|
Post by greyman on Nov 28, 2017 9:30:39 GMT
The only fair way momo, at least in my opinion, is to judge any manager's record over a full season and in that sense Hughes has in the main done a first class job. I'm not sure that the fans who want him out really fear relegaton or they are just annoyed that some of the so called smaller clubs are above us in the table at present. There's still 25 games to play and I think the league table will undergo many changes with Stoke moving to their normal mid table postion. The past 38 games have yielded 41 points Geoff and last season, it got worse not better in terms of points per game accrued after the first 13. If that happens again after another poor start we are toast and that's that. For once, momo is right. Those numbers from Geoff only tell half the story. The team is structurally unsound and has been for two years. There's only so long that can continue and we're at that point now. I've been giving Hughes chance after chance but it's not changing. He earned the patience he's been shown, but I'm out of it now.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 27, 2017 16:57:00 GMT
I think most people would agree with that, but there's an awful lot of history being rewritten about things. Maybe history is being rewritten but it’s worth remembering that as late as April 15th last season, if we’d have lost to Hull they’d have been just 3 points behind us with just 5 games to go. We we’re closer to the mire at a pretty late stage last season than a lot of people care to remember and if anything its got fucking worse. If you believe what Pulis delivered was a sacking offence then you can’t possibly think Hughes should keep his job. I just said. I think he needs to go. He's had as much patience as he deserved and it's clear the problems are not going away.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 27, 2017 13:44:53 GMT
Hughes has taken his crown, this board was divided under the Pulis reign but the amount of talk and concern for relegation was no where near what we are experiencing now, things may have been as dull as they are now but they were never as dangerous and it did not go on for this long I just hope that the club can turn this around somehow before the club find themselves in that bottom three, from what I have seen so far I am not sure how they will do it mind because there is no fight, resilience, steel or determination from anywhere within the club.......more Pizza anyone. Looking on the bright side, if we do go down at least I will get a row of seats to myself again, I will find it easier to pick and choose at the last minute if I want to go an away game plus the bus back from the ground will be a lot less hectic so I can stay until the 90th minute.......... so not everything is all doom and gloom about the place. There were a lot of people worried about relegation in 12/13 when we played wank for that second half of the season Yeah, well you can prove anything with facts.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 27, 2017 13:44:24 GMT
From what I can see, Hughes is currently a very unifying character. Everyone wants him fucked off! I think most people would agree with that, but there's an awful lot of history being rewritten about things.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 24, 2017 20:21:18 GMT
Good to see Arnautovic out there having recovered from his sore thumb.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 24, 2017 11:07:35 GMT
Why are we so obsessed about this guy. Bang average player, we've had better players before, we have better players now and we will have better players in the future. Bang average? Seems harsh to me. I saw a strong, talented player with a fantastic first touch and the ability to use his body to shield the ball. He could go past people too. Sure you've got the right bloke? Strong? The guy flopping around on the ground like a dying haddock because of a swollen thumb?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 24, 2017 11:06:16 GMT
You have to say it's an odd one. One suspicion I have is that West Brom hit 40 points very quickly last season and, as usual, Tony began to worry about expectations and threw the towel in early and the team has never really recovered. I don't think you could really say that Pulis deliberately throws games - except for Valencia - but he does have a habit of trying to manufacture certain types of games, and I think it's bitten him on the arse this time. I still haven't recovered from a Boxing Day 0-0 against Preston at home in 2004. It was during one of his regular spats with club owners that are also the catalyst for him trying to prove his point on the pitch and fuck the people who pay to watch. It's the game I always bring to mind when somebody suggests that they're surprised at the way he behaves sometimes. There were two away teams on the pitch that day and it's not the only time I've seen him do that. What a day that was. Got there late due to smash on MY. Witnessed the worst game I've ever seen while freezing my bollocks off as it was coldest game I've been to at Brit. All I can see when I think of that game is grey. I think even the word grey doesn't do it justice. I just wish that Preston had prior notice of Pulis's intent so at least one of the teams had tried to win the game. It was genuinely disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 23, 2017 11:49:03 GMT
That is what you call a strawman. I've already told you what the answer to the original question is. No strawman at all. You are talking about a specific time in history where more factors than you'd ever like to admit were at play. We're only talking about one factor. It's a strawman when you suddenly start talking about Peter Coates. Unless Phil Rawlins was calling Coates all the names under the sun in that book? So, yet again. Does the fact you think somebody else was a twat, excuse the fact that Pulis creates these issues wherever he goes? I've already told you the answer. You just need to repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 23, 2017 10:27:25 GMT
The question you need to ask about Pulis is whether he gets away with being a twat because somebody else is a twat. The answer is no, just in case you're struggling. Was just as true at Palace and Gillingham and perhaps West Brom as it was with us. Do we include a newly super minted Peter Coates as acting the twat at this point? You can't really have one without the other. That is what you call a strawman. I've already told you what the answer to the original question is.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 23, 2017 9:33:16 GMT
You have to say it's an odd one. One suspicion I have is that West Brom hit 40 points very quickly last season and, as usual, Tony began to worry about expectations and threw the towel in early and the team has never really recovered. I don't think you could really say that Pulis deliberately throws games - except for Valencia - but he does have a habit of trying to manufacture certain types of games, and I think it's bitten him on the arse this time. I still haven't recovered from a Boxing Day 0-0 against Preston at home in 2004. It was during one of his regular spats with club owners that are also the catalyst for him trying to prove his point on the pitch and fuck the people who pay to watch. It's the game I always bring to mind when somebody suggests that they're surprised at the way he behaves sometimes. There were two away teams on the pitch that day and it's not the only time I've seen him do that. Mmmm I think Rawlins recent book tells us what sort of owners the Icelanders were at this point. I know one of the defences of Bosklump's peculiar Annus Crassus was that he only had 6 players at the start of the next season. Well that was down to the absolute bunch of twats running the club at the time and the way we were being run into the ground. The question you need to ask about Pulis is whether he gets away with being a twat because somebody else is a twat. The answer is no, just in case you're struggling. Was just as true at Palace and Gillingham and perhaps West Brom as it was with us.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 23, 2017 6:04:58 GMT
TP never hit the heights but he could pull a team out of a bad run. Pardew is one of those managers who looks good when things are going well, but he can't pull a team out of a slump. 3 wins out of 28 at West Brom suggests otherwise. You have to say it's an odd one. One suspicion I have is that West Brom hit 40 points very quickly last season and, as usual, Tony began to worry about expectations and threw the towel in early and the team has never really recovered. I don't think you could really say that Pulis deliberately throws games - except for Valencia - but he does have a habit of trying to manufacture certain types of games, and I think it's bitten him on the arse this time. I still haven't recovered from a Boxing Day 0-0 against Preston at home in 2004. It was during one of his regular spats with club owners that are also the catalyst for him trying to prove his point on the pitch and fuck the people who pay to watch. It's the game I always bring to mind when somebody suggests that they're surprised at the way he behaves sometimes. There were two away teams on the pitch that day and it's not the only time I've seen him do that.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 21, 2017 8:08:16 GMT
Even by your standards, that's stupid. Bravo. Thank you for reminding me I should use smiley faces when trying to lighten the mood. The thing is mate, we all know about Poe's Law. But when you make a habit out of coming out with drivel every waking moment, especially on this board, it becomes genuinely impossible to tell.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 21, 2017 6:13:54 GMT
Is he on some kind of bonus if he doesn’t use them? One again tonight and in truth one that killed our attacking threat.If you’re bringing Crouch on the last player you take off is Shaqiri FFS. Yes he was doing his usual 2nd half prancing around(and as for his free kick😡) but he’s the man to supply the crosses🙄 Clampdown from the owner and CEO on appearance money. Even by your standards, that's stupid. Bravo.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 20, 2017 13:17:20 GMT
Mark likes to tease, takes it easy and looks for a clear opening. Then after 65 minutes of fancy but unsatisfying probing he sees his partner comatose and in a desperate throw of the dice takes up the Pulis method! So he brings on Crouchie to offer more penetration and Charlie Adam to swing some balls in.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 20, 2017 12:55:57 GMT
But you just said we are doing no better in terms of league position under him? pound for pound. Except that's not true, is it?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 20, 2017 12:44:59 GMT
Not entirely. Our net spend over the last five years has averaged 10 million a season, 15th overall. Over the last ten years it was a net spend of 18 million, fourth overall. You cant compare those 2 statements with the 2 managers in that time frame? Yeah you can. You just don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 20, 2017 12:24:23 GMT
Hughes gave us our best ever finish in the premier league 3 seasons in a row or are we just conveniently forgetting that now. He's also spent the most money. Not entirely. Our net spend over the last five years has averaged 10 million a season, 15th overall. Over the last ten years it was a net spend of 18 million, fourth overall.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 20, 2017 10:20:46 GMT
Amazing how quickly some clubs act after a 0-4 dicking at home, regardless of the opposition. That is not what has happened though.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 19, 2017 18:24:31 GMT
After all of the abuse they sent our way when VT was here, you feel for them? No chance. They can suck the mop and get on with it. I'll give them some credit though. They've worked him out quicker than our lot. We hoovered it up for nearly 10 years whereas they are walking away in their droves after 18 months of it. Speak for yourself. A lot of people worked it out a lot quicker than ten years. As that article says, you can put up with it more or less while the results are coming, but as soon as they stop, it's over.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2017 9:24:59 GMT
More than one side to Eni Aluko’s story matt dickinson, chief sports writer
There have been a few casualties of the Eni Aluko affair — Mark Sampson as the England women’s coach, the FA’s battered credibility — but nothing has suffered more than balance and nuance. A set narrative tells us that Sampson is a fool, the FA still not fit to govern and Aluko a deeply wronged woman who should be held up as a champion of a reformed organisation.
This is the story that was written up in the aftermath of the FA’s apology to Aluko last month and thunders along, crushing any inconvenient or contradictory details. This newspaper, along with most of the media, has helped it to gather speed, largely unchallenged.
A lack of support from team-mates suggests that the issue is not so clear-cutA lack of support from team-mates suggests that the issue is not so clear-cut FRANCK FIFE/GETTY IMAGES But at some point it becomes important to recognise when a narrative has gone badly awry, especially when this version is almost unrecognisable to many of the England women’s squad. Some feel that the story has become so one-sided as to have become a horrendous distortion.
Those players are so alarmed that some held a meeting this week, involving the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), to discuss how to speak out and to defend themselves, especially when they hear Aluko suggest that a refusal to support her is tantamount to turning a blind eye to racism. “Is the togetherness we keep banging on about actually being put into action or is it just a hashtag on Twitter?” Aluko had asked, before adding: “Some of this is just a lack of appreciation of what racism is.”
Some of her former team-mates are, understandably, appalled at the suggestion and say that it wilfully ignores so much wider context. They say that this is not about race at all but so many other issues, such as witnessing her disruptive behaviour as an England player, a furious refusal to accept being sidelined.
Defend Aluko? Some demand to know why they should when they regard many of her complaints against the departed Sampson not just as unfounded but grossly unfair. Sadly, you are not hearing any of this — at least not first-hand — from players because they dare not say anything at all. To speak out is to risk a backlash.
“The players are terrified of saying anything now,” one source said. “To question Eni on anything is to be shouted down, or accused of racism. Some have taken hell on social media. It is deeply unfair.” Indeed, it is reasonable to ask who feels bullied now.
Of course it is not easy to put forward other sides of the argument when Aluko has won the public relations war so spectacularly. In the hearing in front of the digital, culture, media and sport select committee last month, she was articulate and sharp, every bit the trained lawyer with a first from Brunel.
She was a considerably more impressive witness than a blustering Greg Clarke, the FA chairman, or Martin Glenn, the chief executive, who sat there in ill-disguised rage, making a mess so much worse. Vindicated on two counts that Sampson had used a discriminatory remark to one player and an ill-judged joke to her about the ebola virus, Aluko had the FA on the run. They are still a long way from recovering.
Tracey Crouch, the sports minister, said this week that Aluko should be brought in to drive cultural reforms of the governing body, though she did not pause to ask how many team-mates would want the Chelsea Ladies forward as their chosen representative of the team or the wider women’s game.
Aluko had exposed some dire FA practices, including a lack of a grievance procedure, and Sampson was gone, but was that the whole story? Not by a long way. When Aluko tells the BBC that she is “proud the truth has been corroborated”, it must not be allowed to pass without qualification.
In fact, the vast majority of 20 complaints against Sampson, including bullying and victimisation, were rejected and, in many cases, appear to fully back up the coach’s argument that Aluko simply could not accept that she was no longer first choice. Some are so trivial and thin-skinned as to undermine her own argument, like complaining about a coach saying “f*** off, Eni” on tape when she lost possession or questioning how a squad review of a match failed to include any clips of her half-hour appearance off the bench as if this were somehow vindictive.
She lodged a complaint that Sampson had apparently failed to acknowledge her brother during a match at Stamford Bridge as a “retaliatory action” based on discrimination. Really?
As Aluko seeks to regain her place in the England squad, it is surely worth noting that Katharine Newton, the barrister who led the investigations for the FA, concluded that Sampson’s decision to drop the striker was entirely justified. “Sampson genuinely considered that your off-the-pitch behaviour was having a detrimental effect on the team,” Newton wrote.
“In particular he considered that the major issue is your attitude and behaviour when you are not playing compared to when you are playing.”
Her un-Lioness behaviour is said by witnesses to have caused particular frustration because it went against extensive team bonding conducted with sports psychologists. Aluko insists that she must be a team player to have amassed 102 caps, scoring 33 goals, and there is no doubt that she was a key member of the England team for many years. But what if her behaviour changed — knowingly or otherwise — as she came to be left out of the XI? What if she began to show that frustration more visibly and became such a difficult squad member that coaching staff felt it was actually undermining what Sampson was trying to build?
What if young players felt that Aluko could have done much more to help and encourage them, rather than acting as though they were a threat? Does she even know that players asked to change rooms? Did she realise that team-mates felt that she switched off as soon as she realised that she was not in the starting XI?
These are questions that must be asked — especially by Aluko herself — if she is serious about returning to the international set-up. She did not make the 26-player squad named for World Cup qualifiers against Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kazakhstan, the first of those in Walsall on November 24, but she has been in the goals for her club, coming off the bench to score for Chelsea Ladies in a 2-2 draw away to Reading on Sunday.
These are extremely sensitive areas to stray into. Across sport — and any work place — it is not easy to be a whistleblower, to speak out against a boss.
Aluko encouraged team-mates to bring forward any issues with Sampson and she will feel vindicated given that he is gone and the FA was forced to apologise. But, from numerous conversations, it has to be asked how England players should come to feel afraid to give their story in public and to defend Sampson who, it should be noted, has not committed anything that amounts to a sackable offence while an employee of the FA (and is considering legal action for his dismissal over a relationship in a previous job).
Some of the women’s squad feel that there is nowhere to turn, and no wonder. To the PFA? There is wariness given that the organisation acted for Aluko during her dispute with the FA.
To Women In Football? The organisation does much good work but, in taking a staunch pro-Aluko stance, some point out, uncomfortably, that Aluko’s agent is a director.
Turn to the FA? It does not know if it is coming or going, having yesterday lost another member of Sampson’s coaching staff, Lee Kendall, who resigned. Others may follow, dismayed at the governing body’s terrible mishandling of this all along.
Meanwhile, the women’s squad prepare to gather next week with the sad certainty that there will be many more reporters than usual, interested less in the football than the fallout. The players want to put out a statement expressing their togetherness, but how to speak collectively when there will be a range of opinions from those with grave concerns about Aluko’s behaviour to those eager simply to move on?
It is a horrible position for them but, whatever emerges, consider that there is a lot more to this than a single misleading narrative of one wronged footballer. That silence Aluko hears from her team-mates? It does speak volumes.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 11, 2017 22:03:28 GMT
Two incidents still rankle with me, the decision to substitute Tuncay who had just been brought on as a substitute at Hull and then to send what was effectively a second team to Valencia in the Europa League. Unforgivable. It wasn't a second team. It was a deliberate attempt to get knocked out and a deliberate two fingers to supporters.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 10, 2017 15:28:07 GMT
Looking at the whole situation and all the implications accusations and ramifications it becomes clear what's developed. The FA are a bunch of bumbling incompetent fools. They make a meal of everything seem to have little (or no) knowledge of how to implement policies and procedures, if they actually have any. But for the most part it doesn't matter. It's generally a load of duffers governing an organisation that oversees football. Football being the thing that generates billions of pounds every year. But many of the players they regulate are as thick as shit. They might be good at football but life skills are lost on them as demonstrated by the way they fold under pressure. Therefore, the FA have been able to fudge over issues for years and the players who just want an easy life or don't want to spill gravy from their train just accept anything. They are brought up to follow not lead. They are discouraged from stating opinions... even on the game. Any spat can be resolved with a tweet leaving an asinine little tag about 'moving on'. Step forward Eni Aluko. The duffers perhaps expected her to pipe down and accept her lot. To consider herself grateful and not make a fuss. But Aluko isn't like others they have instructed to give a positive spin. Aluko is a professional person. Her father was an MP in Nigeria, her uncle a chemical engineering professor. Eni herself is a qualified lawyer and and active contributor to Yin & Yang, a popular culture website. In short, Eni Aluko comes from the modern world and adheres to standards and ethics of society as a whole. This is where the duffers came undone. Dealing with a young intelligent woman has (yet again) exposed their hopelessness. They must have expected her to just be quiet and go away and accept it all. The error they all made was they were negotiating with someone who refused to be treated as a minion. Who understands her rights and her place and worth in modern society. Eni Aluko knows racially abusing someone in the workplace is an offence. Her woeful rulers and the culture she is involved with tries to dismiss such transgressions as 'banter'. In days gone by it might have been brushed over, but in 2017 why should anyone, in any profession, have to tolerate such wrongdoing? In most parts of the community they don't but football seems unable to cope with workplace developments. The FA have come undone because, quite simply, they were dealing with someone who knew what she was doing. That, in itself, is the biggest condemnation you can find for the duffers. Excellent post I agree completely about the FA. However, there is obviously more to this than we know, judging by the reaction of her teammates. I suspect that rather than Aluko merely being the victim of Mark Sampson's stupidity / bigotry, compounded by the FA's incompetence, there may be something in the idea that she is also a problem.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 6, 2017 12:50:29 GMT
He never had an issue when Robert Pires was doing it on a weekly basis Exactly
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 2, 2017 7:37:41 GMT
I'd have Rikki Dadason in our team at the moment I've never quite got the Dadason thing. He scored 10 goals in 38 League appearances for us, many as a sub. He wasn't a great player for us but we've had far far worse. Maybe it was disappointment after the hype. He'd been scoring a shedload in Norway but never did the same with us.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 31, 2017 9:01:39 GMT
Kind of a tangent here but it's related to the original thread. Some chap was on Danny Kelly's show last night saying that they're(Talksport) are going to lose listeners because folk find him offensive and won't tune in because of him. He even suggested Talksport should get rid of him because of it. Although I don't necessarily agree with Joey's comments, just because some people get "offended" by something doesn't mean it's wrong. If he was continually going out of his way to upset people then I'd look at his position within the company but I do feel people get offended rather too easily. I get myself a little bit wound up sometimes at what Adrian Durham says but end up more annoyed at myself for continuing to listen. No one is forcing me to tune in. "I'm offended by that" is nothing more than a whinge. Agree so what I would do with Barton is simply say every time he opens his mouth to criticise anybody in the game that he has a track record of being a thug and a cheat so has no right to an opinion about anybody else. Don't argue with him, just call him out for what he is.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 31, 2017 8:24:54 GMT
To be fair, being a gambler is the least of Barton's issues. He's an all round colossal twat.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 31, 2017 0:21:04 GMT
Post by greyman on Oct 31, 2017 0:21:04 GMT
There is already another official who could use a screen to review decisions. The fourth official just seems to spend 90 minutes being moaned at by managers, so give him the job of reviewing incidents instead. As you no doubt know, there is a big debate and trials about extending the use of video technology. I agree that when the game is already stopped for that kind of incident, it should be used. But like all such major changes, they don't come quickly and have to be agreed internationally. It wouldn't be the 4th official but in the trials has been a new video official sitting in the stand, as it is in cricket and rugby. Can you imagine the 4th official trying to look at it surrounded by the benches. Nightmare. I get that and I wasn't suggesting you have people crowd around a video terminal. But I struggle to see the point of the 4th official a lot of the time and it sometimes seems their presence riles the managers even more. Having said that, they clearly do more than those people behind the goals who serve no purpose whatsoever from what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 30, 2017 20:23:11 GMT
I haven't bothered with the seven pages to date, but Deeney is a thug, and there is no doubt whatsoever that what he did to Joe and Ryan justified a red card. A retrospective ban is no good to us - it only helps the teams which he would not face. That is why it is so crucial that a red card offence should never be missed - if it such an offence, the only proper punishment is to reduce his team to 10 men for the remainder of that game. TV evidence should be used - it would take a mere 30 seconds for a ref in the stand to see what he did was worthy of a red card being shown. There is already another official who could use a screen to review decisions. The fourth official just seems to spend 90 minutes being moaned at by managers, so give him the job of reviewing incidents instead.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 16:31:44 GMT
Post by greyman on Oct 29, 2017 16:31:44 GMT
Always fascinating watching somebody in a hole keep digging. You have to be a monumental fuckwit to not see that the only player who should be facing any sanction now is Deeney. Allen may have deserved a booking but Deeney's was a clear red. We keep on being told that a player raising their hands is a sending off offence. Clear as day now, although may have been on the ref's blind side on the day.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 28, 2017 16:24:08 GMT
Absolutely fantastic stuff.
|
|