Ling v Buckle

[royalgull]

Most probably know I was a big fan of Buckle while he was here, obviously not everyone's cup of tea and I still find myself chuckling at their current predicament but this wasn't another Buckle thread more an area where I think Ling is absolutely shatting on his predecessor. Man management and getting the best out of people.

Now this isn't about Hargreaves or Woods because the ends justified the means but I'm talking about getting the most out of his squad. The budget is smaller this year so some of Ling's trust in the squad maybe forced but I do think had Buckle still been in charge of this squad, we'd have at least another 2 or 3 players on our books (possibly not contributing). At times this season we've had to go without some big players, or we've had players maybe not hitting their best form but Ling has stuck with them, giving them public backing as well as extended opportunities in the side. Atieno is one example, rated as not good enough by the experts around here, our main striker is out for 4 games, loan signing? free transfer? new player, Nope. Absolute 100% faith and Taiwo will get his chance, 1 game 1 match winning goal. I tell you what, I wonder what might have been for Billy Kee if when Benyon left last year Billy got that true public support and backing from the manager saying this lad that I signed is my boy. instead we went through a cluster of loan nees with differing levels of success, however all 3 of those loans aren't here anymore, Kee was either not played or played out of position and we've ended up losing him as well.

There are other examples, Saah was just starting to get better, we lost him and he's backed the replacement in Ellis/Robertson. Stevens is a different player this year because the manager isn't constantly on the look out for a replacement. Instead he's saying Danny I've given you 2 years because you are good enough to play in this league for us. There are other examples, Lathrope, Morris, Oastler all steped up into new roles, new positions and done a great job this season.

Fewer resources a smaller tighter knit squad and players deemed not good enough by some continually step up, fill voids and do jobs for us. We're not world beaters but we're a bloomin competitive decent League 2 side on our day and Ling deserves IMMENSE credit for that this season.

Buckle has signed what 20 players this summer and he wants more, the art of management isn't about spending a fortune but getting the most out of what you already have and improving people. Something where Buckle currently is failing miserably and Ling is flourishing.

[yellow]

Are you saying that you are finally beginning to appreciate the difference between Buckle and a good manager?

[AustrianAndyGull]

The ONLY difference between Ling and Buckle is their personality. Both have shown that they can gel a squad of old pros, journeymen, loanees, free transfers and talented individuals brought in for peanuts and be successful. Buckle has allowed himself to be carried along by the freedom to buy lots of players willy nilly, some probably just for the sake of it and as a consequence he has fallen into the trap of believing that success will be guaranteed just by chucking money about. If you put Mourinho in charge at Carlisle he will be sacked within a month and if you put Buckle in charge of Chelsea the same outcome will happen. I just think Bucks thought he could run before he could walk and it is obvious he cannot. Put him in charge at Forest Green for example and he might get them up into the FL. I'd like to believe that if Ling was in Buckles position then he would probably accept defeat, resign and apologise to the fans for his shortcomings and move on. Can you ever imagine Buckle acting in such a manner? Both are good managers at this level with minimal funds but Martin is a genuine, ameable, likeable, honest chap who treats people with dignity and respect. Paul is not a man.

[royalgull]

Are you saying that you are finally beginning to appreciate the difference between Buckle and a good manager?

What I think the difference between the two is, probably experience. Ling is older been round the block a few more times and had a failure as a manager. They say you learn from your mistakes and maybe Ling has done so. Maybe Buckle will in the future who knows and frankly who cares?!

Players and managers come and go but I feel happy with the fact our current manager despite talking like Danny Dyer has a calm head on his shoulders and properly trusts his players to perform. Paying dividends at the minute.

If you think Buckle wasn't any good for us, then that's your opinion but the reason you're going to watch league football at Plainmoor every other Saturday is down to what he and the club achieved over the last 4 years.

[yellow]

What I think the difference between the two is, probably experience. Ling is older been round the block a few more times and had a failure as a manager. They say you learn from your mistakes and maybe Ling has done so. Maybe Buckle will in the future who knows and frankly who cares?!

Players and managers come and go but I feel happy with the fact our current manager despite talking like Danny Dyer has a calm head on his shoulders and properly trusts his players to perform. Paying dividends at the minute.

If you think Buckle wasn't any good for us, then that's your opinion but the reason you're going to watch league football at Plainmoor every other Saturday is down to what he and the club achieved over the last 4 years.

My own opinion is that it is has more to do with Paul Bristow than Paul Buckle.

However, I shall continue to watch Mr Buckle’s progress at a ‘bigger club’. I think that by the end of the season we will be able to better judge his managerial capabilities in a more objective fashion.

[Dave]

I personaly do not think experience is difference between Buckle and ling, Paul Buckle is 41, he played 468 matchs, and managed Torquay for 226 games.

Martin Ling is 45, played 564 matchs, managed Orient for 218 games and Cambridge for 75 games, yes Ling shades it , but not be an awful lot, that would make any difference.

They are two different people with different methods of doing things, one appears to be a bare faced liar , who's word can not be trusted, the other does excatly what it says on the tin, is honest, and seems to play the game with a straight bat.

No one in football can point towards Buckle and say he is new and young manager learning his trade anymore, if 226 games over 4 seasons is not enough time to try and test different methods and ways of managing a football club, what is, one look at the Bristol Roers forum, and you see things written by gasheads , like Buckle has no plan "B", he has no tactical sense, falls out with player's, makes excuses, crap treatment of Cambell..cough /sneeze..Hargreaves, it would appear he has not learnt from any of his perceived mistakes at Torquay.

And to be honest i dont think the guy will ever learn from his mistakes, as long as the bloke has a hole in his arse, to do that you have, to have the ability to see a decision or action taken was wrong, and be humble enough to admit it, a fatal flaw that Buckle has there methink's.

[Scott Brehaut]

If you think Buckle wasn't any good for us, then that's your opinion but the reason you're going to watch league football at Plainmoor every other Saturday is down to what he and the club achieved over the last 4 years.

He is also the reason why we are watching League 2 football again this season....

[monkeyboy]

Buckle had a great record at Torquay, but he was right for us at the right time. His failure so far at Bristol is down to a number of things, but ultimately caused by the level of expectation and size of the club. He has chosen players that were right for Torquay and similarly sized clubs but not necessarily right for BRFC, the expectation levels have risen and they are bottling it. His jackanory excuses have gone down really badly as well, he has to realise what he says up in Bristol is scrutinised to a different level than when he was in Devon.

[Plymouth Gull]

Exactly right Scott! Though I must say I doubt we'd be doing as well as Stevenage are now, I have no doubt that we'd have won that game had we actually turned up.

[exilegull]

A lot of comments regarding Buckle's personality but in terms of that being the key difference between the performance between Buckle and Ling I don't agree.

Buckle is clearly single-minded looking from the outside he appears arrogant and aloof. This undoubtedly makes it difficult for fans to warm to. However this is hardly unique - look at the way Ferguson, Wenger and Mourinho are, the way they rarely criticise the players and make excuses. While at the time the treatment of Woods, Hargreaves, Raynor etc appeared harsh, in hindsight I think he probably got most of those decisions correct (probably the same with Campbell) - its quite simple no one is bigger at the club than him and when they reacted in the wrong way to decisions he made, he wanted them out as quickly as possible. Compare with how someone like Nicholson when out of favour clearly got his head down and forced his way back into contention and is a better player for it. I can't really remember Buckle being accused of having favourites - if players didn't perform they were out of favour and out of the side. In some cases more patience was required - maybe if Kee had been given a longer chance earlier we would have seen what Burton were seeing, by the time Ling came in I think it was too late for Kee and Torquay. Compare with Ling and we have already had the Saah situation where he probably should have been dropped for Ellis (although to be fair he was improving before he was injured).
Generally team spirit at the club during his time was very good - I doubt Buckle really fostered that, but by not standing for individual player's egos, clearly as a group they become strong - indeed he may have been the common enemy. Clearly this is a problem at Bristol Rovers at the moment because he cannot build the team spirit quickly (as opposed to Ling) but in this aspect this is where I think Buckle should be given the time.

The difference for me is football wise - I don't believe Buckle will make a good manager. Player wise we went through far too many players during his time here and I think he was lucky with the budget he got and the flexibility from the board. Its partly because he falls out with players but also he takes a scatter gun approach with recruitment. Last season our playoff drive was driven by Stanley, Robinson and Tomlin, with Oastler, Murray, Hemmings, Rose and I'm sure a few more I've missed added in. It was ok in the short term and the loan system is there to be used but look at the squad of players that were ours at the end of the season - how would he have managed if we had been promoted and he stayed. Look at BRFC - he has brought in 19 players and is already talking about more. Its an unsustainable way of managing. Make the comparison to Ling and it is completely different - his recruitment in the summer was excellent bringing a small number of key players in and giving players a chance - Stevens, Lathrope. We have 2 players on loan, 1 to replace a late player sale (and clearly with a view to a permanent move) and the other just a cover player. With Buckle every year he needed to make significant changes to the squad where as Ling is clearly look to slowly build a squad.

Tactically, Buckle is again and again found wanting - there were always frequent chopping and changing for no apparent reason (Exeter in the playoffs anyone? Crawley in the cup), then sticking with unsuccessful formulas (Benyon as lone front man), playing players frequently out of position (Kee, Mansell, Oastler) and bizarre substitutions. Compare to Ling - we went through a difficult spell playing 4-4-2 and he successfully changed it to a 4-5-1/4-4-3 which makes the most of our small squad, with players playing in the best position for them (O Kane, Lathrope). Substitutions are made sparingly and generally make sense.

Good managers can be unsuccessful and bad managers can be successful, luck and circumstances play a huge part. Personally I believe Ling is a good manager manager and will do well for Torquay. I believe the jury remains very much out on whether Buckle will prove to be a good manager.

[Dave_Pougher]

Read some good points here that have made me think (not easy)

But all the time I can't help think that we achieved what we have with the new board primarily and were promoted in spite of Buckle rather than because of him.

[Trojan 67]

Excellent post Exilegull.

[Southampton Gull]

Read some good points here that have made me think (not easy)

But all the time I can't help think that we achieved what we have with the new board primarily and were promoted in spite of Buckle rather than because of him.

I've always felt that, Dave.

[Dave_Pougher]

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/BOSS-BUC ... story.html

OH DEAR

HOW SAD

NEVER MIND

[Southampton Gull]

I beat you to it

http://torquayfans.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;