Guest Phil K Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. Ah - now this I agree with, I.T. - Alex is quite right. The ideas had grounding, but the materials he had to work with were dreadful. Well...pitiful, and shite actually..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There was nothing in the way he handled the England side to make you think he knew what he was doing. Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. right, so comparing performance against equivalent teams is not relevant to whether he had a clue about what he was doing? ohkay it is selective criteria in as much as a statment like Keegan never beat ManU or Arsenal in a league match (made that up before you start). I fail to see why it being selective changes anything about the truth of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. Ah - now this I agree with, I.T. - Alex is quite right. The ideas had grounding, but the materials he had to work with were dreadful. Well...pitiful, and shite actually..... where do you think the England side would finish in the Premiership? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. so a belief that if you spend X amount of money you realisitically believe you should achieve a standard Y is different from, we spent X so we deserve Y you're just twisting words tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1009869,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1009869,00.html that came out pages ago this is all hypothetical discussion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There was nothing in the way he handled the England side to make you think he knew what he was doing. Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. right, so comparing performance against equivalent teams is not relevant to whether he had a clue about what he was doing? ohkay it is selective criteria in as much as a statment like Keegan never beat ManU or Arsenal in a league match (made that up before you start). I fail to see why it being selective changes anything about the truth of it. I never said it isn't true. I just made the point it proves very little. It certainly doesn't prove SGE is a shite manager, plus it conveniently ignores his club record and all the other England games - which imo don't have to be against 'equivalent sides', as you put it, to be difficult games. Glenn Roeder has a better win ratio as Newcastle manager than Bobby Robson. Another stat that is true but proves very little about their respective merits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 :lol::lol::lol: Mr Vic, you replied to my comment with you money issue and now you expect me to ignore you because you were being silly? wtf are you on about you eejit? You honeslty think replying to a point made about the money employing an England manager is SILLY? And when countered with your ludicrous comment about buying England players, it even deserves a response? :lol::lol: Now you want me to reply this point, and just now you reprimanded for replying to this point. Wake up Vic, you went on about SGE costing money, but how can the wage of the manager be compared to the wage of players? If SGE paid shitload to buy useless England players :lol::lol: then yeah the cost of SGE would be a worry to a club. But he doesn't and you :lol::lol: Did I say SGE is any better than Alf Ramsay? Slap yourself once. from the wiki you posted: 67 matches spanning over 5 years with only 5 competitive losses (3 inside 90 mins). This record is only beaten by Sir Alf Ramsey and Glenn Hoddle, excluding Caretaker managers. Alf Ramsay's name is not Glenn Hoddle :lol::lol: Souness reached UEFA Cup semi-final SVG reached European Cup final. Slapped yourself twice. from above: "You also remember that England reach any quarter final under Hoddle?" :lol::lol: World CUp quarter final, European Championship quarter final = UEFA Cup quarter final?? PS I am a smog, so said Stevie. Torn between you and Stevie, Manc and Smog, I think I would prefer to be a Mackem. insult to mackems I am a Jambo :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. so a belief that if you spend X amount of money you realisitically believe you should achieve a standard Y is different from, we spent X so we deserve Y you're just twisting words tbh It very obviously is (it's the word "deserve" that you brought to the table yourself that you now claim is behind our mindset of realistically expecting a certain return for the money invested by the club), I'm not twisting words (if you can't see the difference between "expecting" and "deserving" even though you yourself came up with the league table based on financial power concept to ridicule others you're less clever than I gave you credit for) and I find that very funny coming from you of all people.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There was nothing in the way he handled the England side to make you think he knew what he was doing. Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. right, so comparing performance against equivalent teams is not relevant to whether he had a clue about what he was doing? ohkay it is selective criteria in as much as a statment like Keegan never beat ManU or Arsenal in a league match (made that up before you start). I fail to see why it being selective changes anything about the truth of it. I never said it isn't true. I just made the point it proves very little. It certainly doesn't prove SGE is a shite manager, plus it conveniently ignores his club record and all the other England games - which imo don't have to be against 'equivalent sides', as you put it, to be difficult games. Glenn Roeder has a better win ratio as Newcastle manager than Bobby Robson. Another stat that is true but proves very little about their respective merits. christ this all started as a respone to someone posting his England record? why is it then upon me to include his club record in my reply FFS? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There was nothing in the way he handled the England side to make you think he knew what he was doing. Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. right, so comparing performance against equivalent teams is not relevant to whether he had a clue about what he was doing? ohkay it is selective criteria in as much as a statment like Keegan never beat ManU or Arsenal in a league match (made that up before you start). I fail to see why it being selective changes anything about the truth of it. I never said it isn't true. I just made the point it proves very little. It certainly doesn't prove SGE is a shite manager, plus it conveniently ignores his club record and all the other England games - which imo don't have to be against 'equivalent sides', as you put it, to be difficult games. Glenn Roeder has a better win ratio as Newcastle manager than Bobby Robson. Another stat that is true but proves very little about their respective merits. christ this all started as a respone to someone posting his England record? why is it then upon me to include his club record in my reply FFS? It isn't. Not sure if I can state the point I was making much more clearly tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. so a belief that if you spend X amount of money you realisitically believe you should achieve a standard Y is different from, we spent X so we deserve Y you're just twisting words tbh It very obviously is (it's the word "deserve" that you brought to the table yourself that you now claim is behind our mindset of realistically expecting a certain return for the money invested by the club), I'm not twisting words (if you can't see the difference between "expecting" and "deserving" even though you yourself came up with the league table based on financial power concept to ridicule others you're less clever than I gave you credit for) and I find that very funny coming from you of all people.. there is no fucking difference between someone at the start of the season saying we have spent X so we deserve a 5th place, and at the end of the season someone saying we spent X so we have failed on our expectations to achieve 5th Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 :lol::lol::lol: Mr Vic, you replied to my comment with you money issue and now you expect me to ignore you because you were being silly? wtf are you on about you eejit? You honeslty think replying to a point made about the money employing an England manager is SILLY? And when countered with your ludicrous comment about buying England players, it even deserves a response? :lol::lol: Now you want me to reply this point, and just now you reprimanded for replying to this point. Wake up Vic, you went on about SGE costing money, but how can the wage of the manager be compared to the wage of players? If SGE paid shitload to buy useless England players :lol::lol: then yeah the cost of SGE would be a worry to a club. But he doesn't and you :lol::lol: Did I say SGE is any better than Alf Ramsay? Slap yourself once. from the wiki you posted: 67 matches spanning over 5 years with only 5 competitive losses (3 inside 90 mins). This record is only beaten by Sir Alf Ramsey and Glenn Hoddle, excluding Caretaker managers. Alf Ramsay's name is not Glenn Hoddle :lol::lol: Souness reached UEFA Cup semi-final SVG reached European Cup final. Slapped yourself twice. from above: "You also remember that England reach any quarter final under Hoddle?" :lol::lol: World CUp quarter final, European Championship quarter final = UEFA Cup quarter final?? PS I am a smog, so said Stevie. Torn between you and Stevie, Manc and Smog, I think I would prefer to be a Mackem. insult to mackems I am a Jambo :lol: I've honeslty lost what your fucking point was, you've blinded me with your stupidity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'm just excited that we are looking, and FS is not accepting this shite season from GR. We probably have sounded out SGE on the hush and been found out, its hard not to let things slip these days, especially when reporters and papers will pay silly money to get a scoop. The reaction from FS is classic duck and cover, Sven and his advisor's will be told denial will be enforced until the time is right, so not to worry about what is written in response if leaked. SGE may not be the answer, but he might not be the only person we have spoken too. FS knows his biggest mistake in sacking SBR was not having a replacement lined up ready to take over, he simply did not want to do it again with Souness, but felt he had no choice. This summer is the time to sack GR and he knows it, he is now looking, Sven included, but i doubt he's the only one were taken a peak at, everyone should forget about the Sven story, the real story is we are looking for a new manager, and that my black and white friends is something we should start looking forward too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 "Transformers...more than meets the eye" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'm just excited that we are looking, and FS is not accepting this shite season from GR. We probably have sounded out SGE on the hush and been found out, its hard not to let things slip these days, especially when reporters and papers will pay silly money to get a scoop. The reaction from FS is classic duck and cover, Sven and his advisor's will be told denial will be enforced until the time is right, so not to worry about what is written in response if leaked. SGE may not be the answer, but he might not be the only person we have spoken too. FS knows his biggest mistake in sacking SBR was not having a replacement lined up ready to take over, he simply did not want to do it again with Souness, but felt he had no choice. This summer is the time to sack GR and he knows it, he is now looking, Sven included, but i doubt he's the only one were taken a peak at, everyone should forget about the Sven story, the real story is we are looking for a new manager, and that my black and white friends is something we should start looking forward too. so next season when Roeder is still here I can quote this little fairy story? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'm just excited that we are looking, and FS is not accepting this shite season from GR. We probably have sounded out SGE on the hush and been found out, its hard not to let things slip these days, especially when reporters and papers will pay silly money to get a scoop. The reaction from FS is classic duck and cover, Sven and his advisor's will be told denial will be enforced until the time is right, so not to worry about what is written in response if leaked. SGE may not be the answer, but he might not be the only person we have spoken too. FS knows his biggest mistake in sacking SBR was not having a replacement lined up ready to take over, he simply did not want to do it again with Souness, but felt he had no choice. This summer is the time to sack GR and he knows it, he is now looking, Sven included, but i doubt he's the only one were taken a peak at, everyone should forget about the Sven story, the real story is we are looking for a new manager, and that my black and white friends is something we should start looking forward too. so next season when Roeder is still here I can quote this little fairy story? Yes you can my angry little friend. PS: Go get laid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'm just excited that we are looking, and FS is not accepting this shite season from GR. We probably have sounded out SGE on the hush and been found out, its hard not to let things slip these days, especially when reporters and papers will pay silly money to get a scoop. The reaction from FS is classic duck and cover, Sven and his advisor's will be told denial will be enforced until the time is right, so not to worry about what is written in response if leaked. SGE may not be the answer, but he might not be the only person we have spoken too. FS knows his biggest mistake in sacking SBR was not having a replacement lined up ready to take over, he simply did not want to do it again with Souness, but felt he had no choice. This summer is the time to sack GR and he knows it, he is now looking, Sven included, but i doubt he's the only one were taken a peak at, everyone should forget about the Sven story, the real story is we are looking for a new manager, and that my black and white friends is something we should start looking forward too. so next season when Roeder is still here I can quote this little fairy story? Yes you can my angry little friend. PS: Go get laid. your mam's busy tonight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'm just excited that we are looking, and FS is not accepting this shite season from GR. We probably have sounded out SGE on the hush and been found out, its hard not to let things slip these days, especially when reporters and papers will pay silly money to get a scoop. The reaction from FS is classic duck and cover, Sven and his advisor's will be told denial will be enforced until the time is right, so not to worry about what is written in response if leaked. SGE may not be the answer, but he might not be the only person we have spoken too. FS knows his biggest mistake in sacking SBR was not having a replacement lined up ready to take over, he simply did not want to do it again with Souness, but felt he had no choice. This summer is the time to sack GR and he knows it, he is now looking, Sven included, but i doubt he's the only one were taken a peak at, everyone should forget about the Sven story, the real story is we are looking for a new manager, and that my black and white friends is something we should start looking forward too. so next season when Roeder is still here I can quote this little fairy story? Yes you can my angry little friend. PS: Go get laid. your mam's busy tonight Your's isn't though, go climb on her, somebody has too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I've honeslty lost what your f****** point was, you've blinded me with your stupidity :lol::lol::lol::lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. so a belief that if you spend X amount of money you realisitically believe you should achieve a standard Y is different from, we spent X so we deserve Y you're just twisting words tbh It very obviously is (it's the word "deserve" that you brought to the table yourself that you now claim is behind our mindset of realistically expecting a certain return for the money invested by the club), I'm not twisting words (if you can't see the difference between "expecting" and "deserving" even though you yourself came up with the league table based on financial power concept to ridicule others you're less clever than I gave you credit for) and I find that very funny coming from you of all people.. there is no f****** difference between someone at the start of the season saying we have spent X so we deserve a 5th place, and at the end of the season someone saying we spent X so we have failed on our expectations to achieve 5th Yes there is. The first is ridiculous, as you yourself argued very well yesterday (http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=38429.msg776285#msg776285), the second is only natural and should be done at regular intervals anyway, i.e. determine whether the club has been underachieving, and if so correct the situation. You seem to think this logic applies to England/Eriksson, but not Newcastle/Roeder..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There was nothing in the way he handled the England side to make you think he knew what he was doing. Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting Why would anyone but you have a problem with a true, provable, factual statement? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The ball has crossed the line, no doubt about it.. "Do you honeslty believe that was worth the money that was spent." to "There are people on here who think more money = more right to success, I'm not one of them" just doesn't compute.. you're confusing right to success, with actual performance achieved given the money spent Oh right.. Now correct me if I'm wrong but this "right to success" bollocks is something YOU came up with and was never actually used by any of us.. All people have said is that a club like Newcastle spending the amount of money we do should be higher up the league table than we currently are. It's not something we deserve or have a divine right to, but it's something we should realistically aim for, hence the disappointment if we continually fail to meet those targets. To me, that is exactly what you imply by saying "actual performance achieved given the money spent" which you use to make your 'point' regarding Eriksson. How come other people are apparently f***, s*** t** or w*** (you do like your swearing) for using the exact same argument you do, yet you are not? You twist and turn an awful lot to always be controversial, but you should have known that all this twisting and turning in your own penalty box would eventually lead to you losing control of the ball and it bobbling over the goal line for an own goal.. so a belief that if you spend X amount of money you realisitically believe you should achieve a standard Y is different from, we spent X so we deserve Y you're just twisting words tbh It very obviously is (it's the word "deserve" that you brought to the table yourself that you now claim is behind our mindset of realistically expecting a certain return for the money invested by the club), I'm not twisting words (if you can't see the difference between "expecting" and "deserving" even though you yourself came up with the league table based on financial power concept to ridicule others you're less clever than I gave you credit for) and I find that very funny coming from you of all people.. there is no f****** difference between someone at the start of the season saying we have spent X so we deserve a 5th place, and at the end of the season someone saying we spent X so we have failed on our expectations to achieve 5th Yes there is. The first is ridiculous, as you yourself argued very well yesterday (http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=38429.msg776285#msg776285), the second is only natural and should be done at regular intervals anyway, i.e. determine whether the club has been underachieving, and if so correct the situation. You seem to think this logic applies to England/Eriksson, but not Newcastle/Roeder..? You honestly think Roeder has spent a huge amount of money to justify 'expectations'? I had no expectations of Roeder apart from be better than Souness i.e. not to get us relegated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 As a factual statement, no. And it does tend to suggest he did have some clue as to what he was doing, which is all it was intended to do if you look back at it. You're the one who started applying selective criteria. Ah - now this I agree with, I.T. - Alex is quite right. The ideas had grounding, but the materials he had to work with were dreadful. Well...pitiful, and shite actually..... where do you think the England side would finish in the Premiership? Higher with Eriksson managing them than they'd come with either Keegan or McLaren managing them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now