|
Post by baldy on Jan 15, 2011 12:31:41 GMT
So Maurice Evans is comparable to Harry Redknapp ? Both have won just one trophy in their entire career. I don't get what you are saying. Whats your view of Redknapp given your logic. He's 10 years older than Allardyce and one trophy more. I was quoting your mantra "It's all about winning trophies" so you should "get" what I am saying, as it's what you say.... Perhaps you could explain it to yourself. Then to us once you've got it straight in you own mind. It's your own logic you are questioning I don't happen to think it's ALL about trophies when saying if someone has had a good career compared to someone from a totally different era., although if you are comparing similar managers, like MON and Sam, then it helps. MON and Big Sam have managed during a similar timescale, managed similar number of games 700-800 and in the same leagues at the same time at similar level, so to compare them is relatively easy. To compare Maurice Evans and Harry is far more difficult. Harry has managed over 1,000 games, Maurice maybe half that? They managed at different levels for most of their careers during different eras. Maurice inherited a very good side and kept them going in a similar way (a bit like Rafa winning the Champions League with a Houillier team?). Maurice was also a gentleman. Sadly I don't think he would have enjoyed managing nowadays as the game has changed so much. Compare Harry to Sam (and MON). Similar careers, start off in the lower leagues and build up a decent career. Different style of manager. Sam is scientific and plays the percentages. Harry is a bit more off the cuff and relies more on a flash of genius from his players, more gung ho. Hope that helps? At the very top of the game, yes, I do think a team and its manager should be judged on silverware and as you go downwards in the table then a managers expectation become less about glory and more about survival which can be a feat in itself. I wouldn't compare Redknapp alongside Wenger and Ferguson in the trophy stakes because, in fairness, this is the first real job he's had when he could realistically compete with them. In the past he's been able to given them a game but thats about it. Given his years as a Premiership manager at West Ham and Portsmouth though I do think its fair to bracket him with the likes of Allardyce in what he can have expected to have achieved. While he won the FA Cup at Pompey I do think that Allardyce has performed better than him overall in the Premiership prior to him coming to Spurs and could you really say Bolton were blessed with any more resources than West Ham and Pompey ? If you give Allardyce a job at a club like Tottenham at the age Redknapp is now then I really believe he could do a very similar job. The football might not be as flash but I think he'd sort them out a bit better defensively than Harry does and the end result wouldn't be as good if less spectacular. My 'trophies are all that matters' has to be interpreted correctly and, of course, you can't bracket every manager the same but whereas trophy hunters like Wenger and Fergie can be put together so can the likes of Allardyce, O'Neill, Moyes and Redknapp and I think allardyce comes out very near the top of that particular pile.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 15, 2011 12:34:24 GMT
I was quoting your mantra "It's all about winning trophies" so you should "get" what I am saying, as it's what you say.... Perhaps you could explain it to yourself. Then to us once you've got it straight in you own mind. It's your own logic you are questioning I don't happen to think it's ALL about trophies when saying if someone has had a good career compared to someone from a totally different era., although if you are comparing similar managers, like MON and Sam, then it helps. MON and Big Sam have managed during a similar timescale, managed similar number of games 700-800 and in the same leagues at the same time at similar level, so to compare them is relatively easy. To compare Maurice Evans and Harry is far more difficult. Harry has managed over 1,000 games, Maurice maybe half that? They managed at different levels for most of their careers during different eras. Maurice inherited a very good side and kept them going in a similar way (a bit like Rafa winning the Champions League with a Houillier team?). Maurice was also a gentleman. Sadly I don't think he would have enjoyed managing nowadays as the game has changed so much. Compare Harry to Sam (and MON). Similar careers, start off in the lower leagues and build up a decent career. Different style of manager. Sam is scientific and plays the percentages. Harry is a bit more off the cuff and relies more on a flash of genius from his players, more gung ho. Hope that helps? At the very top of the game, yes, I do think a team and its manager should be judged on silverware and as you go downwards in the table then a managers expectation become less about glory and more about survival which can be a feat in itself. I wouldn't compare Redknapp alongside Wenger and Ferguson in the trophy stakes because, in fairness, this is the first real job he's had when he could realistically compete with them. In the past he's been able to given them a game but thats about it. Given his years as a Premiership manager at West Ham and Portsmouth though I do think its fair to bracket him with the likes of Allardyce in what he can have expected to have achieved. While he won the FA Cup at Pompey I do think that Allardyce has performed better than him overall in the Premiership prior to him coming to Spurs and could you really say Bolton were blessed with any more resources than West Ham and Pompey ? If you give Allardyce a job at a club like Tottenham at the age Redknapp is now then I really believe he could do a very similar job. The football might not be as flash but I think he'd sort them out a bit better defensively than Harry does and the end result wouldn't be as good if less spectacular. My 'trophies are all that matters' has to be interpreted correctly and, of course, you can't bracket every manager the same but whereas trophy hunters like Wenger and Fergie can be put together so can the likes of Allardyce, O'Neill, Moyes and Redknapp and I think allardyce comes out very near the top of that particular pile. Should be 'would' of course.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 15, 2011 12:54:22 GMT
At the very top of the game, yes, I do think a team and its manager should be judged on silverware and as you go downwards in the table then a managers expectation become less about glory and more about survival which can be a feat in itself. I wouldn't compare Redknapp alongside Wenger and Ferguson in the trophy stakes because, in fairness, this is the first real job he's had when he could realistically compete with them. In the past he's been able to given them a game but thats about it. Given his years as a Premiership manager at West Ham and Portsmouth though I do think its fair to bracket him with the likes of Allardyce in what he can have expected to have achieved. While he won the FA Cup at Pompey I do think that Allardyce has performed better than him overall in the Premiership prior to him coming to Spurs and could you really say Bolton were blessed with any more resources than West Ham and Pompey ? If you give Allardyce a job at a club like Tottenham at the age Redknapp is now then I really believe he could do a very similar job. The football might not be as flash but I think he'd sort them out a bit better defensively than Harry does and the end result wouldn't be as good if less spectacular. My 'trophies are all that matters' has to be interpreted correctly and, of course, you can't bracket every manager the same but whereas trophy hunters like Wenger and Fergie can be put together so can the likes of Allardyce, O'Neill, Moyes and Redknapp and I think allardyce comes out very near the top of that particular pile. Should be 'would' of course. I think you were right first time. Sam's had/having a good career. But if it's not about winning trophies (which it isn't at the level they are at) then surely enjoying the football is important. Harry wins hands down over Sam (in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Jan 15, 2011 17:21:17 GMT
There's a new rumour going round that it won't be Mo'N but Jol who takes over.
Chaos - but that's what you get with scum owners.
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Jan 16, 2011 12:15:03 GMT
Allardyce & MON are both great managers, with terrific records. I always think that to be considered a truly great manager, you've got to have achieved success at more than one club - both of these guys have done better than that.
MON: Wycombe - two promotions, their greatest ever. Leicester - Consistent Prem Top 10, two League Cups, amongst their greatest ever Celtic - As Baldy said, it's not exactly the world's toughest job. But he won a slew of titles and there was that UEFA Cup run Villa - Spent money, but delivered consistent top six finishes - basically achieved exactly what he should have done with their wage bill. But other managers before and after have palpably failed to do
Big Sam: Blackpool - Great season, just couldn't quite keep up with the greatest team on the planet. Ridiculous sacking Notts County - Record setting promotion Bolton - Consistent Prem Top 8 Blackburn - Solid Prem finishes.
The only blemish on Big Sam's record is Newcastle. And although his sacking was again ridiculously unfair and premature (seems like a recurring theme for him), he had started badly. Something than MON has never done.
As far as MON for West Ham goes (which doesn't necessarily look like happening now), the only big question mark I'd have is why he would want to do that job. He left Aston Villa because he'd achieved all he reasonably could with them, and there wasn't going to be more money to spend to push on. Now he's thinking about going to a club where mid-table is going to be a success year on year? It's a big step down - I can only guess, if he is considering it, that he reckons that no big jobs are going to come his way in the next twelve months. I'd have thought he was a great fit for Liverpool, myself.
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 18, 2011 9:41:57 GMT
Will be confirmed this morning. Well it wasn't, and apparently West Ham are now committed to keeping Grant (even giving him budget) and O'Neill has stated he's not interested anyway. Junior - the fact it's "all over the Internet" means nothing. This is a great example of why you shouldn't present unsubstantiated rumour as fact.
|
|
|
Post by kenskeen on Jan 18, 2011 11:50:23 GMT
That's not quite accurate though. Apparently O'Neill was interested, but objected to the way that West Ham board - and a more unpleasant individual than pornodwarf Sullivan would be hard to imagine - were leaking against Grant all the time- and trying to get him to "Break his contract" so they din't have to pay him compensation. (They tried that trick with Zola already. )
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 18, 2011 13:56:32 GMT
Will be confirmed this morning. Well it wasn't, and apparently West Ham are now committed to keeping Grant (even giving him budget) and O'Neill has stated he's not interested anyway. Junior - the fact it's "all over the Internet" means nothing. This is a great example of why you shouldn't present unsubstantiated rumour as fact. People are allowed to change their minds. Me, David Sullivan, SSN, anyone you like.... If you only want substantiated, confirmed informationon this forum then we may as well shut the lot down bwcause it will be non existent. I can point you in the direction of about 20 on going threads that are pure speculation but interesting nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 18, 2011 14:16:36 GMT
Will be confirmed this morning. Well it wasn't, and apparently West Ham are now committed to keeping Grant (even giving him budget) and O'Neill has stated he's not interested anyway. Junior - the fact it's "all over the Internet" means nothing. This is a great example of why you shouldn't present unsubstantiated rumour as fact. Oh dear, the forum police are pulling us up on what we can and can't post again. Naughty boy Baldy *tut tut*
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 18, 2011 15:33:50 GMT
Well it wasn't, and apparently West Ham are now committed to keeping Grant (even giving him budget) and O'Neill has stated he's not interested anyway. Junior - the fact it's "all over the Internet" means nothing. This is a great example of why you shouldn't present unsubstantiated rumour as fact. People are allowed to change their minds. Me, David Sullivan, SSN, anyone you like.... If you only want substantiated, confirmed informationon this forum then we may as well shut the lot down bwcause it will be non existent. I can point you in the direction of about 20 on going threads that are pure speculation but interesting nevertheless. You miss my point Baldy. If you'd said "it says on XYZ", fair enough. You presented it as fact.
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 18, 2011 15:35:39 GMT
Well it wasn't, and apparently West Ham are now committed to keeping Grant (even giving him budget) and O'Neill has stated he's not interested anyway. Junior - the fact it's "all over the Internet" means nothing. This is a great example of why you shouldn't present unsubstantiated rumour as fact. Oh dear, the forum police are pulling us up on what we can and can't post again. Naughty boy Baldy *tut tut* I'm very flattered to have my own stalker, but you must have the worst interpretive skills of any poster on here. Try interpreting this - kindly f**k off you irritating, pointless c*nt. Go on, report me. (EDIT - I made it slightly less offensive through respect of your sensitive nature).
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 18, 2011 16:28:23 GMT
Oh dear, the forum police are pulling us up on what we can and can't post again. Naughty boy Baldy *tut tut* I'm very flattered to have my own stalker, but you must have the worst interpretive skills of any poster on here. Try interpreting this - kindly f**k off you irritating, pointless c*nt. Go on, report me. (EDIT - I made it slightly less offensive through respect of your sensitive nature). Very charming, Don't flatter yourself though.... Sorry but I have problem with people telling others what they should or shouldn't post....it's anti-forum
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 18, 2011 16:41:03 GMT
I'm very flattered to have my own stalker, but you must have the worst interpretive skills of any poster on here. Try interpreting this - kindly f**k off you irritating, pointless c*nt. Go on, report me. (EDIT - I made it slightly less offensive through respect of your sensitive nature). Very charming, Don't flatter yourself though.... Sorry but I have problem with people telling others what they should or shouldn't post....it's anti-forum Your inconsistency and lack of ability to follow a logical argument make you sound thick as pig shit sometimes. So you don't like people telling others what they should or shouldn't post, yet you're trying to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't post! Priceless irony or pure ignorance, you decide.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 18, 2011 16:44:53 GMT
Someone at work just told me that O'neill didn't like Karen Brady or David Gold and David Sullivan. Note - it is someone at my work, an unsubstantiated rumour at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 18, 2011 16:59:47 GMT
Very charming, Don't flatter yourself though.... Sorry but I have problem with people telling others what they should or shouldn't post....it's anti-forum Your inconsistency and lack of ability to follow a logical argument make you sound thick as pig shit sometimes. So you don't like people telling others what they should or shouldn't post, yet you're trying to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't post! Priceless irony or pure ignorance, you decide. That's where you're wrong, I didn't say you shouldn't do it I just said I didn't like it, big difference. Now who's having trouble following logic?
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 18, 2011 17:10:52 GMT
Your inconsistency and lack of ability to follow a logical argument make you sound thick as pig shit sometimes. So you don't like people telling others what they should or shouldn't post, yet you're trying to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't post! Priceless irony or pure ignorance, you decide. That's where you're wrong, I didn't say you shouldn't do it I just said I didn't like it, big difference. Now who's having trouble following logic? No. You said you had a problem with it. Misquoting your own posts is a bit embarrassing, surely?
|
|