John Deehan will not be involved in any coaching or team selection,and will watch matches from the Directors box. He was recommended to PAFC by Sean O'Driscoll and as we know his contract only runs until the end of the season. Do you find it surprising that an experienced person like Deehan will not be involved on the training field or asked his opinion regarding tactics during a match. I find it strange that in these important areas we will not be using his experience............you wonder how Argyle will benefit fully by him being here.
It's a good question re his level of involvement.Exeter have had a director of football for some time in Steve Perryman and he seems very much involved in the day to day running of the team affairs.Listening to Fletcher he seems to be talking of Deehan as in a observational role using his experience to make recommendations which is probably why he will be sitting in the directors box.
I'm not defending this structure as I've previously stated my preference would have been for an experienced manager who could carry out both roles, perhaps with Fletcher as assistant learning his trade or player/coach or something along those lines. However, given Fletcher seems to have Brent's unflinching support, for presentational reasons, PAFC can hardly have the confusion of 2 figures in the dug-out or on the training pitch can they? It's often said that a coach can see more tactically from the vantage point of the stand than he can from amongst the action on the touch-line - indeed some managers have a habit of sitting out the first half in the stand. Sam Allardyce, often said to be one of the most scientific of managers, is one I think. Half the people in the ground seem to be wired for sound these days so I suppose there's no reason why sly tactical hints can't be beamed for the Directors' Box to Fletcher's shell-like ear. During the rest of the week, Deehan's role is presumably more strategic, covering maybe some scouting type activities, watching opponents, planning tactics for forthcoming games and as general sounding board for Fletcher. I'm not a great fan of this sort of arrangement but we have to give it a chance. Given results and performances have improved a bit under Fletcher - although not yet enough - perhaps now would indeed be a bad time to go thorough the disruption of sacking and replacing a "manager". As I keep saying, statistically there's a 2 in 3 chance a new manager won't improve things anyway.
Errrrm am I being a bit thick here (careful with the comments please) but why is he here ??? Surely his wages would be better spent strengthening the team or am I missing something ??????
He is here because he has got experience of...........uhmm .............. of not coaching or sitting in the dugout helping...........but of sitting in the Directors box and say what happened after the game.
I have to agree with notdistant on this one for a change. I cannot see how you will be able to have two "managers" on the pitch side on a matchday. How would that look for Fletcher as it would be obvious to everyone who was calling the shots. It may not have been true but most would believe it would be Deehan. I suspect he will "assist" with coaching ideas and let Fletcher put them into practice. He would also be available to look at opposition sides and possible signings and perhaps be involved in negotiations. I can't see where it will do any harm even if his use may be in question regarding possible impact.
Oi Sensible if I were you I'd lol .... I'm even more confused as to why he is here after reading the above comments .... doesn't Brent appreciate that our survival at the moment depends on an amateur ! We've just been lucky so far that the teams around us haven't been doing too well, heaven help us when they do !
Points wise Fletcher hasn't actually done that badly if you look at it. Reid managed 1 point in 9 games whereas the inexperienced Fletcher has 21 from 17. For the first 5/6 games he had the same players as Reid so again it is an improvement. Deehan is clearly the teacher with Fletcher the pupil. Behind the scenes you cannot tell me that Deehan will not be a little more hands on than is being made out. The object is not to dump Fletcher so this way it is meant to save face publicly. We can only play as we can play as do other sides. The fact they have been worse than Argyle is because they are probably worse than us so it isn't a fluke that we have gained on them at all in my view. Had we had an average start to this season rather than 1 point out of 27 then we would be a long way to safety now anyway with another 6 or 7 points on the board. I have been a little surprised at how well Fletcher has done considering his experience and adding a bit more to the team cannot be a bad thing.
Let's not get carried away with Fletcher's prowess Sensible, the real turnaround came in the Bristol Rovers game, which coincided with the arrival of Purse, Blanchard, Chadwick and Hemmings. My feeling is it was those 4 that made the difference, which lifted the confidence of the rest, rather than anything Fletcher did. Chadwick seems to have brightened up the changing room significantly, particularly Walton, who's practically bursting with pride at getting a regular place at last and with determination to stay up, whilst Hemmings is having a pretty much permanent love-in with fans. These could be written off as trivialities, I accept that fully, but morale is important and at the moment, ours looks more like a promotion side than a relegation one. The question is, who set up those transfers? I don't know. Ridsdale? Reid before he left? Fletcher? Oooops I meant the Northampton game, not Bristol Rovers!
I'll say it............because I'm expected to say it.........Peter Ridsdale more than anyone else. 1).....Certainly not Peter Reid...........not to sound too unkind.........but Reid by then was the walking dead...........and Peter Ridsdale did him a favour by giving him a way out.....the sack. 2).....Karl Fletcher I cannot believe had any input either.......you had said notDistant ...........that the teams upturn happened with the influx of Purse,Blanchard, Chadwick and Hemmings. 3).....Darren Purse I feel sure was through Ridsdales influence..........and the other three could be more his doing as well......not Fletcher. Carl Fletcher has certainly been given maximum support from James Brent and the Club in general...........I find it hard to accept that the Fletcher we hear during "Fletcher Speak" time can be such an authority in other areas of his job..........I'm sorry but that is what comes over.............the authority comes through Purse,Chadwick and now Wotton in the dressing room and on the pitch. With John Deehan being kept in a "tight" box in what he is allowed to be involved with............I cannot quite see the benefit of that for an apprentice Manager especially during the heat of the match in the dugout.........when decision need to be made.
I think people are looking not to give Fletcher more credit than they have to. As Manager he would get the flack if the influx was not having an impact so you must in fairness give some credit for him in the fact they have. As for John Deehan well we know the "official" line but what happens in reality could, and I only say could, be completely different. Argyle don't do public training that I know of so who knows if he is a little more hands on that is being said. Not saying he is taking over but can't see it as being a backroom seat only with no say in anything. Personally I don't care who is doing what to whom and when. As long as the improvement continues then that is all I care about.
Well I don't know and I'm not going to speculate - but whoever set them up, those 4 transfers do seem to me to have made a difference, which is more than can be said for anything that happened in the preceding 2 years or so! I haven't written off the Deehan/Fletcher partnership yet - only time will tell.
That's my point notdistant we simply don't know. It is though the assumption that it could not have been anything to do with Fletcher because that would mean you would have to give him some credit and people seem a little loathed to do that. Just because he is inexperienced doesn't mean he is not capable of doing things right. Only time will tell with all of our former problems and if we manage to avoid the third relegation consecutively.
And I think it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that Fletcher doesn't have a positive influence in the squad just because, perhaps, he doesn't come across as particularly eloquent in front of the press. In front of the press, most managers like to say as little of significance as possible and with the content removed, all that's left is presentation. What's important in the dressing room and on the training pitch is what is said and less so how it's said and maybe where Fletcher is able to say something significant, he does much better there than you might guess. Maybe that's why Brent is more impressed with Fletcher than some of us too. After all, it's accepted in business for example that people who are good or even exceptional at their jobs nevertheless need special media training if they are to go in front of the press or broadcast journalists. It's a special skill that few are born with.
Is Deehan in the stand today........or in the dugout.............I'd love to know. Seemed to be a Purse panic before the match...........didn't seem to be warming up.......and then went off............but was still in the starting line-up. Feeney seems to have gone down with flu type symptoms before the match............maybe Purse showing symptoms as well.
It's in the second half you'd expect to see any improvements arising from Deehan's strategic view from the stand.... Mind you, seems pretty easy today to put right what went wrong in the first half: don't defend so deep, get the ball down and out to Hemmings!
