Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?
Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.
Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.
Is that your reply?
Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?
On what evidence did he make that appointment?
He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!
Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?
What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?
I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.
So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?
So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough :lol:
Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?
so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight
At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?
The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.
We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.
He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.
As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.
:winking:
Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?
No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.
Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.
I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?
so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?
What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?
Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.
Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?
why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.
is it sinking in yet ?
And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?
Lets see how thin we can make the original quote.
