Rate the Riverside managers

McLaren
Karanka
Robson

Then a long way down to the rest.

Only other two who really stick out are Southgate who was a progressive manager but wasn't supported financially (effectively clawing back the overspend under McLaren) and Pulis who I thought, results wise, was a pretty effective manager.
 
McClaren and Robson are streets ahead of the rest but McClaren brought silverware to the club. Both amazing managers for Boro in their own right. If you could put McClaren’s attention to detail and coaching methods into Robbo then, blimey, who knows where we could’ve gone in the mid-to-late 90s.

Karanka gets third because he picked up an ailing club and transformed it inside two years. He lost the plot but time is a great healer. Forget the walkout and the Premier League season, the two seasons before that were absolutely brilliant and he put the pride back into it.

Venables was very good. I wish he’d have stayed for a while.

Mowbray got the hardest deal since Lennie in 93/94, having to cut costs while expected to get into the playoffs at least. The end of Mogga’s tenure was horrible to watch but I think him and Southgate are sort of similar TBH - both managing expectations and trying to refresh a squad without the same resources as their predecessors. It’s a hard job. Southgate is above Mowbray because of the two seasons prior to the relegation. He also had a commitment to youth and that is important for any Boro manager.

Warnock did a really good job in very hard circumstances. His set-up and style of football is about as memorable as muesli dust but he kept us up and put some pride back into it.

Pulis was horrible. I was optimistic after the football his Palace team played but his tenure after Traore left was an absolute grind. Centre backs at full back, FFS. I hoped he’d do for us what he did for Stoke but he got nowhere near it, he was done after the Villa playoff games. Appalling lack of ambition and should’ve been sacked the day after Villa Park IMO.

Strachan was a complete disaster. The football was abysmal, he was the worst fit we’d had in decades and is comparable only to Monk in that respect. Just awful. 0/10

Woodgate was dreadful but was nowhere near as damaging as Monk. Woodgate didn’t squander £70m on average players. He didn’t know how to set a team up but neither did Monk, what was Monk’s excuse? Monk was supposed to be a coach but it was just dreadful.

I honestly think Wilder has the potential to outdo both Robson and McClaren. I honestly think he’s going to win a cup for us. That’s his mission, you just have that sense. We’re going to compete again and he thinks he can get us up and into Europe. People may scoff but we’ve done it before. And we know the chairman will back him. I think we’re going into our next 4-5 year cycle of overachieving.

McClaren
Robson

Karanka

Venables
Southgate
Mowbray

Warnock
Pulis
Woodgate

Strachan
Monk
 
=Wilder - Too early to tell so not included in this list
1. McClaren: Love him or hate him he's still the most successful manager in our history.
2. Robson: The father of the modern MFC
3. Karanka: A lot of strange decisions and questions need to be answered about what was going on with him and Gibson but still he got us promoted.
4. Mowbray- Steadied a sinking ship but didn't have the nous to push on from there.
5. Pulis - Dull and disappointing football
6. Warnock - So boring and bland he made me fall out of love with football.
7. Southgate: Handed a thankless job when he had very little experience but did the best he could. Signings were utter garbage.
8. Monk: Strange tactical decisions and bad signings
9. Strachan - The biggest disappointment in my football watching lifetime. I highly rated him and he bombed hard.
10. Woodgate- Never should have been a manager was totally out of his depth as boss.
 
Andy_W said:
I had McClaren 2/3rds down my list, and not one person argued against it, albeit most had him #1 or #2, I'm surprised by that.
Click to expand...
The fact that most people had him #1 or #2 tells you that they disagreed with you without having an argument.
 
I am stunned that people have the lying thief pulis outside the bottom one.

Massive budget, not actually cost cutting, selling the wrong players, buying and borrowing absolute rubbish, tossing off the playoffs against Villa, boring us to death, surrendering in cups with pitiful displays, draining the life out of the club and leaving an utter mess for Woodgate to operate with.
The collapse post Xmas was simply surrender.

I could never tire of punching him over and over again.
 
indeedido said:
I am stunned that people have the lying thief pulis outside the bottom one.

Massive budget, not actually cost cutting, selling the wrong players, buying and borrowing absolute rubbish, tossing off the playoffs against Villa, boring us to death, surrendering in cups with pitiful displays, draining the life out of the club and leaving an utter mess for Woodgate to operate with.
The collapse post Xmas was simply surrender.

I could never tire of punching him over and over again.
Click to expand...
but, he didn't saddle the club with a debt that would last 6 years, and he didn't destroy a promising position like Strachan and he wasn't unable to keep us in games like Woodgate.

Of the managers that lasted a full season only Karanka and Charlton have a better win rate or ppg (if you convert Charlton to a 3 point win).

Pulis was turgid, he did suck the fin out of the game, his philosophy was dour and unimaginative and lacking bravery, but he got results more often than not.
 
One thing that annoyed me about Pulis was his talk of all the work he’d done ‘behind the scenes’ after being asked to assess the whole club by the chairman. Part of me thinks he was winging it and kidded the chairman and his team that the club was in a much stronger position than it was, infrastructure and playing-squad wise, and Woodgate walked into a total mess. Maybe one of the reasons Woodgate got the job was because Pulis talked him up and said everything was in place for him to be successful, because of the work Pulis had been doing over two years.

As it turned out, Warnock ended up doing the work Pulis was supposed to have done.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
One thing that annoyed me about Pulis was his talk of all the work he’d done ‘behind the scenes’ after being asked to assess the whole club by the chairman. Part of me thinks he was winging it and kidded the chairman and his team that the club was in a much stronger position than it was, infrastructure and playing-squad wise, and Woodgate walked into a total mess. Maybe one of the reasons Woodgate got the job was because Pulis talked him up and said everything was in place for him to be successful, because of the work Pulis had been doing over two years.

As it turned out, Warnock ended up doing the work Pulis was supposed to have done.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, spot on.
 
Left_peg said:
1. McLaren
2. Robson
3. Karanka
4. Wilder (so far)
5. Venables
6. Mowbray
7. Southgate
8. Warnock
9. Pulis
10. Woodgate
11. Monk
12. Strachan
Click to expand...
I'd agree more or less with this list.

Don't know why so many aren't putting Strachan at the bottom as he's a useless whining (unt who pi$$es more money up the wall than most of the division he's in and takes the team directly backwards.
Monk was guilty of this too admittedly....But not to quite the same degree!
 
Ipad1977 said:
I also cannot fathom WHY anyone would rank Strachan higher than Southgate??
Click to expand...
All about opinions Ipad. I agree with southgate BTW but thought Robson was a terrible manager. As I say, it's about opinions with managerrs and are you getting what you want. People appreciated the players that Robson attracted to the riverside, as did I, but he didn't do enough with them fo me to rate him as even a half decent manager.
 
Laughing said:
All about opinions Ipad. I agree with southgate BTW but thought Robson was a terrible manager. As I say, it's about opinions with managerrs and are you getting what you want. People appreciated the players that Robson attracted to the riverside, as did I, but he didn't do enough with them fo me to rate him as even a half decent manager.
Click to expand...
Robson was a strange one. I think most will rate him highly for the times we enjoyed under him but tbh.
Looking at it pragmatically, he certainly kept us all entertained but had a highly unbalanced squad though it was his first role in management.

The Strachan/Southgate thing though never ceases to amaze me. While Southgate was a long long way from being an excellent manager for us I'd compare them like this;

Southgate; His first role in management. In terms of incomings v outgoings he cut costs and the wage bill. Spent a fraction of what most other managers did in the league we were in (The Prem) We went backwards and went down under him in his 3rd season which is the big blot on his copybook. Was given the boot at a strange time with us still very much in the hunt for promotion back.

Strachan; In complete opposite to Southgate in that he supposedly had a decent amount of experience AND was given a bigger budget than most managers in the league we were in (The champo) Despite this he too took us straight backwards and it was looking like from a strong position in the league we'd be relegated 18 months after he took over, never mind 3 seasons

See the differences?? One had more to work with in experience AND funding comparative for the league we were in, yet looked to take us backwards a comparative amount in half the time despite this, thankfully Gibbo saw the sense to put a bullet in his head.

So given this major difference WHY anyone would rank the ginger to$$er higher than the Gate is beyond me. Is it their comparative likeability? Hmmm....Perhaps Strachan's outlandish achievements since then eclipse Sir Gareth's then? Hmmm.... Nah hang on, it must be his devotion and love for our club then? Nope, it still alludes me.

Anyone care to enlighten me?
 
Ipad1977 said:
Robson was a strange one. I think most will rate him highly for the times we enjoyed under him but tbh.
Looking at it pragmatically, he certainly kept us all entertained but had a highly unbalanced squad though it was his first role in management.

The Strachan/Southgate thing though never ceases to amaze me. While Southgate was a long long way from being an excellent manager for us I'd compare them like this;

Southgate; His first role in management. In terms of incomings v outgoings he cut costs and the wage bill. Spent a fraction of what most other managers did in the league we were in (The Prem) We went backwards and went down under him in his 3rd season which is the big blot on his copybook. Was given the boot at a strange time with us still very much in the hunt for promotion back.

Strachan; In complete opposite to Southgate in that he supposedly had a decent amount of experience AND was given a b***r budget than most managers in the league we were in (The champo) Despite this he too took us straight backwards and it was looking like from a strong position in the league we'd be relegated 18 months after he took over, never mind 3 seasons

See the differences?? One had more to work with in experience AND funding comparative for the league we were in, yet looked to take us backwards a comparative amount in half the time despite this, thankfully Gibbo saw the sense to put a bullet in his head.

So given this major difference WHY anyone would rank the ginger to$$er higher than the Gate is beyond me. Is it their comparative likeability? Hmmm....Perhaps Strachan's outlandish achievements since then eclipse Sir Gareth's then? Hmmm.... Nah hang on, it must be his devotion and love for our club then? Nope, it still alludes me.

Anyone care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
Some boro fans still think Southgate can't manage!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top