Would we be in the same situation had Allardyce still been here?

[Skirge]

Yeah, its his shit squad we are dealing with here, I blame Keegan for not buying in during the window but its Big Sam's mess!!

[Mr Logic]

Surprised at the split in votes and the apparent faith in SA. The players were getting progressively worse as they lost belief, the fixtures were getting progressively harder. Allardyces gameplan began with a negative mindset, demonstrated all too well when he went to places like Derby and Wigan hoping to shut-up shop and to nick a point. The negativity of Allardyces ideas drained the players of belief and creativity. The longer he remained the worse it was going to get and the longer it would take to correct.

 

We will get the points we need and we won't get relegated, though it may go bloody close to the wire. The display against Blackburn showed to me that the corner is already turned and it's all going in the right direction now. A much clearer picture will be seen 10 games into the next season. Keep the faith.

 

You would be astounded if you knew the quality of players willing to sign for this club. (Who said that?) 

[mrmojorisin75]

Fulham away were there for the taking as much as any side I can remember seeing recently and Allardyce's ridiculously conservative tactics meant we were extremely fortunate to get the win. And suggesting we'd already have been getting stuffed near the end if Keegan had been manager then is a bit of a stretch imo.

 

not at all, was just making a wider point that allardyce's approach away might have yielded more than keegans away from home - with this crop of players, being the important thing there

 

used fulham as an example of a game being tight near the end and us winning it, when kev gets us anywhere near that in a game i'll use that

[Baggio]

We picked up 8 points away from home under Allardyce and out of our 10 away games 7 of them were to teams now in the bottom half of the table.

 

You can't compare the likes of Fulham to Liverpool, Arsenal and Villa.

[Shearergol]

We picked up 8 points away from home under Allardyce and out of our 10 away games 7 of them were to teams now in the bottom half of the table.

 

You can't compare the likes of Fulham to Liverpool, Arsenal and Villa.

 

Then the comparison will come over the next couple of weeks. I have no confidence in winning many of the games left.

[Guest WalkervilleMag]

It's been rotten ever Since Sir Bobby was sacked. We used to have one of the fittest teams. Amount of times we came from behind to win. also brilliant record of winning after a European game. The players now, look unfit, and that goes down to Sourness, Roeder and Fat Sam.

 

I have no doubt, we would be in the same position now if we still had Fat Sam, but i would have no confidence that we would get anything from the Fulham, Reading and Sunderland games, which would relegate us. With Keegan in charge, even with no wins, i can see us winning those 3 games and that would be more than enough to keep us up. Then a big clear out in the summer of crap players, and start getting the players he wants in.

[Guest dover]

Simple poll, seen it mentioned a few times over the last few weeks.

 

Would we be doing just as badly had Allardyce stayed? This is assuming he didn't buy anyone in January either.

Allardyce would have bought in january though thats the difference, because he would have sold and wheeled and dealed a few decent loan signings, Keegan just didnt have the time, all this is brought about by the morts disasterous redknapp effforts, he is solely to blaim when we go down, and we are going down, leeds were too good to go down with the squad they had and the run in, we are going the same way. No belief, passion, fight, or to be honest ideas, im fucking gutted..

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Allardyce wouldn't have bought in the Winter transfer window because Mort and Ashley didn't trust him with the money any more after he wasted millions on crap like Smith and the loose cannon Barton. Imagine who we could have bought for that £12M! Allardyce sending out the team to defend against the likes of Derby and Wigan is why we are neck deep in the shite.

[TRon]

Allardyce was lining up a big bid for Nolan IMO. Then we'd finally see an Allardyce team in full swing.

 

[Cronky]

I don't think things would have been all that different under Allardyce, because the pressure that was building up on him was immense and that was affecting both him and the players. That doesn't mean that Keegan hasn't made mistakes though.

 

Generally I feel that Allardyce is getting too much of the blame for the whole situation. He wasn't backed properly in the transfer market - the net spend of £8 million was way below the average for the Premiership, and yet he was still expected to move things forward from last season's 13th place. We'd been flirting with the relegation zone for the previous three seasons, and we were in far more danger than people had realised. Basically, the managers had been getting the blame, and there was too much of an assumption that (as with both Allardyce and Keegan) a new man would turn things round pretty quickly. The new Board didn't have faith in Allardyce and withheld funds, and Keegan has been over-optimistic in choosing not to spend in January.

 

The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him.

 

Allardyce is criticised for some of his buys - well, mainly Smith, the son of Beelzebub - but overall I don't see how he could have done a lot better with the limited funds that he had. Players like Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling, and they are shouldering too much of the blame. Besides, we weren't the only club after those players - England internationals both.

[Taylor Swift]

Well, if Allardyce was here, it'd be reasonable to suggest that he'd have signed a couple/few players, which would definitely not have left us in this position. The timing of his sacking and Keegan's appointment was absolutely horrendous and that's obviously had a major effect. It didn't help that in Keegan's first 5 or so matches he had to play Arsenal twice and Man Utd once. Just not the confidence booster that it could have been.

 

If Allardyce had stayed, he would have signed a few players (even cheapos) and that would have made the difference.

 

The board fucked up the timing and that's why we're in this position now. But, that's a short-term problem. It was a brave decision to sack and hire a new manager at that time, but the consequences of that decision won't be felt until we know our fate at the end of this season.

[Parky]

I don't think things would have been all that different under Allardyce, because the pressure that was building up on him was immense and that was affecting both him and the players. That doesn't mean that Keegan hasn't made mistakes though.

 

Generally I feel that Allardyce is getting too much of the blame for the whole situation. He wasn't backed properly in the transfer market - the net spend of £8 million was way below the average for the Premiership, and yet he was still expected to move things forward from last season's 13th place. We'd been flirting with the relegation zone for the previous three seasons, and we were in far more danger than people had realised. Basically, the managers had been getting the blame, and there was too much of an assumption that (as with both Allardyce and Keegan) a new man would turn things round pretty quickly. The new Board didn't have faith in Allardyce and withheld funds, and Keegan has been over-optimistic in choosing not to spend in January.

 

The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him.

 

Allardyce is criticised for some of his buys - well, mainly Smith, the son of Beelzebub - but overall I don't see how he could have done a lot better with the limited funds that he had. Players like Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling, and they are shouldering too much of the blame. Besides, we weren't the only club after those players - England internationals both.

 

Fairly balanced view IMO.

[Mr Logic]

I don't think things would have been all that different under Allardyce, because the pressure that was building up on him was immense and that was affecting both him and the players. That doesn't mean that Keegan hasn't made mistakes though.

 

Generally I feel that Allardyce is getting too much of the blame for the whole situation. He wasn't backed properly in the transfer market - the net spend of £8 million was way below the average for the Premiership, and yet he was still expected to move things forward from last season's 13th place. We'd been flirting with the relegation zone for the previous three seasons, and we were in far more danger than people had realised. Basically, the managers had been getting the blame, and there was too much of an assumption that (as with both Allardyce and Keegan) a new man would turn things round pretty quickly. The new Board didn't have faith in Allardyce and withheld funds, and Keegan has been over-optimistic in choosing not to spend in January.

 

The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him.

 

Allardyce is criticised for some of his buys - well, mainly Smith, the son of Beelzebub - but overall I don't see how he could have done a lot better with the limited funds that he had. Players like Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling, and they are shouldering too much of the blame. Besides, we weren't the only club after those players - England internationals both.

 

Fairly balanced view IMO.

 

But that's not what is supposed to happen, everyone should have a diametrically opposed viewpoint in order that a thread can extend to 40 pages plus of bickering and swearing.

[OzzieMandias]

I don't think things would have been all that different under Allardyce, because the pressure that was building up on him was immense and that was affecting both him and the players. That doesn't mean that Keegan hasn't made mistakes though.

 

Generally I feel that Allardyce is getting too much of the blame for the whole situation. He wasn't backed properly in the transfer market - the net spend of £8 million was way below the average for the Premiership, and yet he was still expected to move things forward from last season's 13th place. We'd been flirting with the relegation zone for the previous three seasons, and we were in far more danger than people had realised. Basically, the managers had been getting the blame, and there was too much of an assumption that (as with both Allardyce and Keegan) a new man would turn things round pretty quickly. The new Board didn't have faith in Allardyce and withheld funds, and Keegan has been over-optimistic in choosing not to spend in January.

 

The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him.

 

Allardyce is criticised for some of his buys - well, mainly Smith, the son of Beelzebub - but overall I don't see how he could have done a lot better with the limited funds that he had. Players like Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling, and they are shouldering too much of the blame. Besides, we weren't the only club after those players - England internationals both.

 

Fairly balanced view IMO.

 

But that's not what is supposed to happen, everyone should have a diametrically opposed viewpoint in order that a thread can extend to 40 pages plus of bickering and swearing.

 

I disagree completely.

[dustynrg]

"The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him."

 

This is cack. He wasn't at all interested, he couldn't shoot or tackle. He was disliked by the fans (with good reason). FFS Scholes scored more goals than he did at St James Park.

 

The only thing that kept us up last season was Martin's goals, how many assists did Dyer make last season?  I can't be arsed to look it up but it wouldn't be past 10 that's for sure.

 

I just hope KK realises he really has to play Martins and get rid of this anglo centric bias he seems to have. (ie they're English so they must be better).

[Baggio]

It's not just about goals and assists, it's about what a player with his sort of pace can bring to the team, like him or not having a player who's quick and can stretch games is a big advantage, we're crying out for that at the moment. 

[afar]

I think we'd be a few points better off, to be honest, and a few goals better off too, but that certainly doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Allardyce had apparently lost the players, he had most certainly lost the fans and the fact is that he quite probably never "had" the board (behind him) either. He was a man on bided time and he had to go. I'm not sure if I'd swap a few points extra to go back in time and keep Allardyce, honestly. But of course I will be if we go down.

 

The only way that decision can really be justified is if we avoid relegation. What difference does a place or two in the rest of the bottom half of the table make? Really? There are a few ways to look at things, but if you're being optimistic about things and you expect us to stay up - which I do - then you have to look at the fact that Keegan will have been in the job six months come the summer as a major plus point.

 

He will have had time to evaluate the current squad and make plans, he will have had time to bring in his own backroom staff and get them working efficiently and he'll have had time to settle back into management - he'll hopefully have got through the worst part of his potential 3.5 years too.

 

If we stay up, then we should be in a far better position come the summer than we would be if we sacked Allardyce at the end of the season, where we'd again be looking at another rush-job of a summer where everything is new to the players and the boss. As long as we finish 17th or upwards, then hopefully the decision will be justified, but if we do go down then the board probably do want stringing up.

 

Basically, I'm still looking longterm. To say you want Allardyce to have stayed just so we could have an extra few points at this point in time is madness.

 

I think this is the most sensible post and I agree with almost all of it. I will be much more happy to go into the summer With KK in charge than SA and as the Janitor pointed out this whole end of season could be extremely valuable in helping him assess the quality of the squad.

This is all on the proviso that that we stay up and that obviously not a given.

[Dave]

Ridiculously close poll.

[ChrisJbarnes]

definately. we lost to reading, derby away (3 mins away from being doubled), wigan away, drew to boro twice, derby at home, sunderland away and take away lucky injury time winners we wouldnt have beaten fulham or brum, therefore our last win would be spurs in october. so yes, id say given the extra fixtures we could have been worse off really. depends who he bought in january.

[Cronky]

"The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him."

 

This is cack. He wasn't at all interested, he couldn't shoot or tackle. He was disliked by the fans (with good reason). FFS Scholes scored more goals than he did at St James Park.

 

The only thing that kept us up last season was Martin's goals, how many assists did Dyer make last season?  I can't be arsed to look it up but it wouldn't be past 10 that's for sure.

 

I just hope KK realises he really has to play Martins and get rid of this anglo centric bias he seems to have. (ie they're English so they must be better).

 

Stats don't tell the whole story, but when Dyer came back from injury last season we were in 18th place. We then climbed up to 9th. Things went downhill after the Alkmaar game, but at that point, the whole team had stopped playing for Roeder.

 

I agree with Baggio. Dyer added pace and movement through the centre and that stretched opposition defences. We don't have an equivelent player and that's why our attacks are being contained fairly easily and we can't hit teams on the break.

 

Dyer has had his moments, but I couldn't fault his effort last season - as I say except for the last period when the whole team lost faith in Roeder. That's why he must have been so pissed off at being booed during pre-season.

[Mick]

It's Allardyce's mess, simple really.

 

The only thing I think Keegan can be blamed for is not starting Martins (but that was hardly going to help us get a result at Liverpool, so it's really only one game).

 

I think people are forgetting how bad we were under Allardyce very quickly.

 

If people are forgetting how bad we were under Allardyce then good luck to them, I wish I could forget things that easily.

[Mick]

I don't think things would have been all that different under Allardyce, because the pressure that was building up on him was immense and that was affecting both him and the players. That doesn't mean that Keegan hasn't made mistakes though.

 

Generally I feel that Allardyce is getting too much of the blame for the whole situation. He wasn't backed properly in the transfer market - the net spend of £8 million was way below the average for the Premiership, and yet he was still expected to move things forward from last season's 13th place. We'd been flirting with the relegation zone for the previous three seasons, and we were in far more danger than people had realised. Basically, the managers had been getting the blame, and there was too much of an assumption that (as with both Allardyce and Keegan) a new man would turn things round pretty quickly. The new Board didn't have faith in Allardyce and withheld funds, and Keegan has been over-optimistic in choosing not to spend in January.

 

The other problem has been the loss of Dyer, which was not Allardyce's fault. He was hounded out by the fans, whatever he might have said in public. He did a lot to keep us up last season, and we don't have a replacement for him.

 

Allardyce is criticised for some of his buys - well, mainly Smith, the son of Beelzebub - but overall I don't see how he could have done a lot better with the limited funds that he had. Players like Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling, and they are shouldering too much of the blame. Besides, we weren't the only club after those players - England internationals both.

 

Allardyce had plenty to spend, yes he generated most himself through the sale of players but what he got with that money is proof that he couldn't be trusted to spend the clubs money.  To say that Smith and Barton are never going to be at their best in a team that overall is struggling is just daft, they are very much a part of why we're struggling.  That and the poor tactics used by Allardyce against teams who we should have tried to beat instead of looking for a point.

 

Allardyce is as bad as any manager we’ve had recently, at least while he was at this club.

 

[afar]

To think, when we all were doing our predictions at the start of the season I went for 8th place finish and I thought I was being a bit pessimistic !!

[NoU]

It's a good question. But it's not a question that's meant to be asked.