Ric Flair Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 Any change of manager is a gamble. Levein was a gamble......and so was Martin O'Neill. Your right, but some gambles are higher risk than others. McCallister is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 Any change of manager is a gamble. Levein was a gamble......and so was Martin O'Neill. How was martin O'Neill a gamble?? we were managerless at the time, his record was good and the only other candidate was MICK WALKER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 How was martin O'Neill a gamble?? we were managerless at the time, his record was good and the only other candidate was MICK WALKER. And, as I remember, most people preferred the Walker option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 Your right, but some gambles are higher risk than others. McCallister is one of them. One man's opinion is another man's gamble!!! When Everton took Kendall back they didn't see it as a gamble. They also took Scotland's most successful manager, Walter Smith, as a safe pair of hands. Both were abysmal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 And, as I remember, most people preferred the Walker option. How come you always seem to always know what MOST people think L444ry??? as i remember, O'neills name wasn't even in the hat, until he resigned from Norwich hours before they played us, and was appointed less than 48 hours later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 How come you always seem to always know what MOST people think L444ry??? as i remember, O'neills name wasn't even in the hat, until he resigned from Norwich hours before they played us, and was appointed less than 48 hours later. Just got a good memory Eva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 Just got a good memory Eva. :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 big question is which would be a bigger gamble. keep levein who has now got a run of form which isnt good. or mcallister who is completely unpredictable. its much harder for a manager to turn around his own rot then a new manager to do it. I also think my comment about the 3 away wins is fair, I can only assume based on craig's 18 months that at the most craig would have won 1 away game during the period adams was in charge, I am still baffled how so many are dullusioned simply because we pass the ball well and have shots on goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 big question is which would be a bigger gamble. keep levein who has now got a run of form which isnt good. or mcallister who is completely unpredictable. its much harder for a manager to turn around his own rot then a new manager to do it. If you're willing to gamble on GM we may as well just give the job to Rob Kelly. Same risk less expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 If you're willing to gamble on GM we may as well just give the job to Rob Kelly. Same risk less expensive. If the engine driver is no good then the oily rag is unlikely to be either...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 If the engine driver is no good then the oily rag is unlikely to be either...... Like Eric Black as Cov or Bothroyd at Watford or Davies at Preston. Deary me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 18 January 2006 Share Posted 18 January 2006 Like Eric Black as Cov or Bothroyd at Watford or Davies at Preston. Deary me. Exactly, still ain't even won an egg cup between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 Exactly, still ain't even won an egg cup between them. Exactly??? You've been on here all yesterday putting people right who said footballers don't make good managers. Then you make the same sweeping kind of comment about assistants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 If you're willing to gamble on GM we may as well just give the job to Rob Kelly. Same risk less expensive. I take that as you think craig less risk then, fair enough. I can sort of see why the board have not sacked craig now, considering the fussyness of the fans they would only be able to replace him with a good proven manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 I take that as you think craig less risk then, fair enough. I can sort of see why the board have not sacked craig now, considering the fussyness of the fans they would only be able to replace him with a good proven manager. Less risk than what?? If you are talking GM then I think they are as risky as each other. Bringing in a manager who has been doing well still carries a risk but in theory less of a risk than someone who has failed at their last club!!! considering the fussyness of the fans they would only be able to replace him with a good proven manager. What are you on? So you'd be perfectly happy that we didn't get a good proven manager? I'm still yet to see one good argument for GM. We may as well bring in Carlton Palmer as he's achieved about as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 I'm a little baffled by all of this. If the board have an idea of someone they could definitely bring in who knows more about the English game, has a little more passion and has a good chance of improving on Levein, e.g. Tilson / Allen / Penney, then if they can afford it, it MIGHT make sense. Of course all the upheaval would make the move something of a gamble and it might be easier to go for some continuity. Perhaps giving Kelly the job and getting rid of Houston (who does all of the motivating, by the way - Levein doesn't do the teamtalk on match-day), Black and Levein. Then you could promote a player to coach and bring in someone passionate as an assistant, perhaps someone with some coaching experience and knowledge of the division like Billy McKinlay. IF you're getting rid of Levein, that would make sense, in the short term at least. What would be a terrible idea is bringing in someone like McAllister when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he could offer anything to improve us. In fact his record at this level is worse than Levein's. He's also had severe personal problems which may have affected his temperament recently in the same way as Levein's personal issues might have affected his. I think appointing McAllister would make a lot of Leicester fans happy because he's an ex-City player, but I think that is pretty much the only reason why anybody wants him as manager. And comparing that sort of gamble to the O'Neill gamble (two previous promotions taking a non-league side to the top half of the old Div 2) is a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 I'm a little baffled by all of this. If the board have an idea of someone they could definitely bring in who knows more about the English game, has a little more passion and has a good chance of improving on Levein, e.g. Tilson / Allen / Penney, then if they can afford it, it MIGHT make sense. Of course all the upheaval would make the move something of a gamble and it might be easier to go for some continuity. Perhaps giving Kelly the job and getting rid of Houston (who does all of the motivating, by the way - Levein doesn't do the teamtalk on match-day), Black and Levein. Then you could promote a player to coach and bring in someone passionate as an assistant, perhaps someone with some coaching experience and knowledge of the division like Billy McKinlay. IF you're getting rid of Levein, that would make sense, in the short term at least. What would be a terrible idea is bringing in someone like McAllister when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he could offer anything to improve us. In fact his record at this level is worse than Levein's. He's also had severe personal problems which may have affected his temperament recently in the same way as Levein's personal issues might have affected his. I think appointing McAllister would make a lot of Leicester fans happy because he's an ex-City player, but I think that is pretty much the only reason why anybody wants him as manager. And comparing that sort of gamble to the O'Neill gamble (two previous promotions taking a non-league side to the top half of the old Div 2) is a nonsense. And not forgetting we were managerless, its hardly a gamble when you have no-one at the reins in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 I'm a little baffled by all of this. If the board have an idea of someone they could definitely bring in who knows more about the English game, has a little more passion and has a good chance of improving on Levein, e.g. Tilson / Allen / Penney, then if they can afford it, it MIGHT make sense. Of course all the upheaval would make the move something of a gamble and it might be easier to go for some continuity. Perhaps giving Kelly the job and getting rid of Houston (who does all of the motivating, by the way - Levein doesn't do the teamtalk on match-day), Black and Levein. Then you could promote a player to coach and bring in someone passionate as an assistant, perhaps someone with some coaching experience and knowledge of the division like Billy McKinlay. IF you're getting rid of Levein, that would make sense, in the short term at least. What would be a terrible idea is bringing in someone like McAllister when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he could offer anything to improve us. In fact his record at this level is worse than Levein's. He's also had severe personal problems which may have affected his temperament recently in the same way as Levein's personal issues might have affected his. I think appointing McAllister would make a lot of Leicester fans happy because he's an ex-City player, but I think that is pretty much the only reason why anybody wants him as manager. And comparing that sort of gamble to the O'Neill gamble (two previous promotions taking a non-league side to the top half of the old Div 2) is a nonsense. Excellent post Harry... stick around we could do with a few more level headed people around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westmidsfox Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 Excellent post Harry... stick around we could do with a few more level headed people around here. Agreed Babylon. Hermann Munster was level headed wasn't he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 Agreed Babylon. Hermann Munster was level headed wasn't he. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 Exactly??? You've been on here all yesterday putting people right who said footballers don't make good managers. Then you make the same sweeping kind of comment about assistants. Not really. Just trying to point out that some players make good managers and some don't. Similarly, some assistants make good managers and some don't. I can't help it if some have taken their own particular hobby horse and put my view up as a straw man to knock down. The context of all my posts relates to people saying that McAllister was a poor manager and not good enough to be our manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 I'm a little baffled by all of this. If the board have an idea of someone they could definitely bring in who knows more about the English game, has a little more passion and has a good chance of improving on Levein, e.g. Tilson / Allen / Penney, then if they can afford it, it MIGHT make sense. Of course all the upheaval would make the move something of a gamble and it might be easier to go for some continuity. Perhaps giving Kelly the job and getting rid of Houston (who does all of the motivating, by the way - Levein doesn't do the teamtalk on match-day), Black and Levein. Then you could promote a player to coach and bring in someone passionate as an assistant, perhaps someone with some coaching experience and knowledge of the division like Billy McKinlay. IF you're getting rid of Levein, that would make sense, in the short term at least. What would be a terrible idea is bringing in someone like McAllister when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he could offer anything to improve us. In fact his record at this level is worse than Levein's. He's also had severe personal problems which may have affected his temperament recently in the same way as Levein's personal issues might have affected his. I think appointing McAllister would make a lot of Leicester fans happy because he's an ex-City player, but I think that is pretty much the only reason why anybody wants him as manager. And comparing that sort of gamble to the O'Neill gamble (two previous promotions taking a non-league side to the top half of the old Div 2) is a nonsense. The original post said that all managerial appointments were a gamble, not that McAllister and O'Neill were equal gambles. Nobody is that stupid Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 19 January 2006 Share Posted 19 January 2006 The context of all my posts relates to people saying that McAllister was a poor manager and not good enough to be our manager. He is poor his record proves this and he isn't good enough to be the Leicester manager. If it was a case of us only being able to have Levein or Gary Mac then fair enough you could argue both sides. But when there are more than a handful of vastly more experienced and more successful managers out there it is a complete no contest. GM should not even come into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Less risk than what?? If you are talking GM then I think they are as risky as each other. Bringing in a manager who has been doing well still carries a risk but in theory less of a risk than someone who has failed at their last club!!! What are you on? So you'd be perfectly happy that we didn't get a good proven manager? I'm still yet to see one good argument for GM. We may as well bring in Carlton Palmer as he's achieved about as much. no I just want a change and am not fussy who is brought in. their has been instances where clubs have used unproven manager's following a sacking and have seen improved results. I assume this is because improved confidence in the team and fresh ideas and tactics been used. I am also been realistic, if the club were to sack craig, we cannot expect a manager with a high calibre to join especially if they leave it until after this month ends, so I would think the choice is either craig levein or a unproven manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.