dmayne7

The insult is that we still don't properly know his role. But Top did allude to the things he's responsible for and it's absolutely mental. No human being alive could possibly do that remit because he made it sound like Rudkin is doing very operational things as well at the strategic stuff in a million areas of the business. Suspect Rudkin wouldn't be able to do them well if that was his only job but zero chance of being good at anything if statement from Top was true.

Hull's, actual points versus their expected points is absolutely crazy. Not the be all and end all, but when you're so far ahead of the curve, it'll eventually catch up a little bit so wouldn't be surprised to see them have a real sticky patch at some point

But your original question was players who aren't even the best in their family and this list has Frank Sinclair (100's of PL appearances) being worse than his son who plays in the National League? James Chambers had a much better career than Adam. Arguably the same with the Oakes brothers. One thing when people don't understand somebody else's question but another when you don't get your own!

Realised I missed the Birmingham one so my bad. But that still means he's been sacked in less than half of his jobs which is pretty impressive. And if you want to play on the context, one of those sackings was deeply unpopular and Birmingham have never improved since. Stoke was definitely a failure but again, done just as bad every year since he was sacked (bar this one). Even Oxford, he kept them up when they are punching above their weight so hardly like his reign there was unsuccessful. You want to bring in the 2 others where he wasn't sacked? Millwall is just about the longest/most sustained period of success in their history so he did a great job there. Then he was never the permanent manager at Birmingham as he was holding the fort whilst the manager was off sick for the rest of the season (pretty unique circumstances), so it was never Rowett's job to lose. Managed to get 11 points from 8 which is excellent when you're down there, so them being relegated is not on him is it? Still not a lower league team in sight... I don't particularly want him but I'm just not blind to the facts like you are. Apart from my 1 mistake where I missed out the Birmingham sacking (after initially including it), you're objectively wrong in your argument. Debate it if you want but you'll still be wrong. Reality is almost every manager gets sacked/let go so the fact he's been sacked in less than half of his jobs is pretty impressive. And I'm glad that my closing paragraph was good enough for you to want to copy it

He's been sacked 2 times out of 7 jobs? Lower league clubs? All in the same division we're in bar 1. And in case you forgot we were a strong PL club so obviously we wouldn't have been fishing for 'lower league' managers. Past few appointments have been great though eh? I get it you don't want him but not sure why you're ignoring facts/making your own up, trying to spin a certain narrative straight out of Top's playbook. Time to accept the new reality we're in I'm afraid.

Maybe true but why they decided to pull him out of a challenging environment where he was doing well, to move him to another team in the league, I do not get. Absolutely pointless. Just as it was loaning out Alves to the level below when he'd done pretty well (relatively speaking) at our level. Yet more evidence these people don't know what they're doing.

There's probably something in that and a very valid criticism. That's the only job where you can really say he failed completely, at until this season, nobody has done any better for them. If he's appointed to the end of the season, I'm ok with that as certainly more pedigree/success than many of the others ever been linked to.

He'd be good. And 'exciting'. Maybe not as a name but in terms of backing somebody who was done very well at a lower level

Rowett really doesn't: Burton - Good job, got him a gig 2 levels up. Birmingham - Took them from relegation candidates to 7th a couple of seasons later, before being sacked. Never been to those heights since. Derby - Got them into the playoffs. Poached by one of the PL clubs coming down. Stoke - Failed here. But never been close to getting promoted since, so not alone. Millwall - 3 years of consecutive top half finishes for a club that traditionally yo-yo's between the second and third tier. Birmingham - Relegated. But hardly there in a chaotic season and took over the job in very unique circumstances. Way better than a point per game return. Oxford - Kept them in the championship. Sacked with the club in relegation trouble a year later. I'm not advocating him and totally understand not wanting him but actually look at those jobs and he's only had 1 big failure at Stoke, who have been cack since. Only been sacked another 2 times, 1 of which was clearly the wrong decision and the other one is by a club that must expect to be in a relegation scrap. Not saying he's been amazing either but that's certainly a better CV with some of our recent appointments, and definitely better than plenty of others we're linked with.

Look at Rowett's performances in his jobs and compare that to Coleman. It's ridiculous to lump then in the same bracket.

Yep, the initial circumstances were horrific and he certainly got given loads of slack for it, rightfully so. But we're almost a decade on and the decline of the club is absolutely staggering. We had the worst relegation in the history of the PL and that wasn't something that told him we need to change things at board level? And then relegated again in probably our most pathetic season ever. Still no change? Every single club was affected but COVID and PSR, so why do we deserve special dispensation. He's been given everything he's owed and more. What we all owe as fans, is to protect the club for future generations and that only happens when KP sell. I understand that the interviews play on the emotions lots of us have so we will see it negatively, but even if you're totally objective, there are some frightening things being said it that. Blows my mind that anybody can listen to/read that and pay attention to everything going on at the club, yet come to the conclusion that Top deserves leeway or a chance.

But the chasing success thing is a nonsense. How many players did we go out and sign for huge sums or how many players did we have to throw massive contracts at the attract them here? Basically none, in fact Tielemans is the only player I can see where we might have had to push the boat to get him (maybe Ricardo as well). Problem was that we overpaid on solid players but more than we handed out massive contracts to average players for absolutely no reason. Wasn't like we threw money at trying to grow the team beyond what was possible organically, and the transfers didn't pan out. We were just plain thick about it and overly loyal to other players. For some context, Ipswich's net spend last year was almost as much as our highest 3 year period.

This is exactly why he deserves no slack. Some fans will expect perfection of course, but the majority of us just want to see somebody trying their best, willing to put aside their own ego for the benefit of the club. Ignoring all the other stuff, the fact he doesn't have the humility to admit he's out of his depth and at least try and hire the right people (even if he gets that wrong) shows that he doesn't care at all. People trot out the line about him being a young billionaire etc. well just get people in who are better qualified to lead the club; that's a sign of strong leadership.

Him being front and centre of the parade for promotion, was funny enough. And that was before there were multiple buses for his pals

And still people think Rudkin is the problem. Rudkin is one of the problems (a massive one) but if you take that interview at face value, Top basically admits that he's given Rudkin an absolutely ridiculous remit, that would be impossible for the most qualified person to deal with. In case you didn't realise, Top is the real problem. Everything after that is a symptom.

Don't think so, since he says 'the one year we don't understand it'. Would heavily imply that they just didn't plan for it properly. I'm sure they were aware of it, just hadn't factored it in fully.

You have to cross refer the interviews to get some of the good bits but one my personal highlight is that he's not blaming COVID for everything but he is blaming it for everything . These interviews just show that it's all about his ego and he just doesn't get it.

So he's done lots of good jobs? I get he's not that inspiring but he's generally done well at most clubs. Reality is that every manager fails at some point, and 1 team's crap manager is another's hero. Yes he got sacked by Oxford but would you expect them to be anywhere other than at the bottom of this league? It's like being talking Clement doing well at Norwich but he was crap at Rangers (in an embarrassingly easy league). Clearly a good manager but it just didn't work. People are far too binary about whether a manager is good or not, when the reality is it's far more complicated than that.

Few points there I guess: Middlesbrough at the top end of the league so naturally you'd expect them to have more of the ball so that adds up. How many forward passes, passes in the opposition half/final third are included here. I'd also imagine it's a lot more than us/Southampton. Can certainly guarantee there is more movement and positional rotation in the Boro team than us. Off the top of my head, Southampton are probably bottom of the expected points Vs actual points table which suggests that their style of play is working to an extent, just they their execution in each box is letting them down. Whereas we're overachieving in that regard (depressing to type that). I think this is the point you were sort of making but it shows that this statistics are super limited as they're not showing the intent/full outcomes. Also that the overarching style of play is not the most important thing, but more about what you're using that to achieve.

Slightly different from Perez in terms of Perez the obvious weak link in a very good side and some of the criticism latterly was because he was the most lightweight player around, but yes, had he been even £20m he'd have been a good signing on the whole. But couldn't agree more with the bold bit. Apart from a very few who are the elite of the elite, a massive chunk of professional footballers are separated by very fine margins; often what is between the ears in a footballing sense or a lack of physicality in some way. And of course luck/timing is most important as it is in all walks of life. It's why we won the PL with lots of 'rejects', misfits and football league career players, sometimes it just needs those fine margins to fall into place. Obviously James' contributions are standout but his overall performances in recent weeks have dipped to the point that Skipp has probably been the most consistent player recently. Losing James is a bigger deal but to lose Skipp at the same time is brutal.

Dodgy thesaurus considering it's not really a word (has become one now) . What are they teaching you in Walford?

Most players way below their levels at the moment, but he's probably been the biggest offender and seems to have escaped any real criticism. Totally appreciate he's very isolated but he also gets way more space than Fatawu. Not all about numbers but his are absolutely atrocious and it's not like he's affecting the game in other ways. Appreciate Monga hasn't exactly torn it up but surely you'd prioritise developing him over Mavididi contributing nothing time after time. And it's also telling that when Monga comes on, he's marked far more tightly than Mavididi. Playing him as a 10 also makes no sense. Appreciate he's got a crap hand as alluded to with the lack of support but he's shown nothing. Probably the sulkiest footballer I've ever seen as well. Makes Zaha look pretty chill.

Everything is symptomatic of the state of modern football. So much snobbery and the amount of amateur analysts, that want to turn it into American Football in terms of plays and intricacies. Not saying that football shouldn't evolve but too many people place too much emphasis on minute tactics, when the reality is that games that are won by tactics are done so because players and managers had the ability to adapt to the situation, not because they tried to map out every single play. The most important thing is that there is an overall style/approach to work towards, as to gives the players clarity, but the flexibility to change when needed. The football you're describing is probably what most people want to see. Our Title winning team gets slapped with the counter attacking tag as though it's somehow an insult? Teams rarely threatened us and we attacked with lots of purpose. Also played lots of slick football that seems to get ignored. The best football under Pearson and Rodgers had elements of this style too. Reality is that winning games is more entertaining than not, and that generally comes from prioritising winning over how you win.

Of course that's ok? I was simply asking why you've come to that conclusion. You don't owe me an answer at all but you're reasoning is basically 'because'. If we're being really kind to Top, he's just incredibly naïve, ignorant and gullible. But the reality is, there are countless examples over the past few years where he's shown that he is not interested or it's all about his ego, and next to nothing that shows he actually cares. The fact you can't substantiate why you think he does care is testament to that.

And this is from an ex-player I don't think many of us would expect to have such a strong affinity with the club. About as damning as it gets