Babylon

The majority of promoted managers have low win percentage’s. Because… duh duh duh they generally have the worst players to use. Pointing at a win percentage of someone whose team was a relegation favourite, that everyone on here wrote off before the season started, who actually kept them up against the odds. And saying oooh it’s not great, like it’s bad when in reality it was mission accomplished for them. Not forgetting it doesn’t even include draws, which can make a massive difference. Manager 1: Win 5 draw 5 Lose 5 = 20 points. Manager 2: Win 6 draw 1 Lose 8 = 19 points. Quick let’s higher manager two as he has a higher win percentage and yet got less points!

Ok, so we just need to hire pep then. Because we are talking realities, and the reality is we are highly likely to get relegated. Unless there is a mythical premier league manager that players great football, has a 50% premier league win ratio, has zero flops on his cv (as FoxesTalk clearly doesn’t accept that) and someone who wants to actually come here for the challenge we have.

Nigel Pearson had a 29% win ratio in the premier league with us, thanks to an amazing final run. Kompany had a 13% win rate. Potters first two seasons were 24%, taking over an already premier league Brighton (Coopers first season was 24%). I don't know why people keep banging on about win ratios of newly promoted clubs like it's a regular occurrence to be posting large win ratios.

After this you can nail on an in / out of players to and from Leuven.

Have they got brail on the tags so that the blind people buying them know the front from the back?

It's not talked about positively because of the lack of his say in it, the fact they sacked their recruitment team afterwards. Does anyone blame Poch at Chelsea, or do they blame their crazy recruitment?

We’ve now switched from ripping his facial appearance to fat shaming him and banging on about what he wears.

Might have helped if the interviewer asked a question beyond “how excited are you”.

FFS… they were in the mid when he took over. No matter what they spent I’d wager there were many clubs spending vastly more.

It’s not, that’s our issue.

In some cases maybe, in many cases I don't think that's the reason. Tielemans, doubt it. IMO he thought his stock was going to be high, reality is it dropped off a cliff. If we'd been competitive still I think he'd have just signed on again. Soyuncu, likely to have been tapped up by some European clubs who were never going to pay what we wanted, and just saw it as a good way to get a good move. Maddison, again he was running it down to get the power back as we'd likely have wanted so much it would put off buyers. Some of the lower down players like Pratt, they've admitted we blocked moves due to thinking we couldn't replace his versibility. Then you have others whereby us letting them go cheap would mean even more PSR issues. And as I say, why sell a player cheap if you can't afford a better player, see Mendy situation.

You cannot force other clubs to sign out players, neither can you force players to leave if they are set on leaving on a free transfer. Secondly, losing so many on a free was much down to circumstance of not having the money to replace them with better or equivilant players. Nobody WANTS to have pleayers leave on a free, they are totally insane.

Seems par for the course for me, negative shite football. We’ve just produced the odd goal more previously, Southgate is just doing what he always does…. Be negative

He’s leaving. So now they are being honest.

Makes me laugh the pundits have turned now, it’s not that different to every other year he’s been in charge, and they were hyper critical of anyone daring to say bad things.

I was going to be magnanimous and say me

That’s a fair point, I said in another post that the worry is he might start one way and then jack it in far too quickly. I don’t think Rudkin and friends will change their mind about the style. So if he does jack it in or not implement something resembling a decent style, they won’t be happy.

He’s a fancy foreigner Scotch

Broken clock is right twice a day, let’s put it down to that.

The ridiculousness of it all, is that ticket prices are tiny tiny fraction of turnover in the premier league. You just don’t need to do it, I could actually understand it more in the championship when ticket income is your biggest income (barring parachute payments). Promlem is you have plonkers employed (not fans) who probably get a bonus the more they increase turnover in their little section of the club. Incentivising them to push for price rises at the expense of the average fan. I know costs have gone up ridiculously everywhere, the clubs running costs outside wages etc are probably up 30/40% in the last two or three years. But still, don’t exploit your fanbase when you have no need to.

Ha. If you read his interviews he’s far more studious about the game than people are willing to give him credit for. From the influence of Pep Segura, to the embracing of analytics across all parts of the game. I know people seem to want to paint him as a dinosaur in his 60’s. But he’s still young and done the hard yards in coaching and management.

I'm talking about everyone banging on about him being ultra-defensive. The man himself has literally explained how he changed them, going more defensive and conceding possession because they "had to address the goals and chances they conceded". That's a change of style defensively from the championship, which brought about much of what people are moaning about with him. I'm not missing the point, I've touched on it previously myself. As I said we tried for the Potter route which would be ideal in terms of choice. But how many people are out there playing the exact same style as Maresca? Maresca wasn't the same style as Rodgers, Rodgers wasn't the same style as Puel. They all have their own individual style within a framework of "we want a passing style". His words not mine, this is his ideal style he wants to have his teams playing "We want to play with purpose, dominate possession, play forward, and get the ball back as quick as we can".

Sorry I don't get your point. Someone said he didn't change his style in the premier league, when he literally said he did. And the possession stats plunged when he changed it.

Because I found the style boring as hell in many many games. Far too many games where we hold 65% possession and the opposition end up with the near enough the same number of shots or more and we're all sat here saying "thank god they can't finish". I'm just randomly clicking around games on soccerbase and there is a raft of them that all follow the same sort of pattern eg. All I ever heard on here was that the style was meant to stifle the opposition into few chances! I can only talk about the games I saw, I've said plenty of times I took a step away from football as I really wasn't enjoying it any more. So maybe we were utterly amazing in the other game.

The man literally explained that he choose to go more defensive in the premier league after they got pumped in a few games. In the first few games, as an example, they had 55.3% possession against the Spurs. 51.7% Posession against Everton. 52.7% against Bournmouth. After the 4-0 against us (when they had 48.4% against what was supposed to be a possession-based team), they started to concede possession far more than they did before hand. What narrative about him being a possession manager? I said he preaches attacking football, preferably in his interviews. In the championship, he took over a team bottom of the league with just four points from 8 games and had to transform the team. Their possession stats vary wildly, which you'd expect from a team in rapid transition, swinging wildly at times from 60%, 70%, and lots of mid-50s to some low stats in the 30's (where they pumped the other team by 4 or 5 goals). They certainly weren't subservient to others in terms of possession every game just to counter them. I totally get the point that we've gone from mr "pass, pass, pass, pass", but we tried to get Potter and obviously that's not come off. In terms of what style they want, I'd have to read the statements you are talking about. Rodgers went from nearly 58% possession to 47% when we went down, despite being a "possession" manager. Players available and the situation clearly can dictate the stats.