mrmojorisin75

the fact that he played that style due to budget could be seen as a given, too obvious for words however bolton have been safe from relegation troubles for quite some time now yet they still base their game on the same style with a few minor additions such as you mention - their primary tactic is still the same however hence you being only able to name diouf and anelka as current first teamers that don't fit the "horrible" category how long do you give him to transition his style from one to the other before it defines him? the lad nappy mentioned allardyce has had time and i'd agree; he's hardly set up a production line of free, developed talent in his time has he? nor has he blown loads of cash in tripe, granted as mentioned previously steve coppell has brought reading up playing nice football on a budget so a budget is not an excuse... is allardyce a pragmatist who can adapt his style to club he's at or is he a one trick pony? this whole thing largely started today 'cause i said the later and people disagreed with me Coppell has done exactly what Pardew did last season, where are West Ham now? As people have said, Bolton have changed their style and do play good football now. Sometimes they resort to the old fashioned bully boy football against better teams because it gets them results. If you expect us to play like Arsenal every week then we will need more than a Coppell to manage it every season and not find ourselves in the s***. We will also need to spend quite a bit (again) on players who are capable of it. Allardyce plays "effective" football, he gets results, sometimes its not pretty but sometimes it is. lets shake hands and head off in the opposite direction, we'll never agree i just hope you remember all this if allardyce gets the gig....might come back to haunt us

the fact that he played that style due to budget could be seen as a given, too obvious for words however bolton have been safe from relegation troubles for quite some time now yet they still base their game on the same style with a few minor additions such as you mention - their primary tactic is still the same however hence you being only able to name diouf and anelka as current first teamers that don't fit the "horrible" category how long do you give him to transition his style from one to the other before it defines him? the lad nappy mentioned allardyce has had time and i'd agree; he's hardly set up a production line of free, developed talent in his time has he? nor has he blown loads of cash in tripe, granted as mentioned previously steve coppell has brought reading up playing nice football on a budget so a budget is not an excuse... is allardyce a pragmatist who can adapt his style to club he's at or is he a one trick pony? this whole thing largely started today 'cause i said the later and people disagreed with me

And because we play like Barcelona we should keep Roeder the assumption here is that roeder isn't intending on playing crap football forever, that he'll improve as we go on and get some consistency; whereas it's allardyces stock in trade and the secret to his success.... can allardyce change? i doubt it Have you seen much of Bolton at all? It is a myth that they play awful football, they don't and haven't done for a while now. Yes they can be very direct and don't mind mixing it up, but they are no Wimbledon or even Watford for that matter, they are similar in style to Liverpool and Chelsea. Anyhow stuff performances, give me results over eye candy all day long. Totally agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one on here who's seen that Bolton play far better football than us for the vast majority of the time and are as far removed from being "ugly" as most teams in the league. There's a difference between being organised and being ugly, is there not? It's become one of these media-peddled things from seasons ago where everyone is quite happy to just hop on the bandwagon and give the same opinion despite not having much first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. I'd equate it to saying something like "the Geordies would rather lose 4-3 than draw 0-0" - i.e. something that is quite probably utter tosh but is believed by most of the non-Toon supporting mongo's around the country. They're hardly thrilling, but they have some excellent players with a good level of technical ability. People have seen them play teams like Arsenal and have labled them because of that, not many teams beat Arsenal they try and play like Arsenal and teams have learnt this, adapted their approach and get better results against them. As you say the whole "Bolton boring football" thing is a media tag that has stuck the same way we are labled "entertainers" and the atmosphere at SJP is amazing! this is mint you all sound like you're trying to talk youselves into something you don't really believe 'cause you think it's gonna happen (not saying you don't believe it just it reads a bit like that) you'll be fucken weeping into your collective pints when we're watching 8m equivalents of ivan kampo hoofing the ball up to 10m equivalents of kevin davies ba ha ha You obviously havent seen much of Bolton recently have you? Just believe everything you read in the media I take it? Take it you have seen £4.5m Bramble hoofing up towards £10.9m Martins a lot though? ha ha, sorry i couldn't help myself... i referred just earlier to myself exaggerating how bad bolton are, i know they're not, but i know that they base the game on being physical, organised and more often than not throwing teams out of their stride and using long throws etc... as an effective tactical tool (works well against us) to me they've developed a better footballing side to the game after years of being horrible but the horrible side is undoubtedly still in there how much horrible would we have to see from an allardyce nufc team before we saw the marginal increase in football quality? they're not that good you know....

And because we play like Barcelona we should keep Roeder the assumption here is that roeder isn't intending on playing crap football forever, that he'll improve as we go on and get some consistency; whereas it's allardyces stock in trade and the secret to his success.... can allardyce change? i doubt it Have you seen much of Bolton at all? It is a myth that they play awful football, they don't and haven't done for a while now. Yes they can be very direct and don't mind mixing it up, but they are no Wimbledon or even Watford for that matter, they are similar in style to Liverpool and Chelsea. Anyhow stuff performances, give me results over eye candy all day long. Totally agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one on here who's seen that Bolton play far better football than us for the vast majority of the time and are as far removed from being "ugly" as most teams in the league. There's a difference between being organised and being ugly, is there not? It's become one of these media-peddled things from seasons ago where everyone is quite happy to just hop on the bandwagon and give the same opinion despite not having much first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. I'd equate it to saying something like "the Geordies would rather lose 4-3 than draw 0-0" - i.e. something that is quite probably utter tosh but is believed by most of the non-Toon supporting mongo's around the country. They're hardly thrilling, but they have some excellent players with a good level of technical ability. Regarding the technical ability thing, Bolton employ individual coaches to work on players' games on a one-to-one basis, imagine that here. There would be hope for even Carr. Welll OK, maybe not. Mrmojorisin75, fair enough, see what you're saying. Loads of the more forward-thinking clubs have specialised technical coaches these days, do they not? I recall Martin Jol banging on about Tottenham employing one in the pre-season and I'm fairly certain the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool have them, as well. tell you what, if anything this is the biggest indictment of roeders tenure at the club and applies to souness, robson, gullitt and dalglish too none of them have made the slightest effort (i'm aware of) to overhaul our training/fitness/recovery/rehab and all that jazz at the club from what i can see it's largely the same setup and the same people, and basically our injury list has become progressively worse year by year if allardyce would do one thing i'd hope it would be to do something about the freeloading, obviously imcompetent clowns we've got there now

And because we play like Barcelona we should keep Roeder the assumption here is that roeder isn't intending on playing crap football forever, that he'll improve as we go on and get some consistency; whereas it's allardyces stock in trade and the secret to his success.... can allardyce change? i doubt it Have you seen much of Bolton at all? It is a myth that they play awful football, they don't and haven't done for a while now. Yes they can be very direct and don't mind mixing it up, but they are no Wimbledon or even Watford for that matter, they are similar in style to Liverpool and Chelsea. Anyhow stuff performances, give me results over eye candy all day long. Totally agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one on here who's seen that Bolton play far better football than us for the vast majority of the time and are as far removed from being "ugly" as most teams in the league. There's a difference between being organised and being ugly, is there not? It's become one of these media-peddled things from seasons ago where everyone is quite happy to just hop on the bandwagon and give the same opinion despite not having much first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. I'd equate it to saying something like "the Geordies would rather lose 4-3 than draw 0-0" - i.e. something that is quite probably utter tosh but is believed by most of the non-Toon supporting mongo's around the country. They're hardly thrilling, but they have some excellent players with a good level of technical ability. People have seen them play teams like Arsenal and have labled them because of that, not many teams beat Arsenal they try and play like Arsenal and teams have learnt this, adapted their approach and get better results against them. As you say the whole "Bolton boring football" thing is a media tag that has stuck the same way we are labled "entertainers" and the atmosphere at SJP is amazing! this is mint you all sound like you're trying to talk youselves into something you don't really believe 'cause you think it's gonna happen (not saying you don't believe it just it reads a bit like that) you'll be fucken weeping into your collective pints when we're watching 8m equivalents of ivan kampo hoofing the ball up to 10m equivalents of kevin davies ba ha ha

And because we play like Barcelona we should keep Roeder the assumption here is that roeder isn't intending on playing crap football forever, that he'll improve as we go on and get some consistency; whereas it's allardyces stock in trade and the secret to his success.... can allardyce change? i doubt it Have you seen much of Bolton at all? It is a myth that they play awful football, they don't and haven't done for a while now. Yes they can be very direct and don't mind mixing it up, but they are no Wimbledon or even Watford for that matter, they are similar in style to Liverpool and Chelsea. Anyhow stuff performances, give me results over eye candy all day long. i see similarities with chel$ki and have mentioned it earlier in this post....i also think chel$ki are a terrible team to watch, utterly horrible i see similarities with liverpool at all i'm perhaps exaggerating how bad bolton play (no more than the hyperbole that's thrown around about roeder though) but the point remains that it's allardyce's style and i don't want to see it in black and white stripes

And because we play like Barcelona we should keep Roeder the assumption here is that roeder isn't intending on playing crap football forever, that he'll improve as we go on and get some consistency; whereas it's allardyces stock in trade and the secret to his success.... can allardyce change? i doubt it

No, sacking Robson was not the problem, it came if anything too late. Our problems do not stem from indiscriminately sacking managers, but from from not preparing and ending up hiring incompetent replacements. There were in no way the calls for his head in his first season that we have seen for Souness and Roeder, and with good reason. It is fairly obvious that you give a manager like Robson time, he had the pedigree and the future looked positive. If we had that with Roeder he would deserve longer, but we do not, and that is why people are rightly looking at alternative. all of that granted but you can't disassociate the two can you? sacking the manager and having a good replacement lined up, they're inextricably linked...part of the same f!ck up what i believe the lad nappy, htl and a couple of others including myself are trying to point out is that allardyce has not suddenly become the man for nufc 'cause he's becoming available he wasn't the man when we sacked robson, wasn't the man when we sacked souness and isn't the man now

i said somewhere earlier in all this that if allardyce were coming in with the remit of operating on a budget and looking to bring in cheaper players and get the best out of what we have then fair enough, i agree however the noise coming out of the club is that they'll spend money in the window to "strengthen the squad" which i read as spending significantly...i don't see an argument for giving allardyce cash ahead of roeder... How often has he wasted money when he has got it? roeder had spent 15m and not wasted any, what's the argument for giving allardyce the cash ahead of roeder answer my question i'll answer yours Because Allardyce actually brings in players, doesn't waste money (not saying Roeder does) and is an all round better manager. fair enough, that's your point of view as for your question the only money i know he's had is for anelka and i'd now say it has been and better than anything roeder has spent, arguably worse value given the fact he's 28 and has a pathcy history and temperament He has helped transform them into a team that are likely to qualify for Europe. Worth every penny. He has spent fairly big (for Bolton) on Diouf aswell who is a very good striker and has done a good job there. These players do have poor history with attitude but this is another plus point for Allardyce in he knows how to handle this and get the best out of the players. diouf was nominal, wages only Pretty sure he was about £3.5m wouldn't stake my life either way, regardless it's hardly shedloads is it?

i said somewhere earlier in all this that if allardyce were coming in with the remit of operating on a budget and looking to bring in cheaper players and get the best out of what we have then fair enough, i agree however the noise coming out of the club is that they'll spend money in the window to "strengthen the squad" which i read as spending significantly...i don't see an argument for giving allardyce cash ahead of roeder... How often has he wasted money when he has got it? roeder had spent 15m and not wasted any, what's the argument for giving allardyce the cash ahead of roeder answer my question i'll answer yours Because Allardyce actually brings in players, doesn't waste money (not saying Roeder does) and is an all round better manager. fair enough, that's your point of view as for your question the only money i know he's had is for anelka and i'd now say it has been and better than anything roeder has spent, arguably worse value given the fact he's 28 and has a pathcy history and temperament He has helped transform them into a team that are likely to qualify for Europe. Worth every penny. He has spent fairly big (for Bolton) on Diouf aswell who is a very good striker and has done a good job there. These players do have poor history with attitude but this is another plus point for Allardyce in he knows how to handle this and get the best out of the players. diouf was nominal, wages only

i said somewhere earlier in all this that if allardyce were coming in with the remit of operating on a budget and looking to bring in cheaper players and get the best out of what we have then fair enough, i agree however the noise coming out of the club is that they'll spend money in the window to "strengthen the squad" which i read as spending significantly...i don't see an argument for giving allardyce cash ahead of roeder... How often has he wasted money when he has got it? roeder had spent 15m and not wasted any, what's the argument for giving allardyce the cash ahead of roeder answer my question i'll answer yours Because Allardyce actually brings in players, doesn't waste money (not saying Roeder does) and is an all round better manager. fair enough, that's your point of view as for your question the only money i know he's had is for anelka and i'd now say it has been and better than anything roeder has spent, arguably worse value given the fact he's 28 and has a pathcy history and temperament

i said somewhere earlier in all this that if allardyce were coming in with the remit of operating on a budget and looking to bring in cheaper players and get the best out of what we have then fair enough, i agree however the noise coming out of the club is that they'll spend money in the window to "strengthen the squad" which i read as spending significantly...i don't see an argument for giving allardyce cash ahead of roeder... How often has he wasted money when he has got it? roeder had spent 15m and not wasted any, what's the argument for giving allardyce the cash ahead of roeder answer my question i'll answer yours

i said somewhere earlier in all this that if allardyce were coming in with the remit of operating on a budget and looking to bring in cheaper players and get the best out of what we have then fair enough, i agree however the noise coming out of the club is that they'll spend money in the window to "strengthen the squad" which i read as spending significantly...i don't see an argument for giving allardyce cash ahead of roeder...

The stats seem to think the defence has been fine, its scoring goals that are the problem. But as ever, look for a reason and you'll find it Nice dodge on the question by the way :-[ At last!!! Someone else who can see what's been obvious all bloody season long. it's a fair point, there have been a number games this season where we've played ok/well/good but not put the ball in the net, conceded then collapsed like a pack of cards wigan away in particular springs to mind if michael owen had played 15-20 games with martins the season would have had a totally different look about it, believe me Surely it's just as easy to speculate that with a half-decent defence we'd be doing much better too? We got as far as we did in the Waffa Cup with the striking options now, with a better defence could we have won it? not really 'cause we didn't have a top class defence sitting on the treatment table all season whereas we did have a striker of said calibre.... Even more reason to try and get some defenders of calibre in then? oh aye, i agree actually i feel that we spent big on martins and shouldn't have spent anymore one strikers when there was a 17m one sitting about with knee-knack we should have spent on the defence but didn't however...all i was saying was that we had owen on the books the whole season and he's not been able to kick a ball...he would have made a huge difference to the season no doubt about it as would 2-3 new good defenders

The stats seem to think the defence has been fine, its scoring goals that are the problem. But as ever, look for a reason and you'll find it Nice dodge on the question by the way :-[ At last!!! Someone else who can see what's been obvious all bloody season long. it's a fair point, there have been a number games this season where we've played ok/well/good but not put the ball in the net, conceded then collapsed like a pack of cards wigan away in particular springs to mind if michael owen had played 15-20 games with martins the season would have had a totally different look about it, believe me Surely it's just as easy to speculate that with a half-decent defence we'd be doing much better too? We got as far as we did in the Waffa Cup with the striking options now, with a better defence could we have won it? not really 'cause we didn't have a top class defence sitting on the treatment table all season whereas we did have a striker of said calibre....

Hilarious the way you use the "availability" word when babbling on about Martins but conveniently forget that it applies equally to all possible transfers. Bit of a difference between players like Martins and Duff whose clubs have agreed to sell them and actually buying a player whose current club want to keep. Not suprised you fail to see this though. At least the words make some kind of sense from an English language perspective, unlike some other posts of yours that come across as though you've just knocked back 10 pints of beer, or something. Anyway, you're right, I don't have the foggiest idea what it is you're on about in your post above, but I'll take a stab. It sounds to me as though you're suggesting a player is only "available"when they are transfer listed. Is that what you're saying? I do love the way you throw in a dig at someone when you are struggling to understand things. There is quite a difference between signing a player that has been allowed to leave a club and having to work to bring in a player a club doesn't really want to go or other clubs are trying to get. So far Roeder seems to have failed in getting players that other clubs are seriously interested in (Huth, Woodgate, Kuyt...) or that the clubs don't want to let go (Knight, Davies, Babel, French striker we tried to sign at the end of the last transfer window...). i like this concept, that you have to "work" at transfers and they're "incredibly difficult" to make happen surely times haven't changed beyond picking the phone up, saying how much for this lad? negotiating until you reach an agreement? where else does the work come in? you never hear about manu, chel$ki, arsenal, liverpool having to "work" do you? they either pay the asking price or don't "work" is what you do when you're trying to get something for nothing Aye because transfers always happen in a matter of days. Manchester United just decided they wanted Carrick went straight in and signed him. no, they started with a bid and increased it 'til spurs accepted then the deal went through...it's negotiating 101 ain't it?

Hilarious the way you use the "availability" word when babbling on about Martins but conveniently forget that it applies equally to all possible transfers. Bit of a difference between players like Martins and Duff whose clubs have agreed to sell them and actually buying a player whose current club want to keep. Not suprised you fail to see this though. At least the words make some kind of sense from an English language perspective, unlike some other posts of yours that come across as though you've just knocked back 10 pints of beer, or something. Anyway, you're right, I don't have the foggiest idea what it is you're on about in your post above, but I'll take a stab. It sounds to me as though you're suggesting a player is only "available"when they are transfer listed. Is that what you're saying? I do love the way you throw in a dig at someone when you are struggling to understand things. There is quite a difference between signing a player that has been allowed to leave a club and having to work to bring in a player a club doesn't really want to go or other clubs are trying to get. So far Roeder seems to have failed in getting players that other clubs are seriously interested in (Huth, Woodgate, Kuyt...) or that the clubs don't want to let go (Knight, Davies, Babel, French striker we tried to sign at the end of the last transfer window...). i like this concept, that you have to "work" at transfers and they're "incredibly difficult" to make happen surely times haven't changed beyond picking the phone up, saying how much for this lad? negotiating until you reach an agreement? where else does the work come in? you never hear about manu, chel$ki, arsenal, liverpool having to "work" do you? they either pay the asking price or don't "work" is what you do when you're trying to get something for nothing

The stats seem to think the defence has been fine, its scoring goals that are the problem. But as ever, look for a reason and you'll find it Nice dodge on the question by the way :-[ At last!!! Someone else who can see what's been obvious all bloody season long. it's a fair point, there have been a number games this season where we've played ok/well/good but not put the ball in the net, conceded then collapsed like a pack of cards wigan away in particular springs to mind if michael owen had played 15-20 games with martins the season would have had a totally different look about it, believe me

bingo roeders made mistakes but there have been other factors at play too which people seem too eager to forget

taking martins out as we all agree he's good then roeder has spent 5m on all 5 of them if you put it together!! it's not the end of the world is it?

I've shown the first article that I found. I wouldn't disagree that he made the right decision, mainly because I dont think he had a decision to make. I don't think he made any decision at all, I think Kuyt signing for Liverpool removed any need for a decision. I do think we got the better of the two, as much by luck as by judgment. Also helped that Martins became available around the time Kuyt was being signed by Liverpool iirc. what's the inside info that you two have that gives you knowledge roeder just didn't want to sign martins all along? honest question Never said he didn't but it was a massive help that Martins was being allowed to leave and we needed a pacey striker. If it wasn't for him becoming available I reckon we would have put a silly bid in for Defoe. sorry it's the other lad then, implies that roeder made no decision and bought the only striker in the world that was available not beyond the realms of possibility that roeder knew he was shit hot and waited for the player he wanted rather than get kuyt who maybe he didn't? some people just won't credit roeder now but martins is one of the best 10m we've ever spent pound for pound

I've shown the first article that I found. I wouldn't disagree that he made the right decision, mainly because I dont think he had a decision to make. I don't think he made any decision at all, I think Kuyt signing for Liverpool removed any need for a decision. I do think we got the better of the two, as much by luck as by judgment. Also helped that Martins became available around the time Kuyt was being signed by Liverpool iirc. what's the inside info that you two have that gives you knowledge roeder just didn't want to sign martins all along? honest question

personally i think the way he's operating in the transfer market is to the benefit of the club as a whole - no manager has a 100% success record in transfers do they? so far martins has been very good, sib has exceeded expectations and duff has been a disappointment (but is hardly to be written off at age 27) rossi should have been used more (but then he was tied for quite a few games), bernard was/is a joke and gooch has not been as good as we'd hoped all in all the 6 players he's brought in haven't damaged us too much have they? he hasn't panic bought a 9.5m player yet has he? i have to believe that roeder, and the club, have learned from their mistakes to this point and will take steps to rectify them this summer.... the alternative as i see it is another season of a new manager coming in and "assessing" the players we all know need to leave before then not being given the chance to change things round if roeder doesn't act this summer then he's pulling the trigger on himself, simple as that.... Jesus. You WANT to let him bring more players like f****** Gooch into the club?? you TRUST a man who automatically plays Carr??? Roeder has been woeful, he'll learn f*** all because he thinks he was right, and he'll drag us down. I'm more worried that he continually picks Parker. You won't leave it will you. Well, that's because I am REALLY worried about it. I'd select Carr at fullback ahead of Parker in midfield, for example. I'd select Ameobi up front as a striker ahead of Parker in midfield as another example. Both of these players are slated but both do better at their role than Parker does at his. In my opinion Parker has a negative impact on the entire team play and it really pisses me off that Roeder picks him every time he's fit. The thought he may even want to build a team around such a s*** player is mind numbing. I don't think Roeder is very good, but I don't think "just anybody" would do a better job and the circumstances have to be taken into account. As I've said before, a so-called "top" manager will expect and demand a certain level of financial backing in the transfer market, backing that the present Board has always given imo, just looking at the money spent will tell you that. However, it could well be that sufficient cash is just not there following the Souness debacle, I suspet it is going to take another a couple of years to get over the money wasted by that clown on the likes of Parker, Emre, Boumsong, Luque etc. We need to consolidate first ( I think we're doing that now ) and then show we are moving forward next season so that when the financial clout is there the club can attract a better quality manager at that time. After saying that, if the right level of cash is there right now I'd get rid of Roeder and bring a better man in. Who that is, I don't know, but I don't like Allardyce, that's for sure. He's hyped up in the same way O'Neill is hyped, both of whom have a track record no better than Souness. Neither would be the right man imo. totally agree with the last part of this, i said earlier on that i just don't see anything in allardyce that leads me to think he'd fit in at SJP and it was taken to mean roeder is better than him i totally agree with the financial side of what you say - i'm not entirely convinced that roeder has been allowed to do what he'd like and while i'd like to hear the truth i can understand the club not wanting to advertise our problems while you can't say we're improving leaps and bounds we're steadily losing some of the overpaid tripe, getting owen fit again, blooding some more of the youngsters, and looking to bring in better players more commited to the cause so if we have some money to spend and the chance to get a class manager then go for it, until then we should look to see what a little continuity might do for us

personally i think the way he's operating in the transfer market is to the benefit of the club as a whole - no manager has a 100% success record in transfers do they? so far martins has been very good, sib has exceeded expectations and duff has been a disappointment (but is hardly to be written off at age 27) rossi should have been used more (but then he was tied for quite a few games), bernard was/is a joke and gooch has not been as good as we'd hoped all in all the 6 players he's brought in haven't damaged us too much have they? he hasn't panic bought a 9.5m player yet has he? i have to believe that roeder, and the club, have learned from their mistakes to this point and will take steps to rectify them this summer.... the alternative as i see it is another season of a new manager coming in and "assessing" the players we all know need to leave before then not being given the chance to change things round if roeder doesn't act this summer then he's pulling the trigger on himself, simple as that.... Jesus. You WANT to let him bring more players like f****** Gooch into the club?? you TRUST a man who automatically plays Carr??? Roeder has been woeful, he'll learn f*** all because he thinks he was right, and he'll drag us down. man, the point is he didn't blow 2m on gooch, he loaned him and he's been proven to not be what we need now we have 2m more to spend on the person we do need in that position, whoever it might be the point i made stands, if he doesn't act then he's commited suicide, if he does and blows then we'll know, if he isn't allowed to act (or hasn't been to this date) the we'll never know

he's also culpable for talking the talk too much during the windows but i largely agree with this