Roeder's record so far

[Guest Patrokles]

I posted a while back about this, but I think the 'Roeder can't motivate his team when they need it' line of thought is total fallacy. The edivence is simply that the vast majority of the time, when we've come off the back of a poor performance, either in a game or a half, then we seem much-improved the next game/half, with a couple of exceptions. But the majority of the time, and Roeder himself has said that he delivered a few bollockings after these poor performances, which is something the players have also said.

[Guest alex]

I posted a while back about this, but I think the 'Roeder can't motivate his team when they need it' line of thought is total fallacy. The edivence is simply that the vast majority of the time, when we've come off the back of a poor performance, either in a game or a half, then we seem much-improved the next game/half, with a couple of exceptions. But the majority of the time, and Roeder himself has said that he delivered a few bollockings after these poor performances, which is something the players have also said.

I think that's fair comment.

[Gemmill 34632]

Tbh, I reckon the improved performances in the second half are the exception rather than the rule. The mackems and West Ham are two examples I can think of. And against Spurs we basically couldn't have been much worse, but it doesn't happen all that much that I can think of.

[Howaythetoon 0]

I posted a while back about this, but I think the 'Roeder can't motivate his team when they need it' line of thought is total fallacy. The edivence is simply that the vast majority of the time, when we've come off the back of a poor performance, either in a game or a half, then we seem much-improved the next game/half, with a couple of exceptions. But the majority of the time, and Roeder himself has said that he delivered a few bollockings after these poor performances, which is something the players have also said.

 

One of my biggest concerns was whether he could motivate the lads. The Souness-gone factor motivated them and not so much Roeder when he was caretaker, but he's allayed my fears since and I'd agree with Alex regarding your comments above.

[Guest Patrokles]

Tbh, I reckon the improved performances in the second half are the exception rather than the rule. The mackems and West Ham are two examples I can think of. And against Spurs we basically couldn't have been much worse, but it doesn't happen all that much that I can think of.

 

There were improvements Post-Sheffield United and after another game earlier in the season I can't for the life of me remember. Both occasions, Roeder had made it clear he wasn't pleased.

[Gemmill 34632]

Tbh, I reckon the improved performances in the second half are the exception rather than the rule. The mackems and West Ham are two examples I can think of. And against Spurs we basically couldn't have been much worse, but it doesn't happen all that much that I can think of.

 

There were improvements Post-Sheffield United and after another game earlier in the season I can't for the life of me remember. Both occasions, Roeder had made it clear he wasn't pleased.

 

Sheffield United was the low point of the season. We've got a lot better since then, but Christ we couldn't have got a lot worse.

[Invicta_Toon 0]

His league record is pretty good tbf Renton. Read somewhere recently his win ratio is about 50% (since he took over) think it was in the Sunday Times and I think Happy Face's sig backs this up. I'd question whether or not he's the man to take us forward though, once he's 'steadied the ship'.

 

I said as much. Mind, in all honesty, I don't know how the fuck we have so many wins considering some of the crap football we have played. Maybe it's more evidence that outside the top 4 the premiership isn't much cop at the minute?

Well, we had an excellent run when he took over too. It's partially down to the factor you give, partly down to his honeymoon period and, in fairness, a lot of it is down to Roeder himself sorting things out and improving team spirit and morale imo.

 

The best since Keegan IMO.

 

Definite cockney solidarity. The team spirit under Robson when it didn't matter if we went a goal behind cos you just knew we would come back from it was better than anything Roeder has achieved tbh.

 

 

I can remember countless time when we went a goal down and lost under the old man

[Guest alex]

Mary, Mary....

[Isegrim 8876]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

Mary, Mary....

 

 

Why Ya Buggin'?

[Gemmill 34632]

His league record is pretty good tbf Renton. Read somewhere recently his win ratio is about 50% (since he took over) think it was in the Sunday Times and I think Happy Face's sig backs this up. I'd question whether or not he's the man to take us forward though, once he's 'steadied the ship'.

 

I said as much. Mind, in all honesty, I don't know how the fuck we have so many wins considering some of the crap football we have played. Maybe it's more evidence that outside the top 4 the premiership isn't much cop at the minute?

Well, we had an excellent run when he took over too. It's partially down to the factor you give, partly down to his honeymoon period and, in fairness, a lot of it is down to Roeder himself sorting things out and improving team spirit and morale imo.

 

The best since Keegan IMO.

 

Definite cockney solidarity. The team spirit under Robson when it didn't matter if we went a goal behind cos you just knew we would come back from it was better than anything Roeder has achieved tbh.

 

 

I can remember countless time when we went a goal down and lost under the old man

 

Ahh, but can you remember the player that signed for Man United whose transfer was agreed prior to the window opening?

[Happy Face 29]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

[Gemmill 34632]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Isn't he dead though? Harsh on Roeder.

[Isegrim 8876]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

And that does mean?

[Happy Face 29]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Isn't he dead though? Harsh on Roeder.

 

 

tbf, he was more likely to take over than Hitzfeld.

[Guest alex]

I reckon we'd be 6th.

[Happy Face 29]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

And that does mean?

 

That does mean that you expect too much too soon from an anhialated squad where you can barely name 5 core players from the season.

[Howaythetoon 0]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

 

I think injuries haven't helped in that the side changes from one week to the next which can't help understanding or indeed the shape of the side. I agree we weren't creating much but of late we have been creating lots of chances hence our improved return of goals, and perhaps with it our tendency to concede more. I agree though, football wise I haven't been impressed but I've seen one or two signs that suggests, certainly in the final third, things are clicking and heading in the right direction. Much work is to be done for further improvements however.

[Isegrim 8876]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

And that does mean?

 

That does mean that you expect too much too soon from an anhialated squad where you can barely name 5 core players from the season.

Don't agree at all. Even considering our injuries and the annihilated squad Roeder took over, we have enough players in the squad who should be able to play a decent football. But our team isn't really working together and can hardly assemble a string of successful passes. The off the ball movement from a lot of players is shocking. And we still have the likes of Given and Bramble just cluelessly bumping the ball forward as if they were really playing in the times of Shankly. Yes, I do expect a manager addressing this rubbish immediately.

[Howaythetoon 0]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

And that does mean?

 

That does mean that you expect too much too soon from an anhialated squad where you can barely name 5 core players from the season.

Don't agree at all. Even considering our injuries and the annihilated squad Roeder took over, we have enough players in the squad who should be able to play a decent football. But our team isn't really working together and can hardly assemble a string of successful passes. The off the ball movement from a lot of players is shocking. And we still have the likes of Given and Bramble just cluelessly bumping the ball forward as if they were really playing in the times of Shankly. Yes, I do expect a manager addressing this rubbish immediately.

 

That's what shit players or shit teams do. We are a shit team, or average. You can't polish a turd and all that...

 

I think our team speaks for itself, or results, we rely on our individuals, our better players like Martins, Shay etc. and when they don't perform or are out injured, we do bad. Like most average teams. The top teams can perform when their top players aren't or when they take a few injuries because their other players are still top players, ours aren't. I think you're being too harsh Isegrim or unrealistic.

[Happy Face 29]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

And that does mean?

 

That does mean that you expect too much too soon from an anhialated squad where you can barely name 5 core players from the season.

Don't agree at all. Even considering our injuries and the annihilated squad Roeder took over, we have enough players in the squad who should be able to play a decent football. But our team isn't really working together and can hardly assemble a string of successful passes. The off the ball movement from a lot of players is shocking. And we still have the likes of Given and Bramble just cluelessly bumping the ball forward as if they were really playing in the times of Shankly. Yes, I do expect a manager addressing this rubbish immediately.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

Out of 25 league games only 3 players have been involved in 20 of those games. Martins, Milner and Parker. Given that only one of those played more than 20 games for us last season, I'm not surprised few of the players have settled straight into a fluid passing game.

 

You'd hope this could be sorted on the training field but our season has been such that tactical "planning" hasn't been easy.

[Renton 17828]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Can I clarify this? Are you seriously drawing a comparison with Roeder and one of the greats of British football management?

 

I think Isegrim is spot on with his observation that we don't play with any shape. This is what most worries me and has been the reason for a lot of poor performances. Our recent results can't continue with this standard of performance, yet I can't see us improving.

[Happy Face 29]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Can I clarify this? Are you seriously drawing a comparison with Roeder and one of the greats of British football management?

 

 

No.

 

I'm saying even one of the greats of British football management couldn't have broken our squad (with all it's troubles) into the top 5 at this point of the season. Given that Roeder is an average manager at best, his performance has been excellent.

[Isegrim 8876]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Can I clarify this? Are you seriously drawing a comparison with Roeder and one of the greats of British football management?

 

 

No.

 

I'm saying even one of the greats of British football management couldn't have broken our squad (with all it's troubles) into the top 5 at this point of the season. Given that Roeder is an average manager at best, his performance has been excellent.

I'm not saying that another manager would have got many more points. We probably would have won a couple of games without just resorting to luck though.

[Renton 17828]

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

 

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th.

 

Can I clarify this? Are you seriously drawing a comparison with Roeder and one of the greats of British football management?

 

 

No.

 

I'm saying even one of the greats of British football management couldn't have broken our squad (with all it's troubles) into the top 5 at this point of the season. Given that Roeder is an average manager at best, his performance has been excellent.

 

I don't agree. If you gave a good manager (hypothetical or not) in excess of 15 million quid to spend as he pleased in the summer with the squad Roeder inherited, I would expect them to do a better job than Roeder. That means gaining points against Sheffield United at home, for instance, or not getting humped at home by Birmingham in the cup.

 

And again, please enlighten me on which performances have been excellent, because I can't think of a single game where we were convincing.

 

Edit: sorry, misread the performance bit, but my point still stands I hope.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Renton