ScouseFox Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 mel was a risk that hasn't quite worked out, but hasn't exactly been catastrophic. i assume they were hoping for a similar effect to southampton, who were massive criticised when they sacked adkins despite not being in the relegation zone, and now 18 months later will have their 3 best players representing england (would've been 4 if rodriguez wasn't injured) in the world cup after finishing 8th. didn't work out so they're moving on. don't get the hate.
Stadt Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Sherwood might have the best points per game or whatever but it's quite plain to see he's not a good football manager, would you trust him to spend £30 million?
Soar Fox Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Sherwood might have the best points per game or whatever but it's quite plain to see he's not a good football manager, would you trust him to spend £30 million? Couldn't do any worse than AVB did spending £100 million.
Stadt Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Couldn't do any worse than AVB did spending £100 million.Yeah admittedly he bought a lot of dross but Sherwood seems the sort to sign a 17 year old for £10 million based on a YouTube video.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Sherwood to give Harry Kane a 300k a week contract.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 mel was a risk that hasn't quite worked out, but hasn't exactly been catastrophic. i assume they were hoping for a similar effect to southampton, who were massive criticised when they sacked adkins despite not being in the relegation zone, and now 18 months later will have their 3 best players representing england (would've been 4 if rodriguez wasn't injured) in the world cup after finishing 8th. didn't work out so they're moving on. don't get the hate. Hasnt been catastrophic? 3 wins in 17 games.. what do you class as succesful!?
Unabomber Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Hasnt been catastrophic? 3 wins in 17 games.. what do you class as succesful!? It wasn't catastrophic as they stayed up, that in no way means that he has done a good job there and deserved to stay.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 I think they should have given him a full season, I mean who else literally is there?
ScouseFox Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Hasnt been catastrophic? 3 wins in 17 games.. what do you class as succesful!? well he took over a team 4 points above the relegation zone and finished 3 points above the relegation zone. so he lost one point compared to his relegation rivals over half a season. i never said he was successful, i just said it wasn't catastrophic. the way some papers and people are talking you'd have thought he'd have taken over a champions league team and got them relegated. he took over a team who were destined to fight relegation and he fought relegation but didn't go down. now he's gone. nothing gained, nothing lost, go again in the summer.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 well he took over a team 4 points above the relegation zone and finished 3 points above the relegation zone. so he lost one point compared to his relegation rivals over half a season. i never said he was successful, i just said it wasn't catastrophic. the way some papers and people are talking you'd have thought he'd have taken over a champions league team and got them relegated. he took over a team who were destined to fight relegation and he fought relegation but didn't go down. now he's gone. nothing gained, nothing lost, go again in the summer. Yep.. fair enough..
Fox92 Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Sherwood to give Harry Kane a 300k a week contract. Taking into consideration your posts in this thread, and the Sherwood thread, have you got something personal against Sherwood or something?
Finnegan Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 Taking into consideration your posts in this thread, and the Sherwood thread, have you got something personal against Sherwood or something? And have you got some reason for a personal bias towards him? He's an absolutely dreadful manager who's come across as a petulant child in recent weeks. He's a caretaker manager with delusions of grandeur.
NewburyFox Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 And have you got some reason for a personal bias towards him? He's an absolutely dreadful manager who's come across as a petulant child in recent weeks. He's a caretaker manager with delusions of grandeur. Is there any proof of this? In his one managerial job, he's got the best win percentage of any Spurs manager in history.
Fox92 Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 And have you got some reason for a personal bias towards him? He's an absolutely dreadful manager who's come across as a petulant child in recent weeks. He's a caretaker manager with delusions of grandeur. No bias towards him but I don't think all this is justified really. Don't get all the hate. As for dreadful manager, well he guided Spurs to a good final position while achieving the highest win percentage of any Spurs manager. He'll get another job after what he's proved at Spurs.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 May 2014 Posted 13 May 2014 And have you got some reason for a personal bias towards him? He's an absolutely dreadful manager who's come across as a petulant child in recent weeks. He's a caretaker manager with delusions of grandeur. meh...
indierich06 Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 I think all this 'highest win percentage' stuff is a complete red herring TBH - he took over a fairly successful team for about 20 games. Fair play to him for getting a good percentage of wins, but this doesn't make him an amazing manager, or the best manager Spurs have ever had. A few people seem to be using his win percentage as a reason for him to be given a chance long term. If a caretaker manager wins three games in charge, he'll have a 100% win rate - does that mean he should be given the job full time? 20-odd games is just too short a spell to make these statistics meaningful. He could turn out to be a quality manager, but the Spurs job was too big for him IMO. I think he'd do well to cut his teeth at a Championship or League One side, I'm sure there'd be a few interested parties. It's like Pearson says - if you're English and you want to manage in the Premier League, you've got to take a side up there.
Stadt Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 Liverpool and Man City away, I know a lot of clubs struggled at these places but Tottenham shouldn't be getting destroyed by those scores. Sherwood is tactically inept. He relied on Adebayor too much, they played long ball primarily and it sort of worked but it's plain to see Sherwood isn't a good manager at premier league level.
CosbehFox Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 Sherwood might have the best points per game or whatever but it's quite plain to see he's not a good football manager, would you trust him to spend £30 million? That's Spurs problem. Manager doesn't spend a penny. Transfers conducted above his head. Hence AVB had seven signings this summer but he only wanted three of them.
NewburyFox Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 Liverpool and Man City away, I know a lot of clubs struggled at these places but Tottenham shouldn't be getting destroyed by those scores. Sherwood is tactically inept. He relied on Adebayor too much, they played long ball primarily and it sort of worked but it's plain to see Sherwood isn't a good manager at premier league level. Arsenal lost heavily at Chelsea, Liverpool as Man City, does that make Wenger a bad manager? I don't know how anyone can say that he's not a good manager when all they have to go off is a very respectable 20 game period in charge of Spurs. I'm not suggesting he's a good manager, it's too soon to tell, but equally he can't be described as a bad manager either.
Far Post Gerry Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 He's an absolutely dreadful manager who's come across as a petulant child in recent weeks. He's a caretaker manager with delusions of grandeur. Spot on, he looked totally out of his depth. Picked up a few easy points against teams they should be beating all day long. Came up short against anyone decent. That said, working under Levy must be a sodding nightmare.
XLM Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 I actually want Derby to go up. 3 reasons; 1) We'll have a local(ish) derby next season. 2) QPR's transfer tactics and general arrogance doesn't deserve the glory of promotion. They are a horrible side, that include some horrible characters. Meanwhile Derby aren't too dissimilar than ourselves in that they work hard and get the best out of their players. 3) If Derby go up, they are a lot more likely to balls up than QPR - notably on the presumption that Harry knows the premiership and QPR have more money to spend.
Nalis Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 I actually want Derby to go up. 3 reasons; 1) We'll have a local(ish) derby next season. 2) QPR's transfer tactics and general arrogance doesn't deserve the glory of promotion. They are a horrible side, that include some horrible characters. Meanwhile Derby aren't too dissimilar than ourselves in that they work hard and get the best out of their players. 3) If Derby go up, they are a lot more likely to balls up than QPR - notably on the presumption that Harry knows the premiership and QPR have more money to spend. Pretty much this...
-blue- Posted 14 May 2014 Posted 14 May 2014 If the roles were reversed do you think Derby fans would want us to be promoted? No, me neither
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.