seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 On and on, trying to leave this alone, but if Nige buys a new team in the summer and then gets fired after 13 games, will he have had a year with his new team or 13 games?
Corky Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Last year he had a tough job getting us to the play-offs. This year was the year he should've really been judged.
seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Last year he had a tough job getting us to the play-offs. This year was the year he should've really been judged. Year
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 When Sven left we were in 7th position and two points off the play offs, Now look where we are with the same players under Pearson. Bloody awful!
Babylon Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Time my arse- 13 games with a new team is not time Yes he was given time because he was here over a year. You cannot just look at the 13 games, the terrible performances stretch well into last season. He actually assembled two different teams and managed to create two very average ones at a cost that must now have reached £20m with loan fees etc. The team looked utterly clueless when they were on the field, there seemed to be absolutely no plan at all. I'm sure you'll say they still do under Pearson, but this is Svens team! You also have to ask, who decided to sign a team of loan players knowing very well come the summer he'd need to sign up a whole new team? Sven. Who was it who managed to create a team over the summer that contained 6 central midfielders and only one winger? Sven. Who signed players of suspect personality? Sven. He didn't help himself did he. It may have been a few games too soon, I said at the time I would have given him two or three more. But if we had shown any progress the last 6 months then he would have bought himself more time, but the facts are we didn't. Other than a short spell last season, we never looked capable of breaking into the top 6.
Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He'd have had 13 games. Can you answer my question a few posts up? What was Sven's strategy?
seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Anyway, you should all get over it and hope the Chairboy doesn't screw up with Nige
Happy Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 When Sven left we were in 7th position and two points off the play offs, Now look where we are with the same players under Pearson. Bloody awful! Keep ringing that argument he f**ked up we meant to be top 2, the players he signed did not address wholey the balance in the squad didn't sign wingers and certainly didn't get rid of the deadwood lingering on our books aka Wellens, Dyer, Gallagher, Howard etc.
Schlupp Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Yes he was given time because he was here over a year. You cannot just look at the 13 games, the terrible performances stretch well into last season. He actually assembled two different teams and managed to create two very average ones at a cost that must now have reached £20m with loan fees etc. The team looked utterly clueless when they were on the field, there seemed to be absolutely no plan at all. I'm sure you'll say they still do under Pearson, but this is Svens team! You also have to ask, who decided to sign a team of loan players knowing very well come the summer he'd need to sign up a whole new team? Sven. Who was it who managed to create a team over the summer that contained 6 central midfielders and only one winger? Sven. Who signed players of suspect personality? Sven. He didn't help himself did he. It may have been a few games too soon, I said at the time I would have given him two or three more. But if we had shown any progress the last 6 months then he would have bought himself more time, but the facts are we didn't. Other than a short spell last season, we never looked capable of breaking into the top 6. He didn't really have a choice,We were rock bottom of the championship when he came in.It was either get relegated or bring some loans in.
Babylon Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 When Sven left we were in 7th position and two points off the play offs, Now look where we are with the same players under Pearson. Yeah we are four points away. Big wow.
Babylon Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He didn't really have a choice,We were rock bottom of the championship when he came in.It was either get relegated or bring some loans in. We weren't rock bottom when the January transfer window opened.
seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 We weren't rock bottom when the January transfer window opened. ANYWAY, HE'S GONE NOW!!!!!
Babylon Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 On and on, trying to leave this alone, but if Nige buys a new team in the summer and then gets fired after 13 games, will he have had a year with his new team or 13 games? But it's about more than points on the board, it's also about whether the board can see any progress. If under Sven we were showing progress he would have received more time, we were showing no signs at all though. In fact as the games went on we were getting worse and worse slowly.
Langston Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He seemed to sign players merely for the sake of it - alot haven't been up to par, either that, or have stinking attitudes. Recruitment policy had little thought and heading into the season it was glaringly apparent that our side was unbalanced. There was alot to thank Sven for, at times last season we looked an incredible side, and we always shagged Derby. However, I trust Pearson to spend the Thai's cash alot more responsibly than I'd have trusted him.
cc_star Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 35 pts from his last possible 81 was the principle reason he was dismissed as that was the figure floated from the club to Stringer in the aftermath of the sacking [tweet https://twitter.com/StringerSport/status/129084037661868032] 9 wins from last 29 games Don't know where I got the 7 from He got the summer, he got bought his own squad, failed big time and were it not for an endless pool of money would have crippled us for years worse than Taylor ever did
Schlupp Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 We weren't rock bottom when the January transfer window opened. No because of the loan signings.
Guest Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 no - Sven wasn't bad - in fact he was and is a very good manager. Our fans are pretty crap though
Babylon Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 No because of the loan signings. Yes, and how many of them left in January. And how many more loans did we then proceed to sign in January. The point is those loans could have been replaced by a couple of permanent signings to make the summer transition a bit easier.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 On and on, trying to leave this alone, but if Nige buys a new team in the summer and then gets fired after 13 games, will he have had a year with his new team or 13 games? He'll have had a year in charge to build his team, end of story. The universe doesn't implode and create itself again at the end of every season you know.
seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 But it's about more than points on the board, it's also about whether the board can see any progress. If under Sven we were showing progress he would have received more time, we were showing no signs at all though. In fact as the games went on we were getting worse and worse slowly. Wrong
seenitall Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He'll have had a year in charge to build his team, end of story. The universe doesn't implode and create itself again at the end of every season you know. Wrong as well - it does if you have to buy a whole new team because the old one is shit
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 When Sven left we were in 7th position and two points off the play offs, Now look where we are with the same players under Pearson. Bloody awful! And if we had kept Sven we'd probably still not be in the play-offs.
Kitchandro Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 He didn't really have a choice,We were rock bottom of the championship when he came in.It was either get relegated or bring some loans in. Not true, even when Sousa left our squad was good enough to stay up. Bringing in loans is fine but when you bring in that many and half aren't good enough, you've had a mare. Some solid permanents wouldn't have gone a miss.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.