people did speculate that at the time, yes.

 

Results and performances were in decline rather than improving and he never made the right subs.

As for all this, “oh he didn’t have a left back, if he did he would have been great.” That’s true but he definitely could have played a back four with Femenia at LB; playing a back 5 was a choice. He also had Capoue for a while. All in all the resources available to him were no worse than those available to Xisco.

I think he was obviously more of a known quantity than Xisco, and was better placed to produce the cultural sea change. But he couldn’t get the players to buy in.

Over the last few weeks there’s been a lot of reactionary crap posted. “We wouldn’t have won this match with Ivic in charge” - people said after the Stoke win. “We wouldn’t have lost this match with Ivic in charge” - people said after the QPR defeat. It’s all a bit silly and moot, not least because so far the style of play and turgidness has been fairly similar.

Ivic had a full pre-season, Munoz has had a month with games coming thick and fast. This is his first rocky period, let’s see how he reacts to it with this new system etc. I always think the making of a manager is how they respond to poor form. Let’s see how he does.

 

Although Ivic had a pre season he had half the squad unavailable to him.

A breath of fresh air with his press conferences saying things pretty much as fans saw things.

Went downhill when the stench of Deeney appeared .

Watford won't start to rebuild team spirit and togetherness until he's left the club

 

And lo and behold Ivic felt the need to pick him every game. Just like they all fall back on in the end. It's like the only way they think they can hang on.