STUHILL Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Well it is actually. He did a damn good job there no denying.12 years, exactly the length of time Fergie had been in management before taking the United job and failing to get close to winning anything 3 or 4 years. Got u there Thrac! Manwell has the KNOWLEDGE!
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Got u there Thrac! Manwell has the KNOWLEDGE! Manwell won't say it: From Wikipaedia: The 1970s saw the beginnings of an upturn in fortunes at Aberdeen. Alex Ferguson, took over in 1978. Under Ferguson's guidance, the club won three league championships, four Scottish Cups, the European Cup Winner's Cup, the European Super Cup and a League Cup – all in the space of seven years. And you mention Ferguson in the same breath as Holloway? That was just an edited insert.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Manwell won't say it:From Wikipaedia: The 1970s saw the beginnings of an upturn in fortunes at Aberdeen. Alex Ferguson, took over in 1978. Under Ferguson's guidance, the club won three league championships, four Scottish Cups, the European Cup Winner's Cup, the European Super Cup and a League Cup – all in the space of seven years. And you mention Ferguson in the same breath as Holloway? That was just an edited insert. All things are relative Thracian, we shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Manchester United.
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 All things are relative Thracian, we shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Manchester United. I remember watching us beat Manchester United on occasions. Which only makes today's situation harder to stomach.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 I remember watching us beat Manchester United on occasions. Which only makes today's situation harder to stomach. Ok. In the current state our club is in (which is not Holloways fault)n we shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Manchester United
STUHILL Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 At least Ferguson got a summer in charge True! Wasn't Ferguson actually one game away from being sacked at MAN U??
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 True! Wasn't Ferguson actually one game away from being sacked at MAN U?? FA Cup game against Forest which had he lost, many said he would of been sacked. But that was after three trophyless seasons and two 11th place finishes, and Dion Dublin.
OriginalRobboFOX Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 FA Cup game against Forest which had he lost, many said he would of been sacked.But that was after three trophyless seasons and two 11th place finishes, and Dion Dublin. Wasn't it Mark Robins who saved him??
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Ok. In the current state our club is in (which is not Holloways fault)n we shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Manchester United Or Blackpool! Eighteen x 3 is 54. That's the number of point's Holloway's contested on our behalf. He's won 17 of those points and lost 37. We've scored 15 goals in those 18 games including one in the last three. Improving even marginally. We didn't have a shot on target against Watford and it wasn't much better against Plymouth or Blackpool or Norwich or even the Palace game we won. If I'd been manager would you honestly have been posting on here that I wasn't responsible? I don't think so.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Wasn't it Mark Robins who saved him?? Think so.
Zingari Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Wasn't it Mark Robins who saved him?? indeed The loss of these boozy players had a detrimental effect on the pitch and in January 1990, with United languishing at the wrong end of the table after losing 5-1 to arch-rivals Manchester City, Fergie's job was on the line as United went into a Third Round FA Cup tie against Nottingham Forest. If United lost it would mean the end for Ferguson, although chairman Martin Edwards has always denied it, but with things looking bleak for the Scot and time ticking away Mark Robins came off the substitute's bench to give United a narrow 1-0 win and save Fergie's skin.
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 True! Wasn't Ferguson actually one game away from being sacked at MAN U?? Now that might be a relevent parallel!
OriginalRobboFOX Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 indeed The loss of these boozy players had a detrimental effect on the pitch and in January 1990, with United languishing at the wrong end of the table after losing 5-1 to arch-rivals Manchester City, Fergie's job was on the line as United went into a Third Round FA Cup tie against Nottingham Forest. If United lost it would mean the end for Ferguson, although chairman Martin Edwards has always denied it, but with things looking bleak for the Scot and time ticking away Mark Robins came off the substitute's bench to give United a narrow 1-0 win and save Fergie's skin. Ahhh.... Mark Robins. I remember his goal against Ipswich away in the Coca Cola....
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 indeed The loss of these boozy players had a detrimental effect on the pitch and in January 1990, with United languishing at the wrong end of the table after losing 5-1 to arch-rivals Manchester City, Fergie's job was on the line as United went into a Third Round FA Cup tie against Nottingham Forest. If United lost it would mean the end for Ferguson, although chairman Martin Edwards has always denied it, but with things looking bleak for the Scot and time ticking away Mark Robins came off the substitute's bench to give United a narrow 1-0 win and save Fergie's skin. I look forward to the same outcome with Holloway. No just his survival but the Championship title, Premiership status, Premiership title, FA Cup triumphs, Champions League....oh what a life.
Flynny Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Or Blackpool! Eighteen x 3 is 54. That's the number of point's Holloway's contested on our behalf. He's won 17 of those points and lost 37. We've scored 15 goals in those 18 games including one in the last three. Improving even marginally. We didn't have a shot on target against Watford and it wasn't much better against Plymouth or Blackpool or Norwich or even the Palace game we won. If I'd been manager would you honestly have been posting on here that I wasn't responsible? Couple of things you consistantly seem to forget: 1. Any job where you're responsible for getting the most out of other people is nowhere near an exact science, certainly not any job in sports. 2. Any job that everyone's failed in for a sustained period requires a hell of a lot more thought and brings its own problems. 3. We have to play against other teams who want to win just as much as us. More, I'd imagine, looking at our players on pitch. Our problem's mostly attitude, THATS the cancer that's eating us. In games we want to win, Coventry, Chelsea, we show we've got bags of ability all over the pitch, but week-on-week the players don't want to run, don't want to help each other out, don't make it easy for their teammates by moving around. The problems are mental. The one man who seemed enough of a disiplinarian to get it out of them got punted after a couple of games because the kind of attitude we really need from a manager isn't the kind thats going to rub along with our chairman. Holloway's the polar opposite, but seems the sort to get the same results with a bit of encouraging and cojoling rather than shouting. He's got performances out of mediocre players everywhere he's been, and if he can get performances from the good players we've got we'll climb the league. Our problems are not tactical, or that much to do with the players we're putting out, it's the whole attitude of the club that stinks, and I for one back Holloway to be the exact sort of person who can change that.
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Couple of things you consistantly seem to forget:1. Any job where you're responsible for getting the most out of other people is nowhere near an exact science, certainly not any job in sports. 2. Any job that everyone's failed in for a sustained period requires a hell of a lot more thought and brings its own problems. 3. We have to play against other teams who want to win just as much as us. More, I'd imagine, looking at our players on pitch. Our problem's mostly attitude, THATS the cancer that's eating us. In games we want to win, Coventry, Chelsea, we show we've got bags of ability all over the pitch, but week-on-week the players don't want to run, don't want to help each other out, don't make it easy for their teammates by moving around. The problems are mental. The one man who seemed enough of a disiplinarian to get it out of them got punted after a couple of games because the kind of attitude we really need from a manager isn't the kind thats going to rub along with our chairman. Holloway's the polar opposite, but seems the sort to get the same results with a bit of encouraging and cojoling rather than shouting. He's got performances out of mediocre players everywhere he's been, and if he can get performances from the good players we've got we'll climb the league. Our problems are not tactical, or that much to do with the players we're putting out, it's the whole attitude of the club that stinks, and I for one back Holloway to be the exact sort of person who can change that. Don't kow about the "things I forget" but otherwise that's a thought provoking post and I'll be interested to see how it stands up over time. You see, the sort of players who you suggest "don't want to run" were running and moving and helping one another like no tomorrow last night for the reserves. Which does suggest there's a mental barrier. And if it's fear isn't Holloway the man who should be dealing with that fear? Instead of dumping players and basically telling the press they're shit.
Flynny Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Don't kow about the "things I forget" but otherwise that's a thought provoking post and I'll be interested to see how it stands up over time. You see, the sort of players who you suggest "don't want to run" were running and moving and helping one another like no tomorrow last night for the reserves. Which does suggest there's a mental barrier. And if it's fear isn't Holloway the man who should be dealing with that fear? Instead of dumping players and basically telling the press they're shit. He's starting to panic. God knows why. To be honest I think Billy Davies would do a lot for the squad if we did resort to getting rid, but I think it'd be Allen all over again and he'd be gone before next season, next christmas at the absolute latest. That, and I honestly think Holloway will start to pick up results. I also think that with a full-pre-season he'll excise the sections of the dressing room that are dragging the team down and pick up decent replacements. Given what I think our problems are, I don't think there's a better manager out there for us. If you don't agree, fair enough, but if you do, even to an extent - "keep the faith". (Yeah I hate that phrase too). As an afterthought - I know there's no room for sympathy these days in football, but the thought of Holloway having to drag his three deaf children off to some other city for the 2nd time in a year doesn't sit easy either.
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 I have no idea. For all his faults Holloway is a half decent championship manager, baring the wingers our team is a half decent championship team. So why are we in this position?Thracian will say it's easy, attack and play the kids. Well successive managers have tried that at some point and realised when we attack in numbers we will concede a couple of goals, while just having even more ineffective players higher up the pitch not scoring. Lets look at the problems... 1) Distribution from the back - N'Gotty is the only centre back we have who is mildly capable of stringing a pass to a midfielder. Do we bring him in in place of what is defensively solid centre back partnership? 2) Clemence - He has a better partner now, so why does he constantly look as though he brings nothing to the game? Do we bring Wesolowski in for him? 3) Wingers - The hungarians were only supposed to be back up, and they look just that. Hume has been off colour there and Clapham I doubt will trouble anyone. I'm not sure what we can do here... do we change formation and go 4-3-3? 4) Strikers - Hayles tries hard but is ineffective, DJ has pace and should definitely start. Hume loses the ball too much but can score the odd goal, Fryatt largely does nothing and Howard is good when used right... but without crosses he is wasted. We don't have wingers so play without them. I'd go 4-3-3 (Chelsea style) with Wes, Oakley and Clemence in the middle still as we don't have anyone else. Howard up top and DJ and Hume playing off him. Plus maybe swap McAuley for N'Gotty. That's a pretty good post but don't put words in my mouth. We have never once attacked through the team in the way I'd envisage. Not in four years. We were close once or twice. Against Sheffield United at home under Levein, against Coventry the other week, against Macclesfield in a Cup match once, against Fulham at times and at odd other times. But generally we've never got to first base. Nor would I start with a single youngster if the alternatives were better. Or vice-versa. But, if no youngster would start on merit I would blood them consistently from the bench. a) N'Gotty is too old to be sound in the job. And that's a pity cos he's been a quality player. b) Weso's the better midfielder but probably won't solve our creativity problems unless he, like others, sheds his mental shackles. c) 4-3-3 is worth considering but for people like Campbell to benefit we need width to give him spaces to get through in the centre. It's not an easy problem to solve with our personnel. With Gradel or Beswick it would have been much easier, especially as Gradel can play either side. d) I'd play Campbell for his speed and elusiveness but I've no idea who with. You could make a case for any of em but none will do any good without proper support and service.
Daggers Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 d) I'd play Campbell for his ... elusiveness Yup - that's a word I'd use to describe his contribution so far, too
Thracian Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 He's starting to panic. God knows why. To be honest I think Billy Davies would do a lot for the squad if we did resort to getting rid, but I think it'd be Allen all over again and he'd be gone before next season, next christmas at the absolute latest. That, and I honestly think Holloway will start to pick up results. I also think that with a full-pre-season he'll excise the sections of the dressing room that are dragging the team down and pick up decent replacements. Given what I think our problems are, I don't think there's a better manager out there for us. If you don't agree, fair enough, but if you do, even to an extent - "keep the faith". (Yeah I hate that phrase too). As an afterthought - I know there's no room for sympathy these days in football, but the thought of Holloway having to drag his three deaf children off to some other city for the 2nd time in a year doesn't sit easy either. You're always worth reading and, believe it or not, the point in your last paragraph had struck me. On a human basis I've every sympathy for the guy and think he's a real trier too. I just wish Holloway and I shared the same football philosophy because it's my football club that's looking embarrassing every week and I don't much like it. Especially when there's no reasonable excuse for it. As for Billy Davies I don't want him here at all.
Daggers Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 As an afterthought - I know there's no room for sympathy these days in football, but the thought of Holloway having to drag his three deaf children off to some other city for the 2nd time in a year doesn't sit easy either. Why? Is there a reason why being deaf makes it any worse than being a child of any other manager? More emotive maybe, but hardly a reason to keep a manager.
Flynny Posted 14 February 2008 Posted 14 February 2008 Why?Is there a reason why being deaf makes it any worse than being a child of any other manager? More emotive maybe, but hardly a reason to keep a manager. Yeah. Them being physically handicapped means they're also socially handicaped. I'm not sure that all deaf people would like me saying that, but I doubt being completely without such a vital sense makes it any easier to make friends and fit in. Holloway already spoke about how guilty he felt having to make them move from Plymouth, too And no, it's not a reason to keep him, but an afterthought, like I said.
accessory Posted 15 February 2008 Posted 15 February 2008 As an afterthought - I know there's no room for sympathy these days in football, but the thought of Holloway having to drag his three deaf children off to some other city for the 2nd time in a year doesn't sit easy either. No it doesn't. But at least the compensation from Mandaric will ensure they're well looked after.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.