Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. 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 Fair enough. Thanks for debating this in an adult manner aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Not sure where this has come from, I thought he was pretty content at Bolton. All that begging for the England job on national television was a bit of a clue. And all his suggestions that he was happy at Bolton after not getting it were a bit of a clue that he was content. To be fair, he was also strongy tipped to have applied for the Newcastle job twice since Robson as well. Obviously it's not concrete, but it was fairly well sounded-out. I think he's been far from content at Bolton for a good while now and is desperately looking for his next launch-pad to lead him closer to the England job. He's been there an awful long time. Fair enough, I'm not sure content was exactly the right word, but I guess I meant more that he was content staying there for this season, but was far from happy at Bolton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Of course not. The other managers (apart from Roeder) appointed by Fat "pie eater" Fred have had superior track records to Allardyce. Why were they s*** appointments? You have been looking for an argument since you got on, not going to give you one today I am afraid. Bollocks, tbh. It's a valid question in the context of what we're talking about. Fred gets slated as s***, it's been more than insinuated in this thread that the problem is really at Board level so i want to know what you and others who want Allardyce will think of the Board if this man is appointed. Especially if he is backed and fails. BTW I'd sooner you "gave one" to one of your "chums". I'm accounted for. Souness was a poor signing which was plain for all to see. He was on his way done at Blackburn and they must have thanked whatever god they pray to when we stepped in and paid them for something that was likely going to cost them in time (getting rid of him). Roeder was a lazy appointment, he did well enough that the fans wouldn't be in uproar to sign him, was cheap and very thankful for the opportunity. Why don't you try answering the bit you quoted, instead of whatever it is you think you've answered here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Not really interested in turning this into another "the board" debate tbh. Is that really all you ever want to discuss on these forums? Honestly? It must get a bit boring surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. 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 Fair enough. Thanks for debating this in an adult manner aswell. aye you too, i sometimes come across as confusing i'm aware but it's 'cause i'm always trying to hoy posts in amidst working!!! still better than working eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? mackems.gif wtf is your point of repeating my question but with a different manager in there? What a fucking clown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 You can't guarantee success in football there are too many variables.... blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? mackems.gif wtf is your point of repeating my question but with a different manager in there? What a f****** clown. I'm glad you find it funny too.. It was your question, not mine.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nappy Rash Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 You can't guarantee success in football there are too many variables.... blueyes.gif Absolutely Parky, now hoy a spanner in the works with some random unsubstantitated rumour, you Spud ITK you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 You can't guarantee success in football there are too many variables.... blueyes.gif Absolutely Parky, now hoy a spanner in the works with some random unsubstantitated rumour, you Spud ITK you Shut it gay boy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? mackems.gif wtf is your point of repeating my question but with a different manager in there? What a f****** clown. I'm glad you find it funny too.. It was your question, not mine.. It's YOU and the shite you post that's funny. Obviously you don't have any understanding of the question or the point behind it. IQ <50. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. I think that's fair comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. 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 Fair enough. Thanks for debating this in an adult manner aswell. Blatantly a dig at HTL, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nappy Rash Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I think that's fair comment. Parky thats utter shite, compare Souness' CV to Allardyces and get back to me Allardyce is the new Bobby Gould / Joe Kinnear :parky: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I think that's fair comment. Parky thats utter shite, compare Souness' CV to Allardyces and get back to me Allardyce is the new Bobby Gould / Joe Kinnear :parky: I don't bother with CV's as you well know. More importantly all this has interfered with my afternoon 'gentleman's relief'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? mackems.gif wtf is your point of repeating my question but with a different manager in there? What a f****** clown. I'm glad you find it funny too.. It was your question, not mine.. It's YOU and the s**** you post that's funny. Obviously you don't have any understanding of the question or the point behind it. IQ <50. It's good to know that if my current career ever slows down I can always find employment as a comedian for intellectually challenged children.. Explain it to me in your own words then poor l'il boy: what was the point behind your crazy question? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. I think that's fair comment. In the world of football it actually is not a fair comment at all. I actually think it's a bit short-sighted tbh. The only thing a Board can do is appoint a manager they believe and hope will bring success and then give that person the resources to bring that success. In football that means backing the manager in his dealings for players coming in and going out. If the manager doesn't deliver despite having this level of support it is not the fault of the Board. Here is an example. During the 3 seasons Robson's team finished 4th, 3rd and 5th I'd argue that a team capable of performing to that level was good enough to win something, perhaps the FA Cup or the League cup. It is not down to the board that Robson elected to put out a weakened team for a home tie in the League Cup against WBA, for example. It is not the fault of the Board that we twice got to FA Cup finals but both times, not only did the players fail to turn up and do themselves any kind of justice, both times we also played the team that turned out to be the best team in the country that season. Some of that is down to the players bottling the situation and also not getting that bit of luck that you need along the way. There is only so much a Board can do and also only so much a manager can do in reality. Fair enough, having a shit Board in the past doesn't mean the present Board is great, but when you've lived through decades of selling your best players and only buying when relegation is a possibility you get to realise that it's vital the Board backs the manager. That's their main role and is all they can do in reality. The Board doesn't pick the team, doesn't set out the tactics and they don't take part in the training. To suggest they will take the flak for failure and the glory for success is nonsense really. The realiity in football is that when you win nobody gives a second thought to the Board, it's the manager and players who take all of the credit. As long as the manager is backed the Board is doing their part, after that it's down to the manager and the players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Allright then.. Answer this and you will have answered your own question: "So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred?" Wtf are you on about? Why don't you just post your point and be done with it? OK, if it's too difficult to engage your own brain: "Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Asking rhetorical questions about a possible future hindsight just doesn't fly as an argument." Still don't get it, sonny. So if Hiddink replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? mackems.gif wtf is your point of repeating my question but with a different manager in there? What a f****** clown. I'm glad you find it funny too.. It was your question, not mine.. It's YOU and the s**** you post that's funny. Obviously you don't have any understanding of the question or the point behind it. IQ <50. It's good to know that if my current career ever slows down I can always find employment as a comedian for intellectually challenged children.. Explain it to me in your own words then poor l'il boy: what was the point behind your crazy question? Here's another for you, since the other one (that wasn't to you anyway) was too difficult. Why do you have a clog who plays for liverpool in your avatar? Assuming that's him, like. Divvent knaa, meself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Allardyce has played this "horrible" football because with then budget he has had to work with it was the most effective way. He could have played "attractive" football and gone down in style but I don't think he would have lasted long in the job. As tmonkey has said he has shown his intentions with signings like Diouf, Okocha and Anelka and others he has tried to bring in. There is nothing wrong with being a physical side and I wish we were organised. Allardyce wouldn't just improve the club on the field he would include every part of the training, scouting etc... Which is why for me he is exactly the type of person we need. Someone who knows how to organise, plan and improve for the long term. So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. I think that's fair comment. In the world of football it actually is not a fair comment at all. I actually think it's a bit short-sighted tbh. The only thing a Board can do is appoint a manager they believe and hope will bring success and then give that person the resources to bring that success. In football that means backing the manager in his dealings for players coming in and going out. If the manager doesn't deliver despite having this level of support it is not the fault of the Board. Here is an example. During the 3 seasons Robson's team finished 4th, 3rd and 5th I'd argue that a team capable of performing to that level was good enough to win something, perhaps the FA Cup or the League cup. It is not down to the board that Robson elected to put out a weakened team for a home tie in the League Cup against WBA, for example. It is not the fault of the Board that we twice got to FA Cup finals but both times, not only did the players fail to turn up and do themselves any kind of justice, both times we also played the team that turned out to be the best team in the country that season. Some of that is down to the players bottling the situation and also not getting that bit of luck that you need along the way. There is only so much a Board can do and also only so much a manager can do in reality. Fair enough, having a shit Board in the past doesn't mean the present Board is great, but when you've lived through decades of selling your best players and only buying when relegation is a possibility you get to realise that it's vital the Board backs the manager. That's their main role and is all they can do in reality. The Board doesn't pick the team, doesn't set out the tactics and they don't take part in the training. To suggest they will take the flak for failure and the glory for success is nonsense really. The realiity in football is that when you win nobody gives a second thought to the Board, it's the manager and players who take all of the credit. As long as the manager is backed the Board is doing their part, after that it's down to the manager and the players. I was only referring to the sympathy factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 As much as I agree with most of what you're saying, what are you going on about the board for? This topic was being used quite happily to discuss the merits of Roeder vs Allardyce. Shepherd was hardly mentioned before you turned this into your favourite (only?) subject.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I think that's fair comment. Parky thats utter shite, compare Souness' CV to Allardyces and get back to me Allardyce is the new Bobby Gould / Joe Kinnear :parky: I see that your comprehension is as bad as ever. 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