Is Phil Brown the right man for the job?

[superblue24]

Very pleased to being proven wrong and hope it continues, still a long way to go in the season.

Although it does seem this thread was brought back up just to bash Sturrock again so just to even it out, in Sturrock's 2nd season we had 49 points after 24 games - 8 more than Brown has.

Wasn't really to bash him as such, just wanted to highlight the fact that PB is doing as good a job as Sturrock. Like you (and JM) say, Sturrock did achieve 83 points in his 2nd season and that is to be respected. It is worth mentioning that this was achieved when he had the likes of Ferdinand, Grant, Hall and Mohsni who I think we all agreed that abilitywise were at least a level above and were in great form.

Phil Brown still needs to see through the second half now and get us into the autos if possible. If he does this, he will surpass Sturrock imo.

 

[Jam_Man]

Very pleased to being proven wrong and hope it continues, still a long way to go in the season.

Although it does seem this thread was brought back up just to bash Sturrock again so just to even it out, in Sturrock's 2nd season we had 49 points after 24 games - 8 more than Brown has.

Indeed, just being 1 point above where we were last season isnt much to brag about. That said there are plenty of positives, the style of play and the performances, the improvement in some players and the introduction of the likes of White and Coker.

Sturrock did a fantastic job in his first two seasons, if Brown gets us promoted thats no reason to criticise Sturrock.

Wasn't really to bash him as such, just wanted to highlight the fact that PB is doing as good a job as Sturrock. Like you (and JM) say, Sturrock did achieve 83 points in his 2nd season and that is to be respected. It is worth mentioning that this was achieved when he had the likes of Ferdinand, Grant, Hall and Mohsni who I think we all agreed that abilitywise were at least a level above and were in great form.

Phil Brown still needs to see through the second half now and get us into the autos if possible. If he does this, he will surpass Sturrock imo.

What if he does that with 78 points?

 

[ldnfatso]

Not the right man. A blatant liar, you can't have a suntan like that in this weather.

 

[superblue24]

Just wish that the Embargo could be lifted and he could be allowed to sign 3 quality players. These players would bolster the squad for competition and for strength in debt and I honestly feel that we are 2/3 quality players away from winning this league or at least sealing an automatic promotion place.

We try to play football in the right way and the season has been very good thus far, even more so when consider the restraints that they have had to work under. :thumbsup:

That all depends on how much debt Ron has to settle to achieve having the umbongo lifted. If it's more than he wants to pay (which is not very much), then I can't see us pulling clear of it any time soon.

I do agree that 2/3 quality players would ice the cake, but we need to be wary that we dont upset the apple cart.

 

[chapperzUK]

Wasn't really to bash him as such, just wanted to highlight the fact that PB is doing as good a job as Sturrock. Like you (and JM) say, Sturrock did achieve 83 points in his 2nd season and that is to be respected. It is worth mentioning that this was achieved when he had the likes of Ferdinand, Grant, Hall and Mohsni who I think we all agreed that abilitywise were at least a level above and were in great form.

Phil Brown still needs to see through the second half now and get us into the autos if possible. If he does this, he will surpass Sturrock imo.

Can't disagree with that, but still a long way to go. If I had a choice of Brown or Sturrock now I would certainly pick Brown.

I also think we have more strength in depth (surprising as we are limited to how many players we can have) and this showed on the bench.

 

[superblue24]

Indeed, just being 1 point above where we were last season isnt much to brag about. That said there are plenty of positives, the style of play and the performances, the improvement in some players and the introduction of the likes of White and Coker.

Sturrock did a fantastic job in his first two seasons, if Brown gets us promoted thats no reason to criticise Sturrock.



What if he does that with 78 points?

What does it matter? Whether he gets us promoted (automatically) with 70 points or 84, he will have still achieved more than Sturrock. The amount of points scored is relative to that season and is only a measure of how strong the top teams were as opposed to a closely fought league where lots of teams beat each other up. Like I said, we had some really talented players in that squad back then, more so than what we have today imo.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

We had a great manager (for the club) in Tilson and another one in Paul Sturrock. The reasons for their failings, at the end, have been endlessly discussed on these pages. They both had their methods and successes, which have given us supporters much to cheer about, in spite of the severe financial constraints. Ron, for all we may criticise him, may have brought in a third, that will also provide us with much pleasure..........as others have said, there is still a long way to go but the signs are very encouraging.

 

[Jam_Man]

What does it matter? Whether he gets us promoted (automatically) with 70 points or 84, he will have still achieved more than Sturrock. The amount of points scored is relative to that season and is only a measure of how strong the top teams were as opposed to a closely fought league where lots of teams beat each other up. Like I said, we had some really talented players in that squad back then, more so than what we have today imo.

So if one manager wins 20 games and the other wins 15 games but gets promoted thats all that matters when measuring performance? (it is of course only what matters when it boils down to it!)

Thats a very narrow minded assessment and doesnt take into account the league that year or the opposition. I cant see how it can be said the league that year was easier when it had the likes of Swindon and Crawley with massive budgets to compete against. The top of the league was stronger that year, but I dont see how the rest of the league was easier because of it.

Its like me running in the Olympics coming last with a time of 15 seconds and you racing in the under 6 race at your kids school and winning with a time of 40 seconds and saying you did better because you won and I came last.

If Brown gets 60 points, scrapes in the play offs and gets promoted by winning 1-0 in the semis and 1-0 in the final due to two own goals that will be deemed a bigger success than Sturrocks 83 point season, but it doesnt take away the fact we performed better (results wise, not style!) that year.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

For me the test always has been (i) can he develop and sell young talent so as to keep the club afloat and (ii) will he actually hang around as we need to take a long term approach and can't afford to have wholesale changes to coaching and playing staff if a new guy comes in.

The jury is out on both counts, although I'm more optimistic than I was 6 months ago. I'll give him credit for backing Bentley (but we should maybe not forget that he initially dropped him and that Bentley started this season as no.1 through default because Smith was injured) and giving Leonard more responsibility and both players have developed well but they were players he inherited and his transfer record is less encouraging. White, Coker and Atkinson are all solid players and good signings but they just aren't players we're going to make any money on. Reid and Cowan appear to have been a waste of wages and perhaps just as importantly a squad position, although at least with Cowan he didn't tie him up to a long contract that we were stuck with.

We got through this off-season by selling Cresswell, the off-season before by flogging Ferdinand and we sold Ryan Hall in the transfer window in between. Leonard is out of contract this summer and we still don't appear to have tied him down to a long term deal despite the fact that this should have been our priority last season. He's our most likely source of transfer income and maybe Bentley although I'm sceptical of the transfer market for keepers, but after that I'm struggling to see someone we're going to get a fee for (Ted Smith? Maybe a little something for Kevan Hurst although he can walk in the summer and at 28 I can't see anyone splashing too much on him). If we don't sell someone this summer, how do we pay the wages over the summer? It's annoying that Ron didn't get a fee for Mohsni.

I'm disappointed by the disappearance of Mitchell Pinnock (where is he?), the non-appearance of Seedy Nigel and the only sporadic appearances of Jack Payne (at 3-0 against 10 men, couldn't we have given him a run out?) but maybe the talent just isn't there. I'm not sure who the next Ferdinand, Moussa or Bentley from the youth team is (or even Stuart O'Keefe who never made an impact with us), but we need to ensure that there is a progression through the system from the youths to the first team. This needs to be a priority in making the club self-sufficient.

On the pitch I'm pleased with the position we are in in the league and delighted with the cup progress, but it's basically the position we were in the last two seasons (with more or less the same squad of players - maybe less a few players but plus quite a few extra coaching staff). I think the biggest improvement has been in the fitness of the players. A big well done to whoever has been responsible for that as we now last 90 minutes a lot better.

As to what the future brings, a lot of that will rest on luck. We had a torrid time second half of last season with injuries. I think Brown's deliberately signed more athletic players so hopefully less susceptible to picking up injuries than the likes of Barker and Phillips (although this isn't a given see Bennett, Leonard and Corr) but even that doesn't prevent you from suffering broken legs like Timlin's.

What will win me over is if we can sign some promising, exciting youngsters from non-league and (it can be slowly) bring them through so we can make a profit on them. There's far more to the club than the last result on the pitch (although we should savour it) and we need to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Blue_Wes]

So if one manager wins 20 games and the other wins 15 games but gets promoted thats all that matters when measuring performance? (it is of course only what matters when it boils down to it!)

Thats a very narrow minded assessment and doesnt take into account the league that year or the opposition. I cant see how it can be said the league that year was easier when it had the likes of Swindon and Crawley with massive budgets to compete against. The top of the league was stronger that year, but I dont see how the rest of the league was easier because of it.

Its like me running in the Olympics coming last with a time of 15 seconds and you racing in the under 6 race at your kids school and winning with a time of 40 seconds and saying you did better because you won and I came last.

If Brown gets 60 points, scrapes in the play offs and gets promoted by winning 1-0 in the semis and 1-0 in the final due to two own goals that will be deemed a bigger success than Sturrocks 83 point season, but it doesnt take away the fact we performed better (results wise, not style!) that year.

Last season was similar with Gillingham and Rotherham using large budgets to propel them to promotion, as did Fleetwood, but minus the success. I think the 83 point league was an easier league to gain a larger points tally from. You probably had five outstanding teams, Crawley and Swindon due excessive budgets, Shrewsbury who were very strong, physical, but had excellent frontmen in Wright, Collins etc and then ourselves for 3/4 of the season and crewe for half a season. But the mid table teams were consistantly average, and there were far more whipping boys at the bottom for teams to increase their points advantage.

In fact this whole 'we were desperately unlucky not to be promoted with 83 points as it would have been good enough for most seasons' is a myth as well. In three of the last seven seasons, 83pts wasn't good enough for an automatic spot, that's barely over half.

1st: Zero
2nd:Twice
3rd: Twice
4th: Twice
5th: Once

Edit: Having started this, the analyst in me decided I had to see the numbers; So I've looked at how competitive the leagues were over the last seven seasons as well, and Sturrock's mythical 'unlucky' year was the least competitve the league has been (for this seven year period anyway - I am at work and there's only so much skiving I can do!), with the teams not in a promotion pushing spot (play offs upwards) earning less points than any other season, and the least competitive bottom half of the table, making it easier for teams pushing for promotion to pick up points. And the argument that this shows the strength of the top teams doesn't work either as the other seasons saw teams regularly up, around and past the 90 points mark. So you are right Jam Man, it's not a fair comparison, as it's actually weighted in Sturrock's favour.

[TABLE="width: 648"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]06/07
[/TD]
[TD]07/08
[/TD]
[TD]08/09
[/TD]
[TD]09/10
[/TD]
[TD]10/11
[/TD]
[TD]11/12
[/TD]
[TD]12/13
[/TD]
[TD]13/14 Projected
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Five
[/TD]
[TD]45.8
[/TD]
[TD]45.2
[/TD]
[TD]48.8
[/TD]
[TD]44.0
[/TD]
[TD]47.4
[/TD]
[TD]44.2
[/TD]
[TD]51.0
[/TD]
[TD]45.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Seven
[/TD]
[TD]47.6
[/TD]
[TD]46.6
[/TD]
[TD]48.4
[/TD]
[TD]47.0
[/TD]
[TD]48.6
[/TD]
[TD]45.9
[/TD]
[TD]51.7
[/TD]
[TD]47.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Half
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[TD]50.7
[/TD]
[TD]52.1
[/TD]
[TD]52.5
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[TD]49.9
[/TD]
[TD]54.6
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Outside Play Offs
[/TD]
[TD]55.9
[/TD]
[TD]54.9
[/TD]
[TD]56.4
[/TD]
[TD]56.9
[/TD]
[TD]55.8
[/TD]
[TD]54.6
[/TD]
[TD]57.2
[/TD]
[TD]56.0
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I'm not trying to bash Sturrock, I admit I wasn't a fan, but he did ok during his time here; but not many managers get to build a team entirely of his own players/signings, and he was backed well financially with signings in his second season (another advanatage he has in comparison to Brown). He did do well when we finished fourth, but it's about competing against those teams around us, and if you aren't going to be aesthetically pleasing, you need the results, and he failed on that count. Like I said, he did ok, but this mystical 'should of been promoted/desperately unlucky' theory floating around is a bit much for me. He did well, but not enough, and in what appears to be the easiest League Two for some time.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

1st: Zero
2nd:Twice
3rd: Twice
4th: Twice
5th: Once

I may need a bit more to read this properly but what's this?

If the top clubs get more points that means there are fewer points for the lower clubs to get. It's not a zero-sum game. It's an interesting question as to whether this is because of the strength of the top clubs or the weaknesses of the bottom clubs.

 

[Blue_Wes]

I may need a bit more to read this properly but what's this?

If the top clubs get more points that means there are fewer points for the lower clubs to get. It's not a zero-sum game. It's an interesting question as to whether this is because of the strength of the top clubs or the weaknesses of the bottom clubs.

It's a count of the position 83 points would have seen a team finish over the last seven seasons. Four times promotion, three times play offs. A 57% promotion rate, hardly the 'almost every season' remark I've seen floated around the zone every time the 83 points is mentioned, not even close to two thirds of the time.

I admit this figure will fluctaute as you increase the data - both up and down (but I only had limited time at work - and seven years felt like a decent amount of time to check).

 

[Jam_Man]

Last season was similar with Gillingham and Rotherham using large budgets to propel them to promotion, as did Fleetwood, but minus the success. I think the 83 point league was an easier league to gain a larger points tally from. You probably had five outstanding teams, Crawley and Swindon due excessive budgets, Shrewsbury who were very strong, physical, but had excellent frontmen in Wright, Collins etc and then ourselves for 3/4 of the season and crewe for half a season. But the mid table teams were consistantly average, and there were far more whipping boys at the bottom for teams to increase their points advantage.

In fact this whole 'we were desperately unlucky not to be promoted with 83 points as it would have been good enough for most seasons' is a myth as well. In three of the last seven seasons, 83pts wasn't good enough for an automatic spot, that's barely over half.

1st: Zero
2nd:Twice
3rd: Twice
4th: Twice
5th: Once

Edit: Having started this, the analyst in me decided I had to see the numbers; So I've looked at how competitive the leagues were over the last seven seasons as well, and Sturrock's mythical 'unlucky' year was the least competitve the league has been (for this seven year period anyway - I am at work and there's only so much skiving I can do!), with the teams not in a promotion pushing spot (play offs upwards) earning less points than any other season, and the least competitive bottom half of the table, making it easier for teams pushing for promotion to pick up points. And the argument that this shows the strength of the top teams doesn't work either as the other seasons saw teams regularly up, around and past the 90 points mark. So you are right Jam Man, it's not a fair comparison, as it's actually weighted in Sturrock's favour.

[TABLE="width: 648"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]06/07
[/TD]
[TD]07/08
[/TD]
[TD]08/09
[/TD]
[TD]09/10
[/TD]
[TD]10/11
[/TD]
[TD]11/12
[/TD]
[TD]12/13
[/TD]
[TD]13/14 Projected
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Five
[/TD]
[TD]45.8
[/TD]
[TD]45.2
[/TD]
[TD]48.8
[/TD]
[TD]44.0
[/TD]
[TD]47.4
[/TD]
[TD]44.2
[/TD]
[TD]51.0
[/TD]
[TD]45.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Seven
[/TD]
[TD]47.6
[/TD]
[TD]46.6
[/TD]
[TD]48.4
[/TD]
[TD]47.0
[/TD]
[TD]48.6
[/TD]
[TD]45.9
[/TD]
[TD]51.7
[/TD]
[TD]47.4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bottom Half
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[TD]50.7
[/TD]
[TD]52.1
[/TD]
[TD]52.5
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[TD]49.9
[/TD]
[TD]54.6
[/TD]
[TD]51.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Outside Play Offs
[/TD]
[TD]55.9
[/TD]
[TD]54.9
[/TD]
[TD]56.4
[/TD]
[TD]56.9
[/TD]
[TD]55.8
[/TD]
[TD]54.6
[/TD]
[TD]57.2
[/TD]
[TD]56.0
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Thats scary then as 83 points is our best ever tally at this level.

Stats are a funny thing though, if you use the last 6 years then its 4 out 7 times 83 points would be enough which indeed isnt a high percentage.

Look back over the last 21 years though and its suddenly 16 times out of 21, paints a slight different picture doesnt it?

Bottom line is Sturrock gained more points than anyone else at this club has done. I find it highly unlikely that it just so happened that 21 other teams suddenly were poor that season to be the reason why, otherwise why didnt Swindon get 100+ points ?

I'm not trying to bash Sturrock, I admit I wasn't a fan, but he did ok during his time here; but not many managers get to build a team entirely of his own players/signings, and he was backed well financially with signings in his second season (another advanatage he has in comparison to Brown). He did do well when we finished fourth, but it's about competing against those teams around us, and if you aren't going to be aesthetically pleasing, you need the results, and he failed on that count. Like I said, he did ok, but this mystical 'should of been promoted/desperately unlucky' theory floating around is a bit much for me. He did well, but not enough, and in what appears to be the easiest League Two for some time.

Sorry but that just shows your bias when looking at the situation.

Im sure no manager wants to walk into a club with only 3 players on the books with 2 weeks to put together a squad knowing he has to rely on free transfers only. To try and claim that as a positive is really spin of the highest order :smile:

Brown had an established squad to add to, yes he has restrictions but he hasnt even played all of the players he himself signed.

 

[superblue24]

So if one manager wins 20 games and the other wins 15 games but gets promoted thats all that matters when measuring performance? (it is of course only what matters when it boils down to it!)

Thats a very narrow minded assessment and doesnt take into account the league that year or the opposition. I cant see how it can be said the league that year was easier when it had the likes of Swindon and Crawley with massive budgets to compete against. The top of the league was stronger that year, but I dont see how the rest of the league was easier because of it.

Its like me running in the Olympics coming last with a time of 15 seconds and you racing in the under 6 race at your kids school and winning with a time of 40 seconds and saying you did better because you won and I came last.

If Brown gets 60 points, scrapes in the play offs and gets promoted by winning 1-0 in the semis and 1-0 in the final due to two own goals that will be deemed a bigger success than Sturrocks 83 point season, but it doesnt take away the fact we performed better (results wise, not style!) that year.

The point is, and I was underwhelmed by all this talk of "83 points would have got us promoted last year(or whenever)" when we missed out on promotion before, is that the league is only as strong as it is for that season and is not to be taken as some kind of yardstick for future years. Yes, 7 out of 9 times it would have been enough to get us promoted, but we're not exactly talking a gulf of difference in points. Since 2003, the third place team has promoted with 80,81,85,82,78,82,80,84 and 78. This is an average of 81.1. We had 83 points and missed out on third by one point. Yes it was a good season for Sturrock (mainly fuelled by a fantastic midfield), but by no means should we feel hard done by for not getting third. Your point about Swindon and Crawley being particularly strong only galvanizes my point that we had to work that bit harder to gain promotion since the teams at the top were winning so often during that campaign. W

Are you suggesting that Brown has achieved less if he gets us promoted with 78 points than Sturrock did two years ago by gaining 83 and it not being enough?

I could point to the losses to Aldersh*t at Away AND Home (despite the floodlight debacle) and say that if we'd won just one of those two games, we'd have been up and Sturrock would have still been here most probably. You could also do the same with the Bradford and Bristol Rovers games which hurt our promotion hopes. But this was something that used to infuriate me about Sturrock. He'd go and win against Crewe one week and the next lose to Aldersh*t. There was just never any consistency and you'd always go into those games worrying that we'd lose to a much weaker team on paper. Look at last season, it was frought with games where we were miles stronger, yet we were edged out. Some said it was that we were "figured out" and I believe this to be true. The sad thing is that Sturrock was unable to come up with fresh ideas or set his stall out differently when the type of opposition required it.

 

[chapperzUK]

He'd go and win against Crewe one week and the next lose to Aldersh*t. There was just never any consistency

A bit like beating Chesterfield away then losing to a bottom of the league Torquay?

 

[Jam_Man]

The point is, and I was underwhelmed by all this talk of "83 points would have got us promoted last year(or whenever)" when we missed out on promotion before, is that the league is only as strong as it is for that season and is not to be taken as some kind of yardstick for future years. Yes, 7 out of 9 times it would have been enough to get us promoted, but we're not exactly talking a gulf of difference in points. Since 2003, the third place team has promoted with 80,81,85,82,78,82,80,84 and 78. This is an average of 81.1. We had 83 points and missed out on third by one point. Yes it was a good season for Sturrock (mainly fuelled by a fantastic midfield), but by no means should we feel hard done by for not getting third. Your point about Swindon and Crawley being particularly strong only galvanizes my point that we had to work that bit harder to gain promotion since the teams at the top were winning so often during that campaign. W

Are you suggesting that Brown has achieved less if he gets us promoted with 78 points than Sturrock did two years ago by gaining 83 and it not being enough?

"Achieving" can be defined in two ways,

1.the actual performance on the pitch, the hard facts of how many games you win.
2.the end result.

If he gets promoted, most if not all will say he did better than Sturrock, because he achieved promotion and thats all that matters. However if he does it by winning less games then you cant say his team did better than Sturrocks on the pitch.

All that matter is promotion, its why I put up with the football under Sturrock, because it was for a period successful and did get us results and out of the last 21 years would have got us promoted in most and Champions in some of those.

So yes I would prefer 78 points and promotion than 83 points and 4th place, that doesnt mean I ignore the achievements of the latter.

I could point to the losses to Aldersh*t at Away AND Home (despite the floodlight debacle) and say that if we'd won just one of those two games, we'd have been up and Sturrock would have still been here most probably. You could also do the same with the Bradford and Bristol Rovers games which hurt our promotion hopes. But this was something that used to infuriate me about Sturrock. He'd go and win against Crewe one week and the next lose to Aldersh*t. There was just never any consistency and you'd always go into those games worrying that we'd lose to a much weaker team on paper. Look at last season, it was frought with games where we were miles stronger, yet we were edged out.

Some said it was that we were "figured out" and I believe this to be true. The sad thing is that Sturrock was unable to come up with fresh ideas or set his stall out differently when the type of opposition required it.

Totally agree, the consistency and results against lower league teams was frustrating and led to Sturrock going. Lets however look at it with balance though, how did we do against Wycombe, Torquay, Accrinton and Bristol Rovers under Brown ? 4 of the bottom 6 and we managed 2 points out of 12. So its not like we are showing massive consistency against the weaker teams this year either.

What matters is where we are end of the season, last year we were going to be no where near the play offs so Sturrock rightly left.

At present our points tally isnt any different, however what is different is we are playing with more confidence that makes us look like we are progressing and can put a run together, something I never felt we were capable of last season even when things had picked up in November/December time.

 

[Kevin Hogg]

I am all for debating football issues. However, only Southend United fans can resurrect the "is PB the right man" at a time where we are going well in our challenge for promotion and have just beaten a Championship side (albeit a very poor one) 4-1 in the FA Cup. Carry on, enjoy. Is laughable though.

 

[Jam_Man]

I am all for debating football issues. However, only Southend United fans can resurrect the "is PB the right man" at a time where we are going well in our challenge for promotion and have just beaten a Championship side (albeit a very poor one) 4-1 in the FA Cup. Carry on, enjoy. Is laughable though.

Its because he wasnt wanted when he came and now its a recognition that he is doing well and pointing out that the general consensus when he signed was wrong.

Its not negative.

 

[Rick Parsnip]

Is he the right man for the job. I think so, but just compare the following player's performances since he has been here:
Bentley, Prosser, Leonard and Straker (sometimes LOL). All, IMO unrecognisable from last season. What's changed about them? Confidence, fitness and will-to-win - who has instilled that but Brown. About time we dropped this thread and all agree that he is here and be thankful for that.

 

[superblue24]

Its because he wasnt wanted when he came and now its a recognition that he is doing well and pointing out that the general consensus when he signed was wrong.

Its not negative.

Indeed. I just wanted to congratulate Phil Brown for doing a great job in the face of what I recall to be some fairly negative comments directed towards him back when he was appointed.