Kaizero

In the end we couldn't beat Latvia so can't say we didn't deserve not qualifying.

I'm just placing all my hopes on Montenegro beating Turkey by a lot and Norway holding on to a draw.

Maradona saying Argentina was Messi, Mascherano and Jonas was prime Jonas.

As he calls me a liar, I just want to state that I see no point in continuing discussion with Clark on this subject. I have put my views out there and tried to engage in discussion and received no proper responses to the points I've tried to raise. I have held no ill will towards Clark and all I wanted out of this engagement was to discuss the merits of placing Vieira above Howe on a list of PL managers. He explained his viewpoint, and I countered said viewpoint and received no proper response. I do not see where I have lied about Clark - and it has certainly not been my intention. It's not as if this is not a public forum where everyone can read all the posts made, and thus would clearly see with their own eyes if I lied about something. This has become a tedious debate and serves no further purpose and I do not wish to be part of it. I had no intention of responding but given his last post I felt I had to do one last post on the matter. I apologize for not realizing this went nowhere sooner and for being part of making this thread a dire read for everyone else.

I don't see how in any way I've embarrassed myself, rather the contrary. You've consistently refused to engage in discussion regarding comparisons, and you consistently refuse to engage in discussion even when on the terms you've set - such as now, when instead of discussing the merits of Vieira's career, you decide to try to make points completely outside the debate. You stated this: "The question I asked regarding how Pardew and McClaren faired abroad was rhetorical" - I fully confess I might have worded myself wrongly, but again, the point was clear enough for everyone and nobody would assume otherwise. Why is it so hard to actually discuss the subject up for debate? Why do you consistently try to alter the debate away from your own views?

Vieira only got as far as the QF in the MLS with NYCFC. He had an amazing base to build on and David Villa (albeit not in his prime) leading the line, 80 goals in 124 appereances. Lampard, Pirlo and Iraola as well and a Mix Diskerud in his prime years (alebit just how good he was can be discussed given he only really shined in the MLS). Granted, having a great squad doesn't mean you're not a good manager - but it heightens expectations. Expectation wise he delivered on the minimum required during his time at NYCFC and both the men following him have done improvements to what he did. Vieira was sacked from OGC Nice. They're currently third. His time at Nice had him improve league positions from his predecessor up one the first year and up two the second, before unraveling in his third season and getting sacked. They are currently 3rd in the league with a new manager. Again he delievered on the minimum expected of him with the club. Vieira at Crystal Palace has been a mixed bag. The club plays more entertaining football than during Hodgson's days, and he inherited a club in chaos. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a seven day period essentially made his start go from quite bad to acceptable. Time will tell if he has what it takes at Palace, or if he again will just deliver the minimum expected of him. I don't know how he interviews or what values team owners put towards hiring him. I know he has had a decent amount of input on the organizational side of things, which is a positive for clubs that can't just sign the best players available to them. All in all Vieira's career has been alright and without any major fuck-ups, bar his end at Nice. The argument style you use where you completely disregard any comparison is quite frustrating, as it leads nowhere. When people picks you up on your own hypothetical's and use them against you, they are then "rhetorical". If you are the sole arbitrator over what examples are "relevant" then there will be no way to discuss with you. It would be like discussing with a brick wall, which, to be fair, this is. In the end, on Howe's side, there's the fact he took an unfancied side from League Two to become a somewhat established Premier League side. It is an incredible achievement and he has continually exceeded expectations set before him. This is why I believe he deserves a place higher than Vieira on the list, in my opinion. Vieira might still prove to be the better manager of the two but for me, right now, it's not even a competition.

I follow the MLS and have followed the MLS since the mid-00's. Please tell me more about how I do not know anything about the MLS. N-O's old friend Heneage even works at NYCFC, fwiw.

Please also don't forget Vieira took over the Man City of their league in the MLS, and that his successor has a better record. Note also that Clark uses "first playoff appereance" to mean something, when the reality is the club had only existed for one season before this. As a point of consideration, the current longest Playoff drought of any club in the MLS is 4 seasons, meaning getting a club to the Playoffs is more what can be expected than anything else. There's 27 teams in the MLS currently, 14 make it to the playoffs. This means more than half of the teams in the league qualify. Now, when Vieria managed NYCFC it was 24 teams. I do not see how one can qualify what Vieira di at NYCFC as "fantastic" rather than "minimum expected level of results". Now, had he delivered an MLS Cup appereance, or even a Conference Final appareance, in his time with NYCFC, that would've been above expectations and I could be inclined to agree. His replacement, Torrent, actually took them to 1st in their division.

If you had any basic understanding of a debate, you would, again, realize that showing an example to counter your "comprehensive list" would be the next step to back up a view contrary to yours. Your next step would, in a natural circumstance, have been to counter that by providing more thought and explanation as to why your list of stats would make Vieira (so sorry for the missing i, hope you don't lose any sleep over it) a better manager than someone with similar stats who everyone agrees would be rated below Howe. Your argument: This list proves why Vieira is better than Howe in my opinion. My counter: Your list could just as well be for this guy, who everyone agrees is inferior to Howe. Why should Vieira be above Howe based on your list, but in a hypothetical where Deila is in the PL, he wouldn't be? My conclusion: You are listing Vieira high on name recognition and expectations, not on merit. Which is fair enough. I listed certain managers low on my list just because I didn't like them, not hiding from that fact though if asked why I placed them there.

Imagine if you had gotten them right, he might actually have had to counter your argument

Please stay on topic. It's called examples. If I am to argue that Viera should be listed below Howe, I would need to present examples and evidence of my way of thinking for that opinion to hold up. You presented your argument, and I countered it by showcasing an example of why the evidence presented by you were not impressive at all - and then gave a hypothetical at the end to counter the argument of the current 12 games he's managed Crystal Palace having the weight you both say and also doesn't say, by stating 12 matches is too little to judge, has. If the hypothetical were true, would you have placed that manager above Howe - given the very similar career paths of the two. Would the 12 matches in the PL so far outweigh Howe's many, many more at a club with lesser economic muscles than Crystal Palace. It is very frustrating that it takes three to four posts about the same subject to even get you to engage with the actual debate as you try to weasel your way out of actually responding to the points being raised. Especially when it's clearly evident you can actually debate the issues as you have done this on occasion.

It's an example of why the stats you present for Viera are not that impressive within the context of the debate Viera vs. Howe, as I could just as easily present just as "impressive" stats for a manager everyone agrees is not impressive at all. Hence underlining my belief that what Howe has done with Bournemouth is more impressive than what Viera has done in his career and why I believe he should be above him on a list. It's like you can't understand basic concepts, and when faced with a counter-argument, your first strategy is to look for whatever unrelated issue you think exists to hold on to as an attempt to not having to engage in debate.

Now, see, this is a valid response to the question asked by Froggy. Thank you for that, I expect it wasn't that hard a thing to do. I personally disagree that those stats equal Howe not warranting being above Viera when comparing the managerial careers of the two. Here's a comparison between another manager with a similar trajectory managerially as Viera to showcase why I don't believe your example is that impressive. Deila has managed five clubs (four professionally), in three different countries, in their respective top flight leagues. Deila took charge of Strømsgodset in 2008 and went on to win a Norwgian cup and the first top flight title for the club in 43 years on a shoestring budget after first establishing the club in the top flight, and then as a title contender. He left with a 48.15% win percentage. Deila then took charge of Celtic and won two league titles and one league cup and left with a 63.56% win percentage. Deila then went back to Norway and stabilized Vålerenga as a top flight club during a time of crisis. Deila then went to NYCFC (which, by the way, had only existed for one season before Viera took them to their "first" MLS Playoff). With it being a club this size, and in the City group, a Playoff spot is the very least expected) and holds a win percentage of 45.61% (higher than what Viera left with) and a QF appereance in the CONCACAF Champions League (a first for the club). Does this mean that if Deila had for instance been appointed Norwich manager, and then held a similar statistic at Norwich such as Viera does with Crystal Palace - I'd place Deila above Howe on my list? No, not at all. But apples to oranges, and I respect your opinion now you have explained it - even if I disagree with it.

Nobody said he should be bottom, Froggy just asked why the guy believed Viera was above Howe, which is a fair question - and it would be interesting and illuminating to hear the viewpoints of someone believing that.

In all honesty, in my sixteen or something years on this forum, this is the dumbest post I've ever read. He clearly states his argument, his argument doesn't fall on presenting something erroneously. Especially something that is so obvious to understand what he meant. If anything, focusing on that just goes to confirm you have no argument as you have continously been asked your opinion as to why Viera is better than Howe, and your only reasoning so far is essentially: "He said something wrong" and "You edited your post to include points that better backed up your argument, so therefore, due to the fact you edited your post - the points stated does not have any validity in this argment." It's dumb, please stop it. You have not addressed the following: The main and initial question, to you, Clark: Why do you believe Viera is better than Howe? The second question raised through adding points to the initial argument, what is your thought on all Viera's replacements performing better than he did in the clubs he left when it comes to portraying him as a manager with a better ability than Howe? Those are the questions. The questions are not "What do you think of Froggy writing something in error" or "What do you think of Kaizero editing his post to add more points to his argument". Please refrain from not answering the actual questions this time. It's a waste of time and no doubt of annoyance to everyone else.

He asked you, why is Viera above Howe? You've come with no counter argument towards his initial claim rather than attack him erroneously saying which division (and points) Howe started on with Bournemouth - effectively trying to remove the focus from his initial claim, which you did not address. The points still remain, I edited the post three minutes before you posted. It may well be the case, but I find it hard to believe you spent more than three minutes writing your response. I never said you refuted that at all. He can make that claim because he backed it up with an actual argument for his views, an argument where you seemingly couldn't pose a counter-argumentative answers so you rather dismissed it all due to an error he made in presenting the argument. If you had paid attention to the rest of the points stated, rather than try to jump on minor details, please explain where in Viera's career so far we are to accept that he has done enough to warrant being listed above Howe on your list. And it is not a silly argument, Nuno got sacked after ten games at Tottenham. de Boer at Palace got the bullet after five games. It may well turn out that Viera is a better manager than Howe, only time can be the judge of that. But that wasn't the argument though, the argument was a question posed at you as to why you place Viera above Howe. So, again, why do you place Viera above Howe on ability and/or merit.

He didn't ignore the other parts of the argument, you on the other hand did leave out the second part of my post. Howe took Bournemouth from League 2 to become a PL team, that's irrefutable. However wrong Froggy was in his presenting that, it was clearly his intention so arguing around it being "wrong" doesn't make much sense - as the intention of the argument was clear based on the actual facts. Viera has not done as expected performance wise at both clubs he has managed in the past and is now currently doing worse win % wise than his predecessor Roy Hodgson, which makes it more than fair for Froggy to question why people are placing Viera so far up when there's no managerial evidence in his career to back that rating up.

I mean, sure, Froggy wrote the wrong division. Not really sure how your counter-argument does anything other than back up Froggy's argument, though Ronny Deila, failed Celtic manager, is currently outperforming Viera at NYCFC after replacing him. Galtier currently has a 53.85% win percentage with OGC Nice.

Can't believe we're still in it with one gameday to go.

Getting in a manager that suits their business model, for one.

That's the most boring appointment ever, I hope they get relegated and never get back up as punishment. Jesus fuck.

Devil's advocate, but fans of other teams couldn't understand why we hated Pardew. Yet the reasons are obvious to us, the fans of the club.

Fairly common for there to be a few days off during an international break for those not on duty tbh, this is especially true in the November window due to how hectic the English league schedule is this time of year and players in England not getting Christmas off. That said, in cases like our own with a new manager or for teams in crisis this period would be a time to reset and restructure, and as such a holiday would be weird.

Would love to see Bjørkan and Berg in the PL.

Actually 3pm on the dot as well