Micky Adams vs Craig Levein

[Guest]

These loopholes were written into their contracts at the behest of the players' agents because THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

So Adams was trying to bring players who were obviously not committed to the club in the first place. Nice one.

Adams was forced to change his squad for the Championship campaign because the rump of his Premiership stars wanted out.

I would expect some prima donna's to feel that playing in the Championship was "beneath them", but why so many players? Could this not be a result of Adams' management?

Hoof suggests that it was Adams' policy to think 'short term.' This is such unbelievable shite that the response should be obvious.

Of course it was short-term thinking; it seems to me that Adams was not able to convince players that their long term futures were with this club, hence signing journeymen and mercenaries with either one year deals, or get-out clauses.

[Hullfox]

These loopholes were written into their contracts at the behest of the players' agents because THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

So Adams was trying to bring players who were obviously not committed to the club in the first place. Nice one.

Adams was forced to change his squad for the Championship campaign because the rump of his Premiership stars wanted out.

I would expect some prima donna's to feel that playing in the Championship was "beneath them", but why so many players? Could this not be a result of Adams' management?

Hoof suggests that it was Adams' policy to think 'short term.' This is such unbelievable shite that the response should be obvious.

Of course it was short-term thinking; it seems to me that Adams was not able to convince players that their long term futures were with this club, hence signing journeymen and mercenaries with either one year deals, or get-out clauses.

54665[/snapback]

Seems to me that we are going over old ground here somewhat.

The club however was not in a position to offer long term contracts at the time, that's why we attracted journeymen.

We are in a better position now so CL needs to make the most of it.

Comparing the two is slightly unfair in some aspects because of the overall picture that needs to be taken into account.

Ultimately though we will judge on results.

Thats what makes or breaks a manager, the constraints that he has to work under are ultimately not a major consideration for this club's supporters in the long run.

[Matt]

Vertually everyone here loved him in his first season and a half...Some people have forgot that! And i'm not saying everyone because I got 'told off' for saying that before but VERTUALLY everyone loved him!

-Thats a lesson for Craig Levein as well, everyone said "Oh the new MON" when he first arrived and some people are still saying that...Now where did I hear that before?!?!

Maybe he will be the new MON, and hopefully he will be but lets just see what he does first, Levein hasn't disappoint but tell me what he done? Not to much yet, so why call him 'the new MON' when he hasn;t done anything yet?!

[Alexikokopops]

Just for future reference, it's VIRTUALLY

[Matt]

Just for future reference, it's VIRTUALLY

54747[/snapback]

Cheers for that

[Chandler]

These loopholes were written into their contracts at the behest of the players' agents because THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

So Adams was trying to bring players who were obviously not committed to the club in the first place. Nice one.

Adams was forced to change his squad for the Championship campaign because the rump of his Premiership stars wanted out.

I would expect some prima donna's to feel that playing in the Championship was "beneath them", but why so many players? Could this not be a result of Adams' management?

Hoof suggests that it was Adams' policy to think 'short term.' This is such unbelievable shite that the response should be obvious.

Of course it was short-term thinking; it seems to me that Adams was not able to convince players that their long term futures were with this club, hence signing journeymen and mercenaries with either one year deals, or get-out clauses.

54665[/snapback]

And of course Lisa, YOU SAID ALL THIS AT THE TIME DIDN'T YOU? Just like all the members of the 'fickle bonehead' army.

Oh yes I remember it well...what a shite job Adams and Bassett were doing signing all these crap mercenaries on short term deals. We were always going to get relegated from the Prem we were. Posting away on all the boards I was, writing into the Merc, ranting on the Radio Leicester phone in...oh God yes!

And then I was up in arms I was about the second lot of crap signings and there I was protesting away to the bookies about us being made favourites an' all for promotion. No, sorry, we weren't made favourites for promotion we were made favourites for relegation. Yes, thats right!

Lisa you are just a goldfish in disguise!

[davieG]

These loopholes were written into their contracts at the behest of the players' agents because THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

So Adams was trying to bring players who were obviously not committed to the club in the first place. Nice one.

Adams was forced to change his squad for the Championship campaign because the rump of his Premiership stars wanted out.

I would expect some prima donna's to feel that playing in the Championship was "beneath them", but why so many players? Could this not be a result of Adams' management?

Hoof suggests that it was Adams' policy to think 'short term.' This is such unbelievable shite that the response should be obvious.

Of course it was short-term thinking; it seems to me that Adams was not able to convince players that their long term futures were with this club, hence signing journeymen and mercenaries with either one year deals, or get-out clauses.

54665[/snapback]

And of course Lisa, YOU SAID ALL THIS AT THE TIME DIDN'T YOU? Just like all the members of the 'fickle bonehead' army.

Oh yes I remember it well...what a shite job Adams and Bassett were doing signing all these crap mercenaries on short term deals. We were always going to get relegated from the Prem we were. Posting away on all the boards I was, writing into the Merc, ranting on the Radio Leicester phone in...oh God yes!

And then I was up in arms I was about the second lot of crap signings and there I was protesting away to the bookies about us being made favourites an' all for promotion. No, sorry, we weren't made favourites for promotion we were made favourites for relegation. Yes, thats right!

Lisa you are just a goldfish in disguise!

54863[/snapback]

First of all Chandler can you stop calling people 'fickle boneheads' it's so childish, unnecessary and very very tiresome to have to keep reading it. It also detracts from your arguments.

Just for the record and at the risk of being called boring yes I did question MA's signings at the beginning of the season and not only because of the short-term contract situation but also because of the imbalance in the age range, I even posted this list of our OAPs at the time

Our OAPs

Matt Elliot Born 18 November 1968 - Age 35 going 36

Dion Dublin Born 22 April 1969 - Age 35

Ian Walker Born 31 October - 1971 - Age 32 going 33

Lilian Nalis Born 29 September 1971 - Age 32 going on 33

Jason Wilcox Born 15 July 1971 – Age 33

Danny Tiatto Born 22 May 1973 - Age 31

Nikos Dabizas Born 3 August 1973 - Age 30 going on 31

Keith Gillespie Born 18 February 1975 - Age 29 going on useless

James Scowcroft Born 15 November 1975 - Age 28 going on 29

Chris Makin Born 8 May 1973 – Age 31

Martin Keown Born 26 July 1966 – Age 38

MA's had a choice to make with the budget he had available, he could have chosen to purchase for a nominal fee some younger players and pay them a small wage, which he did to some extent or, and this was his choice in the main to spend the vast majority of his budget on free transfer but high wage players like Dublin and Keown, Note this was his choice even though according to the Foxes Trust he had stood in front of the shareholders and said his strategy would be to get a more stable balanced squad of players.

I repeat this was his choice; the problem was we already had a fair share of aging players in Elliott, Nalis, Dabizas, Gillespie and Scowcroft (ok Scowie's probably stretching the age argument). This left us with the list of players we have above.

OK he didn't know how it was going to turn out, but it was his risk and his responsibility to make it succeed, it's patently obvious to everyone that it was not succeeding.

MA's was the author of his own downfall and he took the honourable way out by resigning when he could see that his strategy had failed and that he had lost the team, the supporters and although I'm sure they would deny it the board.

We will never know what might have been, he may have been able to turn it around, although by resigning he demonstrated very little belief in himself. We will never know whether what he might have achieved would be better than the achievements that CL might or might not make. It has become one of the great-unsolved mysteries of life.

What we do know is that for the time being the only way forward is with Craig Levein and as sure as night follows day even he will eventually leave us, whether it be in 1, 2, 3 or more years it will happen either because he is successful ala MON or because he is unsuccessful.

MA's had some success with LCFC and I will always appreciate that, nothing's going to change that or the fact that he resigned.

I have no idea what you derive personally by your continued regurgitating of this imponderable but boy it does get boring.

Let's hope for all our sakes you can find a way to move on and embrace the future whatever that may hold.

I apologise in advance if this is anyway patronising perhaps it's my natural response to a boring irresolvable debate.

[Chandler]

You are a decent sort davieg so I'll go easy on you.

You quite rightly say that all this digging up of the recent past is getting very boring and repetitive. So why am I doing it? Because the endless revisionism of the recent past that goes on on this board is even more boring and repetitive (as well as being, by definition, WRONG). And then there's all the 20/20 hindsight, the mindless parroting of cliches, and the absurd theorising in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (hate to say it mate but you do it yourself).

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

I like your suggestion that MA was the author of his own downfall and that he resigned when he saw that his strategy had failed. Now I just happen to know some of the factors behind Micky's decision to sling his hook and failed strategies and lost dressing rooms weren't among them. If it's not too boring and repetitive I'll post a chronology of events on another thread.

Incidentally 'failed strategy' could never have been behind his resignation because the strategy was succeeding, the club was recovering from its slow start (11 points from the last 6 games). The 'strategy' wasn't even responsible for our slow start. That was entirely due to our red cards (4 in 10 - 5-7 points lost - would have given us P6 by game 12).

Now, here's the deal. When you lot stop revising the past and admit that your shit support and barracking of players and management contributed to MA's resignation, destroyed our chances of promotion and seriously damaged the club then I'll stop calling you 'fickle boneheads.'

Who's first?

[Mark]

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

54881[/snapback]

I questioned it in the summer of 2003 after we'd got promoted. He went for the easy option and signed ANYONE who was available at a cheap price or free + have played in the premiership before. This failed. Summer 2004 he brought in some better players in Williams and Connolly, but this didn't alter the age of the squad, because he couldn't resist and went crazy again going for any free transfer the age bracket 31-39 - Keown, Dublin, Makin, Gemmill, Blake, Wilcox, Pressman. Now who of these has been successful, under 3 managers this season? They're all disasters and are not fit to wear the shirt. Add to this the crap we had from the previous season. These players gave the club no future whatsoever. They would not have helped the team get promoted, all they would have done is hinder that, under ANY manager. You cannot buy a team of has beens, throw 11 of them together and expect them to play, win games, and give their all.

Levein is bringing in some younger players now on longer contracts, so hopefully the future won't be as bleak as it would have been if Adams stayed on doing it his way.

[davieG]

You are a decent sort davieg so I'll go easy on you.

You quite rightly say that all this digging up of the recent past is getting very boring and repetitive. But why am I doing it? Because the endless revisionism of the recent past that goes on on this board is even more boring and repetitive (as well as being, by definition, WRONG). And then there's all the 20/20 hindsight, the mindless parroting of cliches, and the absurd theorising in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (hate to say it mate but you do it yourself).

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

I'm not one who normally likes to blow my own trumpet but you did ask, my concerns re aging players were raised before he even signed a single player, well didn't we have enough of them already and when he started bringing in the likes of Dublin it escalated, so I think I'm entitled to say to MA's I told you so, but it gives me no pleasure unlike the pleasure you seem to get by calling EVERYONE 'fickle boneheads'.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

Of course I'm aware of the risks of signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent. They are probably greater than buying aging players, that was not the point I was making. The point was that MA's knew the risks, had a choice and made it, having so many aging players exacerbated that risk.  In my opinion, and i said it at the time he made the wrong choice and he had to live with that choice

I like your suggestion that MA was the author of his own downfall and that he resigned when he saw that his strategy had failed. Now I just happen to know some of the factors behind Micky's decision to sling his hook and failed strategies and lost dressing rooms weren't among them. If it's not too boring and repetitive I'll post a chronology of events on another thread.

Incidentally 'failed strategy' could never have been behind his resignation because the strategy was succeeding, the club was recovering from its slow start (11 points from the last 6 games). The 'strategy' wasn't even responsible for our slow start. That was entirely due to our red cards (4 in 10 - 5-7 points lost - would have given us P6 by game 12).

Well you may well be right about the dressing room excetera, but to blame the red cards entirely for the failed strategy is naive in the extreme, how many times have teams with ten men put on a titanic performance to defy the odds, LCFC have done this on numerous occasions.

Well success or failure is very subjective and I'm not prepared to accept the measure of his success or failure of his strategy solely on the number of points gained, if I may say so that is a short sighted and blinkered measure. An increase in points hadn't change the fact that the team where not performing well in terms of commitment to the cause, individual players were still very much underperforming technically and there was no pattern or cohesion to any of the games I saw. Infact every week was a complete and utter shambles with the so called experienced players making a major contribution to that. 

Now, here's the deal. When you lot stop revising the past and admit that your shit support and barracking of players and management contributed to MA's resignation, destroyed our chances of promotion and seriously damaged the club then I'll stop calling you 'fickle boneheads.'

So here's the deal you stop accusing EVERYONE of revising the past and of barracking players, I've never boooed an LCFC in my player in my life, sorry except Denis Wise after he assaulted Calum and before he left. You accept the fact that MA's chances of getting promotion were and always will be completely unknown as is any effect the supporters may have had on that chance and therefore any damage or otherwise to the club is completely unknown. You accept the fact that we are not all 'fickle boneheads' I then may start to respect your views.

[Chandler]

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

54881[/snapback]

I questioned it in the summer of 2003 after we'd got promoted. He went for the easy option and signed ANYONE who was available at a cheap price or free + have played in the premiership before. This failed. Summer 2004 he brought in some better players in Williams and Connolly, but this didn't alter the age of the squad, because he couldn't resist and went crazy again going for any free transfer the age bracket 31-39 - Keown, Dublin, Makin, Gemmill, Blake, Wilcox, Pressman. Now who of these has been successful, under 3 managers this season? They're all disasters and are not fit to wear the shirt. Add to this the crap we had from the previous season. These players gave the club no future whatsoever. They would not have helped the team get promoted, all they would have done is hinder that, under ANY manager. You cannot buy a team of has beens, throw 11 of them together and expect them to play, win games, and give their all.

Levein is bringing in some younger players now on longer contracts, so hopefully the future won't be as bleak as it would have been if Adams stayed on doing it his way.

54886[/snapback]

Give me the link, the board, the thread etc which conclusively proves you said all this Petrescu...

[Katy]

These loopholes were written into their contracts at the behest of the players' agents because THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

So Adams was trying to bring players who were obviously not committed to the club in the first place. Nice one.

Adams was forced to change his squad for the Championship campaign because the rump of his Premiership stars wanted out.

I would expect some prima donna's to feel that playing in the Championship was "beneath them", but why so many players? Could this not be a result of Adams' management?

Hoof suggests that it was Adams' policy to think 'short term.' This is such unbelievable shite that the response should be obvious.

Of course it was short-term thinking; it seems to me that Adams was not able to convince players that their long term futures were with this club, hence signing journeymen and mercenaries with either one year deals, or get-out clauses.

54665[/snapback]

And of course Lisa, YOU SAID ALL THIS AT THE TIME DIDN'T YOU? Just like all the members of the 'fickle bonehead' army.

Oh yes I remember it well...what a shite job Adams and Bassett were doing signing all these crap mercenaries on short term deals. We were always going to get relegated from the Prem we were. Posting away on all the boards I was, writing into the Merc, ranting on the Radio Leicester phone in...oh God yes!

And then I was up in arms I was about the second lot of crap signings and there I was protesting away to the bookies about us being made favourites an' all for promotion. No, sorry, we weren't made favourites for promotion we were made favourites for relegation. Yes, thats right!

Lisa you are just a goldfish in disguise!

54863[/snapback]

Do you have to be such a pr*ck?

[Mark]

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

54881[/snapback]

I questioned it in the summer of 2003 after we'd got promoted. He went for the easy option and signed ANYONE who was available at a cheap price or free + have played in the premiership before. This failed. Summer 2004 he brought in some better players in Williams and Connolly, but this didn't alter the age of the squad, because he couldn't resist and went crazy again going for any free transfer the age bracket 31-39 - Keown, Dublin, Makin, Gemmill, Blake, Wilcox, Pressman. Now who of these has been successful, under 3 managers this season? They're all disasters and are not fit to wear the shirt. Add to this the crap we had from the previous season. These players gave the club no future whatsoever. They would not have helped the team get promoted, all they would have done is hinder that, under ANY manager. You cannot buy a team of has beens, throw 11 of them together and expect them to play, win games, and give their all.

Levein is bringing in some younger players now on longer contracts, so hopefully the future won't be as bleak as it would have been if Adams stayed on doing it his way.

54886[/snapback]

Give me the link, the board, the thread etc which conclusively proves you said all this Petrescu...

54891[/snapback]

I'm not searching through every post.

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.ph...topic=170&st=20

I knew what i thought and it was that the squad was too old and promotion this season was never going to happen with the crap Micky brought in.

[Chandler]

You are a decent sort davieg so I'll go easy on you.

You quite rightly say that all this digging up of the recent past is getting very boring and repetitive. But why am I doing it? Because the endless revisionism of the recent past that goes on on this board is even more boring and repetitive (as well as being, by definition, WRONG). And then there's all the 20/20 hindsight, the mindless parroting of cliches, and the absurd theorising in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (hate to say it mate but you do it yourself).

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

I'm not one who normally likes to blow my own trumpet but you did ask, my concerns re aging players were raised before he even signed a single player, well didn't we have enough of them already and when he started bringing in the likes of Dublin it escalated, so I think I'm entitled to say to MA's I told you so, but it gives me no pleasure unlike the pleasure you seem to get by calling EVERYONE 'fickle boneheads'.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

Of course I'm aware of the risks of signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent. They are probably greater than buying aging players, that was not the point I was making. The point was that MA's knew the risks, had a choice and made it, having so many aging players exacerbated that risk.  In my opinion, and i said it at the time he made the wrong choice and he had to live with that choice

I like your suggestion that MA was the author of his own downfall and that he resigned when he saw that his strategy had failed. Now I just happen to know some of the factors behind Micky's decision to sling his hook and failed strategies and lost dressing rooms weren't among them. If it's not too boring and repetitive I'll post a chronology of events on another thread.

Incidentally 'failed strategy' could never have been behind his resignation because the strategy was succeeding, the club was recovering from its slow start (11 points from the last 6 games). The 'strategy' wasn't even responsible for our slow start. That was entirely due to our red cards (4 in 10 - 5-7 points lost - would have given us P6 by game 12).

Well you may well be right about the dressing room excetera, but to blame the red cards entirely for the failed strategy is naive in the extreme, how many times have teams with ten men put on a titanic performance to defy the odds, LCFC have done this on numerous occasions.

Well success or failure is very subjective and I'm not prepared to accept the measure of his success or failure of his strategy solely on the number of points gained, if I may say so that is a short sighted and blinkered measure. An increase in points hadn't change the fact that the team where not performing well in terms of commitment to the cause, individual players were still very much underperforming technically and there was no pattern or cohesion to any of the games I saw. Infact every week was a complete and utter shambles with the so called experienced players making a major contribution to that. 

Now, here's the deal. When you lot stop revising the past and admit that your shit support and barracking of players and management contributed to MA's resignation, destroyed our chances of promotion and seriously damaged the club then I'll stop calling you 'fickle boneheads.'

So here's the deal you stop accusing EVERYONE of revising the past and of barracking players, I've never boooed an LCFC in my player in my life, sorry except Denis Wise after he assaulted Calum and before he left. You accept the fact that MA's chances of getting promotion were and always will be completely unknown as is any effect the supporters may have had on that chance and therefore any damage or otherwise to the club is completely unknown. You accept the fact that we are not all 'fickle boneheads' I then may start to respect your views.

54890[/snapback]

OK Davieg let's start every game with just ten men, promotion should be assured then eh? And whilst we're in the handicap stakes how about gifting the opposition a 2-0 lead in the 50th minute every time just to spur us on (a kind of QPR in reverse).

Agreed, one cannot prove whether MA would have achieved prmotion or not. By the same token no one could have said in advance that a change of manager would improve our promotion prospects.

One can talk in terms of probabilities though, then and now. And the evidence is becoming clearer.

You made the wrong call buddy...

[SamuearlJackson]

Some nice points on both sides of the argument here, and good to see you posting again, if not on talkingballs, Chandler.

I still believe MA resigning was the right move, both for himself and the club. I hold nothing against him and we made a good stab at staying up last year, and all things considered we 'should' have stayed up.

Now, the judgement of the quality of a signing can be made at the time of a signing, and retrospectively. Retrospectively, several of them don't look so good for MA this year. Who cares if people who don't have a great knowledge of the game thought they were good at the time of purchase?

As said many times before, the fact that MA resigned is an indication that his heart was no longer in it. He no longer seemed to be motivated by the job and the players did not 'seem' motivated to do their job for him either.

That said, the fans must get behind the players, and the manager right now to help improve the situation. Saying CL is better/worse than MA will not help. Everyone knows where they really stood on these issues at the time anyway. Judge yourself as a supporter as well as judging the players and the manager that you're supposed to support.

Erm, would like to write more but I have to go & catch a plane to home sweet home

SamJ

[davieG]

You are a decent sort davieg so I'll go easy on you.

You quite rightly say that all this digging up of the recent past is getting very boring and repetitive. But why am I doing it? Because the endless revisionism of the recent past that goes on on this board is even more boring and repetitive (as well as being, by definition, WRONG). And then there's all the 20/20 hindsight, the mindless parroting of cliches, and the absurd theorising in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (hate to say it mate but you do it yourself).

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

I'm not one who normally likes to blow my own trumpet but you did ask, my concerns re aging players were raised before he even signed a single player, well didn't we have enough of them already and when he started bringing in the likes of Dublin it escalated, so I think I'm entitled to say to MA's I told you so, but it gives me no pleasure unlike the pleasure you seem to get by calling EVERYONE 'fickle boneheads'.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

Of course I'm aware of the risks of signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent. They are probably greater than buying aging players, that was not the point I was making. The point was that MA's knew the risks, had a choice and made it, having so many aging players exacerbated that risk.  In my opinion, and i said it at the time he made the wrong choice and he had to live with that choice

I like your suggestion that MA was the author of his own downfall and that he resigned when he saw that his strategy had failed. Now I just happen to know some of the factors behind Micky's decision to sling his hook and failed strategies and lost dressing rooms weren't among them. If it's not too boring and repetitive I'll post a chronology of events on another thread.

Incidentally 'failed strategy' could never have been behind his resignation because the strategy was succeeding, the club was recovering from its slow start (11 points from the last 6 games). The 'strategy' wasn't even responsible for our slow start. That was entirely due to our red cards (4 in 10 - 5-7 points lost - would have given us P6 by game 12).

Well you may well be right about the dressing room excetera, but to blame the red cards entirely for the failed strategy is naive in the extreme, how many times have teams with ten men put on a titanic performance to defy the odds, LCFC have done this on numerous occasions.

Well success or failure is very subjective and I'm not prepared to accept the measure of his success or failure of his strategy solely on the number of points gained, if I may say so that is a short sighted and blinkered measure. An increase in points hadn't change the fact that the team where not performing well in terms of commitment to the cause, individual players were still very much underperforming technically and there was no pattern or cohesion to any of the games I saw. Infact every week was a complete and utter shambles with the so called experienced players making a major contribution to that. 

Now, here's the deal. When you lot stop revising the past and admit that your shit support and barracking of players and management contributed to MA's resignation, destroyed our chances of promotion and seriously damaged the club then I'll stop calling you 'fickle boneheads.'

So here's the deal you stop accusing EVERYONE of revising the past and of barracking players, I've never boooed an LCFC in my player in my life, sorry except Denis Wise after he assaulted Calum and before he left. You accept the fact that MA's chances of getting promotion were and always will be completely unknown as is any effect the supporters may have had on that chance and therefore any damage or otherwise to the club is completely unknown. You accept the fact that we are not all 'fickle boneheads' I then may start to respect your views.

54890[/snapback]

OK Davieg let's start every game with just ten men, promotion should be assured then eh? And whilst we're in the handicap stakes how about gifting the opposition a 2-0 lead in the 50th minute every time just to spur us on (a kind of QPR in reverse).

Agreed, one cannot prove whether MA would have achieved prmotion or not. By the same token no one could have said in advance that a change of manager would improve our promotion prospects.

One can talk in terms of probabilities though, then and now. And the evidence is becoming clearer.

You made the wrong call buddy...

54897[/snapback]

Your beginning to make less sense everytime you come post.

OK Davieg let's start every game with just ten men, promotion should be assured then eh? And whilst we're in the handicap stakes how about gifting the opposition a 2-0 lead in the 50th minute every time just to spur us on (a kind of QPR in reverse).

Did I say that starting with ten men was an advantage, No I said it couldn't be used as the sole reason for failure.

Agreed, one cannot prove whether MA would have achieved prmotion or not. By the same token no one could have said in advance that a change of manager would improve our promotion prospects.

Did I say that changing the manager would improve our promotion prospects, No I said that MA's Adams strategy was failing and he'd lost the belief of the fans, which had been his mainstay for his term of managment e.g Keep the Faith, they clearly wern't able to do that based on what they were seeing. He resigned a new manager was inevitable, no one said that would gurantee an improvement, just that a change could be the best option in those particular circumstances.

One can talk in terms of probabilities though, then and now. And the evidence is becoming clearer.

Football is all about probabilities, that's the only way anyone can talk about, unfortunately you seem to take the view that there is no doubt at all that we would have been better off under MA's.

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, but there is still very little evidence I can see to prove that the decision was right or wrong, some things have improved some haven't, it's far to early to say whether CL is or will be successful and as I've said before , as for MA's we'll never know.

I think I've exhausted this subject, so this will be my last words on it, you of course have the perogitive to continue but you will have to ellicit a response from someone else.

[SilverFox]

Love Chandler or hate him...you have to admit he's quality entertainment!

[davieG]

Love Chandler or hate him...you have to admit he's quality entertainment!

54944[/snapback]

I think he's fine I just wish he'd could broaden his horizons and talk about something else, perhaps football

[SilverFox]

Love Chandler or hate him...you have to admit he's quality entertainment!

54944[/snapback]

I think he's fine I just wish he'd could broaden his horizons and talk about something else, perhaps football

54949[/snapback]

Why?!?!?!?

The past is much better

[Chandler]

Of course it's all about probabilities davieg-who-will-not-post-again-on-this-matter - what the **** do you think I've been banging on about for the last 100 years?

THE OUTSET PROBABILITY AND CURRENT PROBABILITY POINT TO ONE THING - we had a better chance WITH Adams. But the FB's, ignorant twats that they were and remain, led the gullible into believing we were better off without him.

The fact that they are now blaming what was probably the best squad in the Championship (and Micky's role in assembling it) is their way of covering for themselves and admitting that they made the wrong call.

Now once some of you show signs of getting into your sackcloth and ashes I will then tell you what will happen next...

[Mark]

The fact that they are now blaming what was probably the best squad in the Championship (and Micky's role in assembling it) is their way of covering for themselves and admitting that they made the wrong call.

54966[/snapback]

It may have been the best squad 5 years ago, but not in 2005!!

[Chandler]

Now PRECISELY when did you question the age and balance of the squad? Was it after the Millwall game or our first and second home defeats? I bet it wasn't before the season had kicked off.

And whilst on the issue of young players you are aware of the massive risks involved in signing or bringing on UNPROVEN or emerging talent aren't you? This is a high risk game. High risk to the player, the team and of course to the management. More on this later.

54881[/snapback]

I questioned it in the summer of 2003 after we'd got promoted. He went for the easy option and signed ANYONE who was available at a cheap price or free + have played in the premiership before. This failed. Summer 2004 he brought in some better players in Williams and Connolly, but this didn't alter the age of the squad, because he couldn't resist and went crazy again going for any free transfer the age bracket 31-39 - Keown, Dublin, Makin, Gemmill, Blake, Wilcox, Pressman. Now who of these has been successful, under 3 managers this season? They're all disasters and are not fit to wear the shirt. Add to this the crap we had from the previous season. These players gave the club no future whatsoever. They would not have helped the team get promoted, all they would have done is hinder that, under ANY manager. You cannot buy a team of has beens, throw 11 of them together and expect them to play, win games, and give their all.

Levein is bringing in some younger players now on longer contracts, so hopefully the future won't be as bleak as it would have been if Adams stayed on doing it his way.

54886[/snapback]

Give me the link, the board, the thread etc which conclusively proves you said all this Petrescu...

54891[/snapback]

I'm not searching through every post.

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.ph...topic=170&st=20

I knew what i thought and it was that the squad was too old and promotion this season was never going to happen with the crap Micky brought in.

54896[/snapback]

White offers black a draw. You did complain about Keown's age (I take it that you are referring to him) and compared him to other sets of aged legs. But it stops there I notice. Not much evidence of doom and despair, gloom and despondency on the thread generally. No outright hositility to MA. Promotion seems to be an implicit assumption.

As rosy a footie board as one could expect following the drop...

[Hullfox]

Chandler

I said a while ago that your posts were being done a disservice by your use of insults and your yellow card may have done you some good.

It is nice to see someone else challenging the mainstream view held on the board. I and two others were dubbed the brown nosers for our support for Mickey though at the end we all agreed that he had to go, his position had become untenable because of a number of reasons which his own mistakes contributed to.

The attraction of this type of medium is such that people can give their views on our beloved club. Unfortunately there are people who as far as I can tell have never had anything positive to say about the club in all the time I've been on here.

The apparently departed Blue Mistress claimed he'd been calling for Mickey's head for two years ffs, Well eventually he's gonna be right isn't he? I blame championship manager for much of the posting on here myself, too many people think they know the game inside out.

There are a core of excellent posters whose views I oppose but respect because they are thought through and presented well (without abuse) but like any village we have our share of idiots. You can establish yourself well and truly in the former group.

Not trying to be condescending there btw.

Even when people disagree with you, you wear em down, I like that!

[Katy]

Chandler

I said a while ago that your posts were being done a disservice by your use of insults and your yellow card may have done you some good.

It is nice to see someone else challenging the mainstream view held on the board. I and two others were dubbed the brown nosers for our support for Mickey though at the end we all agreed that he had to go, his position had become untenable because of a number of reasons which his own mistakes contributed to.

The attraction of this type of medium is such that people can give their views on our beloved club. Unfortunately there are people who as far as I can tell have never had anything positive to say about the club in all the time I've been on here.

The apparently departed Blue Mistress claimed he'd been calling for Mickey's head for two years ffs, Well eventually he's gonna be right isn't he? I blame championship manager for much of the posting on here myself, too many people think they know the game inside out.

There are a core of excellent posters whose views I oppose but respect because they are thought through and presented well (without abuse) but like any village we have our share of idiots. You can establish yourself well and truly in the former group.

Not trying to be condescending there btw.

Even when people disagree with you, you wear em down, I like that!

55012[/snapback]

Chandler - you have made your point about Micky and everyone knows your feelings about him - fair enough, we all have differing ideas and opinions about things and not everyone agrees with you BUT please can you start/join in a debate about something else now, this Mickyness is getting a tad boring now.

[Hullfox]

Chandler - you have made your point about Micky and everyone knows your feelings about him - fair enough, we all have differing ideas and opinions about  things and not everyone agrees with you BUT please can you start/join in a debate about something else now, this Mickyness is getting a tad boring now.

55025[/snapback]

Not particularly fair that Katy.

It is a thread about Mickey /Craig and not one that was started by Chandler.

My guess is that if we were climbing the table and playing great football, the anti mickey brigade would be very vocal with their "told you so" rhetoric.