Should Mick McCarthy have been booted out earlier ?

During that very dark period which eventually saw the end of the McCarthy reign, it was clear to everyone watching that he had totally lost the plot, from the stands it was totally all over the place. Its now starting to come out that the players were as confused as the rest of us about what was being asked, its clear that he had totally lost the dressing room.

I think it was left too long until he was sacked, in a weird sort of way maybe Vincent Tan was too soft with him !

Left it way too long.
Lost dressing room, shape, fight and motivation..

Writing on the wall early when he ditched pace for defenders in pre season. Any Bare squad need a way and togetherness to get results against all the better quality sides.
His team choices, and player management shite.
His fans management shite.

Should have gone 4 games before as it was an impossible pull back.
Serious danger now.

We all need to get behind them now.
Give them our support...

Title edited, as some thought you were resurrecting the Malky debate...

As for the actual subject, I'm surprised the question has even been raised, given the amount of airing and debate the situation surrounding Mick McCarthy had during the lean spell and before

Not too sure many wanted him when he was appointed?

There was a spike after the initial 'new manager bounce' (although most were still against the knee-jerk contract award) and it went downhill slowly from pre-season (strange decisions on the player front) and rapidly after a 'lucky' start was followed by a couple of large losses, including the West Wales Cup Final (theirs not ours)

Never a long term leader for us...

But we move on and support the new man in place...

YES:

Because behind the scenes the players etc had had enough of him and his attitude.

Title edited, as some thought you were resurrecting the Malky debate...

As for the actual subject, I'm surprised the question has even been raised, given the amount of airing and debate the situation surrounding Mick McCarthy had during the lean spell and before

Not too sure many wanted him when he was appointed?

There was a spike after the initial 'new manager bounce' (although most were still against the knee-jerk contract award) and it went downhill slowly from pre-season (strange decisions on the player front) and rapidly after a 'lucky' start was followed by a couple of large losses, including the West Wales Cup Final (theirs not ours)

Never a long term leader for us...

But we move on and support the new man in place...

That is changing history to say most were against contract award. I remember it being pretty unanimous for new contract.

Title edited, as some thought you were resurrecting the Malky debate...

As for the actual subject, I'm surprised the question has even been raised, given the amount of airing and debate the situation surrounding Mick McCarthy had during the lean spell and before

Not too sure many wanted him when he was appointed?

There was a spike after the initial 'new manager bounce' (although most were still against the knee-jerk contract award) and it went downhill slowly from pre-season (strange decisions on the player front) and rapidly after a 'lucky' start was followed by a couple of large losses, including the West Wales Cup Final (theirs not ours)

Never a long term leader for us...

But we move on and support the new man in place...

That is changing history to say most were against contract award. I remember it being pretty unanimous for new contract.

Maybe, Neil; I can recall people of both persuasions on here but I know 100% my stated view was not to give him a contract at that time

The irony of that is I might have given him support to carry on this season (not two) given his initial impact, so it just goes to show it's not an exact science

Title edited, as some thought you were resurrecting the Malky debate...

As for the actual subject, I'm surprised the question has even been raised, given the amount of airing and debate the situation surrounding Mick McCarthy had during the lean spell and before

Not too sure many wanted him when he was appointed?

There was a spike after the initial 'new manager bounce' (although most were still against the knee-jerk contract award) and it went downhill slowly from pre-season (strange decisions on the player front) and rapidly after a 'lucky' start was followed by a couple of large losses, including the West Wales Cup Final (theirs not ours)

Never a long term leader for us...

But we move on and support the new man in place...

That is changing history to say most were against contract award. I remember it being pretty unanimous for new contract.

Maybe, Neil; I can recall people of both persuasions on here but I know 100% my stated view was not to give him a contract at that time

The irony of that is I might have given him support to carry on this season (not two) given his initial impact, so it just goes to show it's not an exact science

Maybe people felt two years was a bit much but after the immediate impact he had it certainly looked like he could take us places.

Title edited, as some thought you were resurrecting the Malky debate...

As for the actual subject, I'm surprised the question has even been raised, given the amount of airing and debate the situation surrounding Mick McCarthy had during the lean spell and before

Not too sure many wanted him when he was appointed?

There was a spike after the initial 'new manager bounce' (although most were still against the knee-jerk contract award) and it went downhill slowly from pre-season (strange decisions on the player front) and rapidly after a 'lucky' start was followed by a couple of large losses, including the West Wales Cup Final (theirs not ours)

Never a long term leader for us...

But we move on and support the new man in place...

That is changing history to say most were against contract award. I remember it being pretty unanimous for new contract.

Maybe, Neil; I can recall people of both persuasions on here but I know 100% my stated view was not to give him a contract at that time

The irony of that is I might have given him support to carry on this season (not two) given his initial impact, so it just goes to show it's not an exact science

Maybe people felt two years was a bit much but after the immediate impact he had it certainly looked like he could take us places.

Its going to be one of those mysteries why it went all wrong after a very positive start.

Too right much earlier, playing a team full of centre halves was a clue, and getting stuffed week after week should have been a clue!!!

Yes.