| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT 22:17 - Aug 13 with 13946 views | TheResurrection |
Dr Winston posted this in another thread...
"""We pissed away gobsmacking amounts of money by moving away from a system that worked. Huw Jenkins presided over that act of stupidity when all he had to do was keep doing what worked. Instead he decided to tear all that up when he promoted his snitch to the managers job and ape what every other club was doing."""
------
You'll get too many agreeing with this most simplistic of explanations.
And it's not fair or particularly accurate.
You say we moved away from a system that worked.
But for how long long in the EPL did we have that system?
* We were promoted in May 2011
* From August 2013 to January 2014 we struggle
* There were well documented upsets in the ranks
* We had a manager and his agent who attempted to manipulate our transfer policy to a model that would see them make on every deal
* THIS WAS A CLEAR STEP AWAY FROM WHAT COULD BE ARGUED WORKED FOR US UNTIL THIS POINT
* Garry Monk, who I know you blame for moving us away from our recruiting system stepped up in February 2014
* Monk steered us to safety
* In 2014/2015 Monk took us to our highest finish by GOING BACK TO THE MODEL THAT GOT US TO THE EPL IN THE FIRST PLACE - NOT THE PLAYING STYLE - BUT THE RECRUITMENT MODEL
Now had Leon, instead of Monk, been able and available to take the reigns at that time we would no doubt have seen a completely different playing style and type of player coming in.
But he wasn't available and Monk came in and in the eyes of the footballing world, the EPL finish we had, and obviously from the Board of Directors perspective, did a good job.
OK, we didn't like the style of play and we can all too easily say that's where it all went wrong, but it's such a weak argument in so many aspects it deserves being called out as rubbish.
* In the EPL we had one season under Rodgers who recruited as we did post Monk ie the transfer committee
+ we then had one and a half seasons with Laudrup who changed it to his way
+ we then had the rest going back with the transfer committee
If we moved away from anything it was to accommodate Laudrup's agent and that only brought success for ONE TRANSFER WINDOW..... ONE!!!
it really is now time for people to start evaluating our recent history and not just jump on bandwagons or choose the sound bites that match their own narratives just to confirm their own bias.
It's time to see things as they really were and now are. The blame game is doing us no favours. This is a great chance to rebuild and start again.
|  |
| |  |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:26 - Aug 15 with 1212 views | omarjack |
WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT
This has got to be one of the most intriguing sentences ever written in the English language.
I keep trying to understand it. But the more I try, the weirder it gets.
But from I can gather, he says that we didn't move from point A to B..we moved from point B to A. But at one point in the past, we've moved from A to B.
Only a genius like the Res can come up with such nauseating statement. By genius of course I meant a complete fool. |  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:38 - Aug 15 with 1196 views | ItchySphincter |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 11:37 - Aug 14 by JackSomething |
So you didn't even try then? Just like you ignored Kerouac pointing out that Monk didn't actually improve on Laudrup's first season as Laudrup, you know, won a trophy?
Well you'd be one to know about personal vendettas/agendas.
Where in my post did I mention Jenkins? Think about that for a while, do some crayon drawings and come back to me. |
Eighth is an improvement on ninth. It’s strange that an element of our fanbase could never accept that. It’s the Laudrup factor, nothing else.
Any league club could win the league cup, not many could finish eighth in the PL. The pro
Laudrup, anti Monk rhetoric is laughable. |  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:59 - Aug 15 with 1181 views | Dr_Winston |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:38 - Aug 15 by ItchySphincter |
Eighth is an improvement on ninth. It’s strange that an element of our fanbase could never accept that. It’s the Laudrup factor, nothing else.
Any league club could win the league cup, not many could finish eighth in the PL. The pro
Laudrup, anti Monk rhetoric is laughable. |
Depends if you see a temporary Pulisesque boost of our league position as worth the vandalism of a style of play that had served us well for years. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:09 - Aug 15 with 1170 views | SW11Jack |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:26 - Aug 15 by omarjack |
WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT
This has got to be one of the most intriguing sentences ever written in the English language.
I keep trying to understand it. But the more I try, the weirder it gets.
But from I can gather, he says that we didn't move from point A to B..we moved from point B to A. But at one point in the past, we've moved from A to B.
Only a genius like the Res can come up with such nauseating statement. By genius of course I meant a complete fool. |
To be fair to the OP, reading the original post, it's pretty clear-cut and all there.
Rodgers' era — largely transfer by committee (A)
Laudrup era — transfer by Tutumlu (B; thus, A > B)
Monk era onwards — again, transfer by committee (A; thus, B > A)
Whether or not you agree with it is another thing, but semantically there's nothing wrong with it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:45]
|  | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:16 - Aug 15 with 1142 views | EasternJack |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 08:59 - Aug 15 by Dr_Winston |
Depends if you see a temporary Pulisesque boost of our league position as worth the vandalism of a style of play that had served us well for years. |
This. I still can’t believe there’s any argument here. It was obvious during that season with the style of play being horrendous. Jeff’s frequent super sub assist cameo masked the reality.
It’s taken a few years, fan division and relegation to (hopefully) get to the point where we start undoing what that toxic ginger cnt and HJ started. |  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:29 - Aug 15 with 1115 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:09 - Aug 15 by SW11Jack |
To be fair to the OP, reading the original post, it's pretty clear-cut and all there.
Rodgers' era — largely transfer by committee (A)
Laudrup era — transfer by Tutumlu (B; thus, A > B)
Monk era onwards — again, transfer by committee (A; thus, B > A)
Whether or not you agree with it is another thing, but semantically there's nothing wrong with it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:45]
|
Not sure if that's Chris' summary, but I think it would be inaccurate. Under Martinez, recruitment was overseen by Reeves, who was a Martinez man to the point he went to Wigan with him.
Sousa was a different animal who focused on the coaching side only and the recruitment side went elsewhere in the club. That didn't go as well.
Clearly the recruitment approach changed between Laudrup and Monk. Control was probably too far one way under Laudrup and there should be a consistent approach to recruitment, and it makes sense to have a separate and beefed up recruitment department, whatever the manager (as logically we'd recruit similar managers in terms of style of play). I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though.
The reasons for relegation are many though. Clearly we recruited baldy but that's not down to one reason. I don't think much of many of the recruits we brought in, but the circumstances at manager were not ideal. We signed a more physical, less technical type of player under Monk which saw us change the style of play. After that we constantly went into reactionary/damage limitation mode, changing manager mid season and having to react to a bad position in the January window.
Not that we didn't have chances to do things differently. The obvious one is why did we give Guidolin a new contract after he kept us up. It's hard to believe we'd be here now if Rodgers had got the gig. He was never going to be a long term option with his age and health. Clement looked to be the right sort but clearly turned out not to be.
It was the move away from the Plan A and the constant firefighting, rather than stop, undertake a proper review and figure out where we want to get to, that brings us here. The change in recruitment approach didn't do that, but it was another thing that didn't work... Not so much its existence, but its many many failures. Not without its successes of course. Andre Ayew would have been one if we hadn't brought him back. Thats not revisionism, said that at the time.
What we need now is joined up thinking. Have a plan for the playing side, make sure it's what we want as a club, and make sure management and recruitment are working together and making the right decisions. The players we've signed and looking to recruit look like the sort we'd have looked at back when we did things well, so that looks a good sign. Getting rid of so many of the squad is no bad thing so long as we bring in replacements who suit what we want to do. That's the gap at the moment, and the club have 2 weeks to give Potter the tools. This division isn't much, and it wouldn't take much to be at the top end of it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:31]
|  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:31 - Aug 15 with 1104 views | monmouth |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:16 - Aug 15 by EasternJack |
This. I still can’t believe there’s any argument here. It was obvious during that season with the style of play being horrendous. Jeff’s frequent super sub assist cameo masked the reality.
It’s taken a few years, fan division and relegation to (hopefully) get to the point where we start undoing what that toxic ginger cnt and HJ started. |
Yes, to think that those spawny hoofball, one-nil smash and grabs after being dominated, to get a one place better finish is an improvement on the flowing football that brought us deserved wins (compare the two emirates performances...both were wins, one deserved, one as spawny as hell) and the ONLY major trophy in our existence is a hell of a stretch.
That’s not to say the Laudrup model hadn’t shot its bolt and we needed a reboot. We just threw the baby out with the bath water. |  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:37 - Aug 15 with 1086 views | Dr_Winston |
We should either have replaced Guidolin with Rodgers or kept Guidolin and backed him properly. Instead we picked option three. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:37 - Aug 15 with 1086 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:31 - Aug 15 by monmouth |
Yes, to think that those spawny hoofball, one-nil smash and grabs after being dominated, to get a one place better finish is an improvement on the flowing football that brought us deserved wins (compare the two emirates performances...both were wins, one deserved, one as spawny as hell) and the ONLY major trophy in our existence is a hell of a stretch.
That’s not to say the Laudrup model hadn’t shot its bolt and we needed a reboot. We just threw the baby out with the bath water. |
That last paragraph is exactly it. The search for a Plan B saw a decimation of the Plan A. Attempts to reboot that afterwards were never sufficient or successful.
Not that I'm hanging Monk out to dry here. A manager should have their views and should be backed. The issue was having a manager with those views and lack of sufficient oversight. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:40 - Aug 15 with 1073 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:37 - Aug 15 by Dr_Winston |
We should either have replaced Guidolin with Rodgers or kept Guidolin and backed him properly. Instead we picked option three. |
The decision was made too quickly IMO. Take a pause after the emotion of staying up. Sacking him in September is either far too reactionary or shows it was a bad decision. Or both. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:45 - Aug 15 with 1050 views | SW11Jack |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:29 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
Not sure if that's Chris' summary, but I think it would be inaccurate. Under Martinez, recruitment was overseen by Reeves, who was a Martinez man to the point he went to Wigan with him.
Sousa was a different animal who focused on the coaching side only and the recruitment side went elsewhere in the club. That didn't go as well.
Clearly the recruitment approach changed between Laudrup and Monk. Control was probably too far one way under Laudrup and there should be a consistent approach to recruitment, and it makes sense to have a separate and beefed up recruitment department, whatever the manager (as logically we'd recruit similar managers in terms of style of play). I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though.
The reasons for relegation are many though. Clearly we recruited baldy but that's not down to one reason. I don't think much of many of the recruits we brought in, but the circumstances at manager were not ideal. We signed a more physical, less technical type of player under Monk which saw us change the style of play. After that we constantly went into reactionary/damage limitation mode, changing manager mid season and having to react to a bad position in the January window.
Not that we didn't have chances to do things differently. The obvious one is why did we give Guidolin a new contract after he kept us up. It's hard to believe we'd be here now if Rodgers had got the gig. He was never going to be a long term option with his age and health. Clement looked to be the right sort but clearly turned out not to be.
It was the move away from the Plan A and the constant firefighting, rather than stop, undertake a proper review and figure out where we want to get to, that brings us here. The change in recruitment approach didn't do that, but it was another thing that didn't work... Not so much its existence, but its many many failures. Not without its successes of course. Andre Ayew would have been one if we hadn't brought him back. Thats not revisionism, said that at the time.
What we need now is joined up thinking. Have a plan for the playing side, make sure it's what we want as a club, and make sure management and recruitment are working together and making the right decisions. The players we've signed and looking to recruit look like the sort we'd have looked at back when we did things well, so that looks a good sign. Getting rid of so many of the squad is no bad thing so long as we bring in replacements who suit what we want to do. That's the gap at the moment, and the club have 2 weeks to give Potter the tools. This division isn't much, and it wouldn't take much to be at the top end of it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:31]
|
Hard to fault any of that really. Top post.
And my post was basically a paraphrasing of the following from the OP; the "up to Rodgers' era" was my erroneous amendment:
"* In the EPL we had one season under Rodgers who recruited as we did post Monk ie the transfer committee
+ we then had one and a half seasons with Laudrup who changed it to his way
+ we then had the rest going back with the transfer committee" | | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:45 - Aug 15 with 1048 views | costalotta |
Of course it was. In fact, as soon as the take over was complete maybe it was Always going to be within the ‘the new model/way forward’? Perhaps the yanks only had eyes for BB at that point so appointing BR would have been a waste of money. Who knows.
They got their first decision wrong and haven’t properly recovered since. |  | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:56 - Aug 15 with 1014 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:45 - Aug 15 by SW11Jack |
Hard to fault any of that really. Top post.
And my post was basically a paraphrasing of the following from the OP; the "up to Rodgers' era" was my erroneous amendment:
"* In the EPL we had one season under Rodgers who recruited as we did post Monk ie the transfer committee
+ we then had one and a half seasons with Laudrup who changed it to his way
+ we then had the rest going back with the transfer committee" |
I know Leadbetter was there for both Rodgers and Laudrup so I think you're right we had that committee then, but even Rodgers seemed to bring his own men in. Sinclair and Borini, and then latterly Gylfi.
Do think things went further under Monk, to a position closer to where we were under Sousa than Rodgers, if that makes sense. I don't think any of that is a problem in itself though, if done properly. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:17 - Aug 15 with 989 views | WarwickHunt |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:29 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
Not sure if that's Chris' summary, but I think it would be inaccurate. Under Martinez, recruitment was overseen by Reeves, who was a Martinez man to the point he went to Wigan with him.
Sousa was a different animal who focused on the coaching side only and the recruitment side went elsewhere in the club. That didn't go as well.
Clearly the recruitment approach changed between Laudrup and Monk. Control was probably too far one way under Laudrup and there should be a consistent approach to recruitment, and it makes sense to have a separate and beefed up recruitment department, whatever the manager (as logically we'd recruit similar managers in terms of style of play). I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though.
The reasons for relegation are many though. Clearly we recruited baldy but that's not down to one reason. I don't think much of many of the recruits we brought in, but the circumstances at manager were not ideal. We signed a more physical, less technical type of player under Monk which saw us change the style of play. After that we constantly went into reactionary/damage limitation mode, changing manager mid season and having to react to a bad position in the January window.
Not that we didn't have chances to do things differently. The obvious one is why did we give Guidolin a new contract after he kept us up. It's hard to believe we'd be here now if Rodgers had got the gig. He was never going to be a long term option with his age and health. Clement looked to be the right sort but clearly turned out not to be.
It was the move away from the Plan A and the constant firefighting, rather than stop, undertake a proper review and figure out where we want to get to, that brings us here. The change in recruitment approach didn't do that, but it was another thing that didn't work... Not so much its existence, but its many many failures. Not without its successes of course. Andre Ayew would have been one if we hadn't brought him back. Thats not revisionism, said that at the time.
What we need now is joined up thinking. Have a plan for the playing side, make sure it's what we want as a club, and make sure management and recruitment are working together and making the right decisions. The players we've signed and looking to recruit look like the sort we'd have looked at back when we did things well, so that looks a good sign. Getting rid of so many of the squad is no bad thing so long as we bring in replacements who suit what we want to do. That's the gap at the moment, and the club have 2 weeks to give Potter the tools. This division isn't much, and it wouldn't take much to be at the top end of it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:31]
|
“ I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though”.
Monk wasn’t the pushover/puppet that Jenkins hoped for. What an epic battle of giant egos that must have been...
Monk’s on record as saying he was a “big fan” of Naughton. Tells you all you need to know. |  | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:26 - Aug 15 with 968 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:17 - Aug 15 by WarwickHunt |
“ I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though”.
Monk wasn’t the pushover/puppet that Jenkins hoped for. What an epic battle of giant egos that must have been...
Monk’s on record as saying he was a “big fan” of Naughton. Tells you all you need to know. |
I raise you a Tabanou.
I wouldn't know if he thought him a pushover. He hadn't been paying attention if he did though. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:29 - Aug 15 with 961 views | WarwickHunt |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:26 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
I raise you a Tabanou.
I wouldn't know if he thought him a pushover. He hadn't been paying attention if he did though. |
Can you think of another logical reason why we appointed him without apparently even considering anyone else? | | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:33 - Aug 15 with 946 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:29 - Aug 15 by WarwickHunt |
Can you think of another logical reason why we appointed him without apparently even considering anyone else? |
I think it was an attempt to do what worked with Martinez.
Before my time of course, so I don't know what the thinking was, but there was nothing about Monk during his time here that made me think here was a bloke who kept his opinions to himself. I still remember his meltdown at Shrewsbury. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:34 - Aug 15 with 945 views | TheResurrection |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 09:29 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
Not sure if that's Chris' summary, but I think it would be inaccurate. Under Martinez, recruitment was overseen by Reeves, who was a Martinez man to the point he went to Wigan with him.
Sousa was a different animal who focused on the coaching side only and the recruitment side went elsewhere in the club. That didn't go as well.
Clearly the recruitment approach changed between Laudrup and Monk. Control was probably too far one way under Laudrup and there should be a consistent approach to recruitment, and it makes sense to have a separate and beefed up recruitment department, whatever the manager (as logically we'd recruit similar managers in terms of style of play). I don't believe for a second that Monk didn't have the final say on signings though.
The reasons for relegation are many though. Clearly we recruited baldy but that's not down to one reason. I don't think much of many of the recruits we brought in, but the circumstances at manager were not ideal. We signed a more physical, less technical type of player under Monk which saw us change the style of play. After that we constantly went into reactionary/damage limitation mode, changing manager mid season and having to react to a bad position in the January window.
Not that we didn't have chances to do things differently. The obvious one is why did we give Guidolin a new contract after he kept us up. It's hard to believe we'd be here now if Rodgers had got the gig. He was never going to be a long term option with his age and health. Clement looked to be the right sort but clearly turned out not to be.
It was the move away from the Plan A and the constant firefighting, rather than stop, undertake a proper review and figure out where we want to get to, that brings us here. The change in recruitment approach didn't do that, but it was another thing that didn't work... Not so much its existence, but its many many failures. Not without its successes of course. Andre Ayew would have been one if we hadn't brought him back. Thats not revisionism, said that at the time.
What we need now is joined up thinking. Have a plan for the playing side, make sure it's what we want as a club, and make sure management and recruitment are working together and making the right decisions. The players we've signed and looking to recruit look like the sort we'd have looked at back when we did things well, so that looks a good sign. Getting rid of so many of the squad is no bad thing so long as we bring in replacements who suit what we want to do. That's the gap at the moment, and the club have 2 weeks to give Potter the tools. This division isn't much, and it wouldn't take much to be at the top end of it. [Post edited 15 Aug 2018 9:31]
|
First of all, hello from not so sunny Croatia
Secondly, that's exactly what I meant.
Laudrup took us away from the model we'd had successes from, sprinkled with the odd flop.
And Reeves was not Martinez' man, he was Flynn's and by virtue, the club's. Yes he followed Martinez so by the time he went to Wigan you could have got away with calling him that. But not at his time with us.
Martinez revolutionised our football club and brought a style of play we'd not seen before, well maybe here and there but this time it was a culture, or philosophy as he liked to call it. It worked, it more than worked. But it was still the transfer committee, just a better one perhaps?
Or.... It's ten times easier scouting for players in league 1 and the Championship.
And until people really digest that last point and truly understand it, you're never going to hit on the real reason for our demise.
The EPL swallowed us up, like it gradually does to all bar the very elite.
All this we should've done that, we should've done this. There would've been no guarantee whatever we'd done, and that includes getting Rodgers, who could quite easily have ditched us again had he had a bit of success, or Guidolin, who I liked, but let's be honest here, his football wasn't exactly FFF was it.
Start to be fair and honest with your thinking and you'll work it out.
It really isn't that difficult..... But it's oh so easy to point the fingers of blame, and do this from your job centre, the DVLA, your factory floor or the couch you watch every game on.
We were in the best and most difficult league in world football. There's no magic blueprint. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:37 - Aug 15 with 931 views | WarwickHunt |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:33 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
I think it was an attempt to do what worked with Martinez.
Before my time of course, so I don't know what the thinking was, but there was nothing about Monk during his time here that made me think here was a bloke who kept his opinions to himself. I still remember his meltdown at Shrewsbury. |
In the PL?
That’s not very logical...although I suppose Monk did create a team in his image, just like Martinez did. | | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:40 - Aug 15 with 925 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:34 - Aug 15 by TheResurrection |
First of all, hello from not so sunny Croatia
Secondly, that's exactly what I meant.
Laudrup took us away from the model we'd had successes from, sprinkled with the odd flop.
And Reeves was not Martinez' man, he was Flynn's and by virtue, the club's. Yes he followed Martinez so by the time he went to Wigan you could have got away with calling him that. But not at his time with us.
Martinez revolutionised our football club and brought a style of play we'd not seen before, well maybe here and there but this time it was a culture, or philosophy as he liked to call it. It worked, it more than worked. But it was still the transfer committee, just a better one perhaps?
Or.... It's ten times easier scouting for players in league 1 and the Championship.
And until people really digest that last point and truly understand it, you're never going to hit on the real reason for our demise.
The EPL swallowed us up, like it gradually does to all bar the very elite.
All this we should've done that, we should've done this. There would've been no guarantee whatever we'd done, and that includes getting Rodgers, who could quite easily have ditched us again had he had a bit of success, or Guidolin, who I liked, but let's be honest here, his football wasn't exactly FFF was it.
Start to be fair and honest with your thinking and you'll work it out.
It really isn't that difficult..... But it's oh so easy to point the fingers of blame, and do this from your job centre, the DVLA, your factory floor or the couch you watch every game on.
We were in the best and most difficult league in world football. There's no magic blueprint. |
Course it isn't easy. Could have done everything right and still got relegated. Don't think we did though or have left ourselves in a good position either. Relegated teams are always poorly managed in some way. That's life, need to learn the lessons from your mistakes.
Think your memory is falling you on Reeves though. Originally a Flynn man but Martinez brought him back.
PS Enjoy Croatia. Looks absolutely stunning. One on the list in the near future.. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:45 - Aug 15 with 911 views | Uxbridge |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:37 - Aug 15 by WarwickHunt |
In the PL?
That’s not very logical...although I suppose Monk did create a team in his image, just like Martinez did. |
We didn't need a revolution in the PL though, just some tinkering really. The problem was that it wasn't managed properly.
There's a certain logic to most things. Not necessarily logic I understand or agree with, but I remember saying when he was appointed it'd either be genius or insanity. | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:46 - Aug 15 with 903 views | WarwickHunt |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:45 - Aug 15 by Uxbridge |
We didn't need a revolution in the PL though, just some tinkering really. The problem was that it wasn't managed properly.
There's a certain logic to most things. Not necessarily logic I understand or agree with, but I remember saying when he was appointed it'd either be genius or insanity. |
You were correct. | | | |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:56 - Aug 15 with 885 views | Chief |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:34 - Aug 15 by TheResurrection |
First of all, hello from not so sunny Croatia
Secondly, that's exactly what I meant.
Laudrup took us away from the model we'd had successes from, sprinkled with the odd flop.
And Reeves was not Martinez' man, he was Flynn's and by virtue, the club's. Yes he followed Martinez so by the time he went to Wigan you could have got away with calling him that. But not at his time with us.
Martinez revolutionised our football club and brought a style of play we'd not seen before, well maybe here and there but this time it was a culture, or philosophy as he liked to call it. It worked, it more than worked. But it was still the transfer committee, just a better one perhaps?
Or.... It's ten times easier scouting for players in league 1 and the Championship.
And until people really digest that last point and truly understand it, you're never going to hit on the real reason for our demise.
The EPL swallowed us up, like it gradually does to all bar the very elite.
All this we should've done that, we should've done this. There would've been no guarantee whatever we'd done, and that includes getting Rodgers, who could quite easily have ditched us again had he had a bit of success, or Guidolin, who I liked, but let's be honest here, his football wasn't exactly FFF was it.
Start to be fair and honest with your thinking and you'll work it out.
It really isn't that difficult..... But it's oh so easy to point the fingers of blame, and do this from your job centre, the DVLA, your factory floor or the couch you watch every game on.
We were in the best and most difficult league in world football. There's no magic blueprint. |
"Laudrup took us away from the successes we'd had"
Totally disagree with this, he continued the policy of signing players chosen by the manager which was also patently the case with Flynn, Martinez and Rodgers.
Since Laudrup this style has ended and we've gone back to someone else other than the manager scouting and recommending players. |  |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 11:08 - Aug 15 with 872 views | TheResurrection |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 10:56 - Aug 15 by Chief |
"Laudrup took us away from the successes we'd had"
Totally disagree with this, he continued the policy of signing players chosen by the manager which was also patently the case with Flynn, Martinez and Rodgers.
Since Laudrup this style has ended and we've gone back to someone else other than the manager scouting and recommending players. |
That's not what I said | |
| |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 11:13 - Aug 15 with 863 views | Chief |
| WE DIDN'T MOVE AWAY FROM WHAT WORKED FOR US, WE WENT BACK TO IT on 11:08 - Aug 15 by TheResurrection |
That's not what I said |
Oh well.
Enjoy your holiday | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
