Renton 17746 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The whole stability thing is absolutely nonsense IMHO. Successful managers who match the club's ambition stay, those who are not doing what they are expected to do get the sack. Just one example from Jormany. Bayern München between 1991 and 1998 had nine (!) managers. They tried it with success and experience (e.g. Rehhagel), youth (Lerby) or the foreign bloke (Trapattoni). Whenever they noticed that it does not worked out the manager got the sack. The same is with Newcastle. It isn't just the trophy everybody is lasting for that is making the club difficult to magage. Those managers who find it difficult are just shifting the blame because they were crap. That's why Keegan and Robson staid for several years. Both were successful. On the other hand Dalglish, Gullitt and now Souness were/are disasters. It's not a sign of instability to sack crap managers or managers who doesn't fit in. 84412[/snapback] Good point Isegrim. Can you imagine the fans of the most succesful club football side in the world, Real Madrid, putting up with 10% of the shit we've had to endure under Souness. The white hankies would have been out months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The whole stability thing is absolutely nonsense IMHO. Successful managers who match the club's ambition stay, those who are not doing what they are expected to do get the sack. absolutely correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The white hankies would have been out months ago. 84416[/snapback] Sounds like a plan tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If you remember though, the pre-season we brought in no-one except Bowyer for nowt was also the time when Leeds were going tits up massively. I firmly believe that Shepherd and the board shit themselves, and after discussions with Robson both parties believed the squad was good enough to progress in the CL. The plan was that Bowyer would cost us nowt and would be a vauable addition, whilst we'd be able to use the CL money to bring players in at January. Unfortunately, the board at this club seems to lack a Plan B and we've gone tits up ever since. 84370[/snapback] add Woodgate and it means the club added 2 internationals to strengthen the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 of course, rather than use hindsight ? Have you never heard of making a decision and having the courage of your convictions. You can't criticise a decision you were happy with yourself .... seems only correct and right to me anyway On the other hand I can criticise those who were dumb enough to say give Souness time to be successful because as you say, I got it right ! 84344[/snapback] Ultimately though, the buck stops with Shepherd. He got Gullit wrong, he got Dalglish wrong, and now he's got Souness wrong. That fans may or may not have been happy with those appointments is irrelevant. The mistake is Shepherd's, nobody else's. 84345[/snapback] The vast majority of supporters thought he had Gullit and Dalglish right. It isn't irrelevant to point this out at all, it means if someone thinks Shepherd is a dumb cunt then they must be too especially if you think he should have foresight that you yourself don't possess. I can see in Gemmills world, he is never wrong, he's just allowed to change his mind, use hindsight or look into the future..if only 84411[/snapback] I'M never wrong?? You're the one who (employing hindsight) casts yourself as the man who "KNEW from the very beginning things would turn out like this etc. blah blah". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) of course, rather than use hindsight ? Have you never heard of making a decision and having the courage of your convictions. You can't criticise a decision you were happy with yourself .... seems only correct and right to me anyway On the other hand I can criticise those who were dumb enough to say give Souness time to be successful because as you say, I got it right ! 84344[/snapback] Ultimately though, the buck stops with Shepherd. He got Gullit wrong, he got Dalglish wrong, and now he's got Souness wrong. That fans may or may not have been happy with those appointments is irrelevant. The mistake is Shepherd's, nobody else's. 84345[/snapback] The vast majority of supporters thought he had Gullit and Dalglish right. It isn't irrelevant to point this out at all, it means if someone thinks Shepherd is a dumb cunt then they must be too especially if you think he should have foresight that you yourself don't possess. I can see in Gemmills world, he is never wrong, he's just allowed to change his mind, use hindsight or look into the future..if only 84411[/snapback] I'M never wrong?? You're the one who (employing hindsight) casts yourself as the man who "KNEW from the very beginning things would turn out like this etc. blah blah". 84433[/snapback] .... but I did [no hindsight at all as you know] didn't I ? Edited January 25, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Petty points scoring tbh HTL would not be pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Means bringing in the right man for the job in the first place. How many of those stable clubs emplyed Souness? None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... Edited January 25, 2006 by NewJerseyMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8870 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece 84461[/snapback] What is vice versa? Crap managers who don't get results get sacked. And which clubs most often sack their managers? Those underachieving, especially those in relegation fights. Latter is excatly why we should sack the manager now by the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece 84461[/snapback] Maybe a bit (giving managers time etc.), but mainly it's down to them getting good results imo. That is, a good manager gets good results, takes the team in the right direction and creates the stability. Of course, the right backing is also needed. Real Madrid for example have sacked managers who've just won the European Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece 84461[/snapback] What is vice versa? Crap managers who don't get results get sacked. And which clubs most often sack their managers? Those underachieving, especially those in relegation fights. Latter is excatly why we should sack the manager now by the way... 84462[/snapback] Vice versa meaning its entirely possible that those clubs that dont constantly sack their managers get better results. Edited January 25, 2006 by NewJerseyMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. He'd be crazy to at this stage in his life.... Edited January 25, 2006 by NewJerseyMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. 84468[/snapback] Don't believe I've ever said that. I'd rather let Beardsley/Shearer/Roeder take control until someone more suitable is available tbh. Anyone but Souness, who is taking us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. 84468[/snapback] Don't believe I've ever said that. I'd rather let Beardsley/Shearer/Roeder take control until someone more suitable is available tbh. Anyone but Souness, who is taking us down. 84469[/snapback] Roeder, the man that took West Ham where???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. 84468[/snapback] Don't believe I've ever said that. I'd rather let Beardsley/Shearer/Roeder take control until someone more suitable is available tbh. Anyone but Souness, who is taking us down. 84469[/snapback] Roeder, the man that took West Ham where???? 84470[/snapback] Better than Souness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 of course, rather than use hindsight ? Have you never heard of making a decision and having the courage of your convictions. You can't criticise a decision you were happy with yourself .... seems only correct and right to me anyway On the other hand I can criticise those who were dumb enough to say give Souness time to be successful because as you say, I got it right ! 84344[/snapback] Ultimately though, the buck stops with Shepherd. He got Gullit wrong, he got Dalglish wrong, and now he's got Souness wrong. That fans may or may not have been happy with those appointments is irrelevant. The mistake is Shepherd's, nobody else's. 84345[/snapback] The vast majority of supporters thought he had Gullit and Dalglish right. It isn't irrelevant to point this out at all, it means if someone thinks Shepherd is a dumb cunt then they must be too especially if you think he should have foresight that you yourself don't possess. I can see in Gemmills world, he is never wrong, he's just allowed to change his mind, use hindsight or look into the future..if only 84411[/snapback] I'M never wrong?? You're the one who (employing hindsight) casts yourself as the man who "KNEW from the very beginning things would turn out like this etc. blah blah". 84433[/snapback] .... but I did [no hindsight at all as you know] didn't I ? 84450[/snapback] I KNOW that every time you post on here you'll make some mention of "those that said give him time" and how wrong they were. Maybe your magical powers are rubbing off on me. Or maybe you're just like a broken record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. 84468[/snapback] Don't believe I've ever said that. I'd rather let Beardsley/Shearer/Roeder take control until someone more suitable is available tbh. Anyone but Souness, who is taking us down. 84469[/snapback] Roeder, the man that took West Ham where???? 84470[/snapback] Better than Souness. 84471[/snapback] Didnt he take them down and get the sack? If you compare careers/trophies won I dont think that your statement stacks up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8870 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece 84461[/snapback] What is vice versa? Crap managers who don't get results get sacked. And which clubs most often sack their managers? Those underachieving, especially those in relegation fights. Latter is excatly why we should sack the manager now by the way... 84462[/snapback] Vice versa meaning its entirely possible that those clubs that dont constantly sack their managers get better results. 84464[/snapback] IMHO it only says successful managers don't get sacked. The reverse logic doesn't work . Just have a look which teams in the Premiere League have changed their manager less times than Newcastle. Ok, ManUre. But Chelsea for example even had more managers. Liverpool still had four, the only one staying despite more or less no success was Evans. Though, after Souness had destroyed the clubs expectations were lowered. Arsenal don't constantly sack their manager because they found the right man in Wenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I was reading an article about clubs that switch managers often versus those that dont. The stable clubs had the better results. I'll see if I can find it and post the link. 84457[/snapback] Hardly earth shattering news is it? The managers keep their jobs because they get better results. 84459[/snapback] Or vice versa??? http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...ticle337749.ece Didnt Ferguson win nowt for 3 or so years, but they didnt sack him.... 84461[/snapback] He got them from 13th in the league to 3rd though (or something like that). Do you believe Souness (who got us from 5th to 14th) is in the same category? Fergie had never proved himself to be a failure, whereas Graeme has. 84466[/snapback] I dont actually but until the RIGHT person is available, I dont see it worth changing for the same old shite. And if you think Hitzfeld will come, think again. 84468[/snapback] Don't believe I've ever said that. I'd rather let Beardsley/Shearer/Roeder take control until someone more suitable is available tbh. Anyone but Souness, who is taking us down. 84469[/snapback] Roeder, the man that took West Ham where???? 84470[/snapback] Better than Souness. 84471[/snapback] Didnt he take them down and get the sack? If you compare careers/trophies won I dont think that your statement stacks up. 84473[/snapback] Got West Ham to 7th place in the Premiership in his first season. Souness couldn't even do that with the best set of players he'd ever worked with. He's not the answer, but short term he'd do a lot better than Souness IMO. EDIT: Plus West Ham were relegated with the most points a relegated team had ever got in the Premiership, so you could consider him unlucky, especially as they were forced into the transfers of players like Cole, Johnson etc etc Edited January 25, 2006 by Shearergol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Trevor Brooking was in charge when they were relegated.. Link to comment 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