Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

calling for grants head now is silly for me. it's not as if he's hopeless and a turnaround wouldn't completely shock you. if he gets relegated, fair enough sack him. but as tgt says, 22 games is a ridiculous time to be sacking someone. unless of course he's lost 22 games on the trot.

[TheGayTent]

do you find it similarly "interesting" that some are calling for Grant's head? Or do you dismiss it as worthless twaddle?

(It's a rhetorical question - you've already made your view clear on Grant, and via which your difference in evaluation is made clear).

[ampersand]

The job at Chelsea wasn't exactly a test in the circumstances there. Yes, he could have f**ked up badly and didn't, but he wasn't doing anything outstanding either. And while the pompey job wasn't easy, it didn't show him in any great light either.

Kenny's had four management jobs. Two he's had major success with (which may or may not be related to the resources at his disposal of course), while the two others were clubs in difficult circumstances at the time. While his last two certainly blot his record, they don't negate his successes.

He may or may not have success at LFC this time around. Time will tell, but two games 4 days into the job is much too early to judge given the situation at the club when he took over.

[Stash]

Kenny has an outstanding record - better than Fergie's on a proportional basis.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Stash

[TheGayTent]

None of what you said that I agreed with has any relevance to whether it was lucky or not. ;rolleyes:

[The Nal]

As an Ipswich fan I'd just thought I'd stick my head into this thread!

Come on you Blues! [Ducks!]

[TheGayTent]

As an Ipswich fan I'd just thought I'd stick my head into this thread!

Come on you Blues! [Ducks!]

[jimbob_no1]

It's a shame Keane didn't work out, but I fear he is going the same way as Bryan Robson. I don't think he realises the work that goes into management and was expecting the players to just know what to do and play like him. His purchases were questionable too - £1.5m for Lee Martin who hasn't done anything and is now on loan at Charlton still not really doing anything. The style of play was abysmal too, it was all about hard work and fight, which while admirable is terrible to watch if that's all the team has. The team was crying out for some creativity and pace from midfield. He may get another chance somewhere but suspect he's already on the same path as Robson, Adams and Southgate - great players but not management material. Paul Jewell is just the sort of manager we need - experienced and a thinker, but also gets his teams to play effective football. His time at Derby wasn't so great, but then hopefully he has learned from any mistakes he made there. If we end up like Wigan in 5 years time I'd be pretty happy!

[eFestivals]

How so?

in competitions won (as I said, on a proportional basis).

[The Nal]

Paul Jewell is just the sort of manager we need

[eFestivals]

Yes it does. In case you hadn't noticed, sucessfully scoring goals and hitting the target with shots are ever so slightly linked...

Yet hitting the target with a shit shot as Cole did only results in a goal if you get lucky because the keeper f**ked up hugely. It doesn't result in a goal unless the keeper f**ks up hugely.

So it was lucky for WHU that the keeper f**ked up.

If it wasn't lucky that WHU won, then you should sign my mum. After all, she can make better shots on target than Cole managed, and she'll get the ball in net every time if she's facing a keeper of Foster's quality as it was at that particular moment.

So ... were WHU lucky? If not, then you'll do just as well as you've been doing this season with pensioners as your strikers.

[ampersand]

in competitions won (as I said, on a proportional basis).

[worm]

Absolutely. But if the shot is as shit as Cole managed, it takes the luck of a cock-up by that keeper for it to be a goal.

Edited January 13, 2011 by worm

[TheGayTent]

Yet hitting the target with a shit shot as Cole did only results in a goal if you get lucky because the keeper f**ked up hugely. It doesn't result in a goal unless the keeper f**ks up hugely.

So it was lucky for WHU that the keeper f**ked up.

If it wasn't lucky that WHU won, then you should sign my mum. After all, she can make better shots on target than Cole managed, and she'll get the ball in net every time if she's facing a keeper of Foster's quality as it was at that particular moment.

So ... were WHU lucky? If not, then you'll do just as well as you've been doing this season with pensioners as your strikers.

[worm]

Yet hitting the target with a shit shot as Cole did only results in a goal if you get lucky because the keeper f**ked up hugely.

[eFestivals]

Which is a variable they focused on and got a result from.

oh do f**k off. ;lol:

Or do you really think that Cole and the rest of the team went out with a plan of "if we make the crappest shot you'll see this week (and possibly all season), Foster will make the worst cock-up he'll make in his entire career"?

One winner inevitably went in for West Ham as a result of a well defined instruction/tactic. It just so happened to be unfortunate for the keeper.

It's football - the plan is always to try and put the ball in the net.

It only gets into the net from a shot like that if you get lucky because the keeper f**ks up hugely.

If what you say is true, I wonder why no one was posting about the amazingly well planned goal the USA scored against England in the summer, but were instead posting about how Green f**ked up hugely which resulted in a lucky goal for them.

[worm]

oh do f**k off. ;lol:

[eFestivals]

That's looking at the tactic in isolation.

Which is what I've been doing constantly in this discussion you numpty!!

As you and TGT want to have an argument on basis I've never used, I'll let you get on with it.

[eFestivals]

A flukey goal caused by a goal keeping error is a statistical probability that becomes more likely the more you attack.

Correct.

But - as you've made 100% clear with your choice of words - it's still flukey.

And so you've 100% agreed with me.

[worm]

Which is what I've been doing constantly in this discussion you numpty!!

[eFestivals]

You're barking.

Not as barking as someone who thinks a goal that my mum could have scored classes as something that is only the result of good play with no luck involved.

If the football world worked as you're presenting it, my mum would be on £120k a week.

[eFestivals]

I know. Hence the naivity of what you're saying. A performance cannot be assessed in relation to one f**king goal! Rather, the worthiness of the result should be assessed in relation to the performance.

I didn't ever assess the performance.

I assessed the RESULT - a result that only exists as it does due to the lucky circumstances that caused that goal to actually be a goal.

[worm]

Correct.

But - as you've made 100% clear with your choice of words - it's still flukey.

And so you've 100% agreed with me.

Edited January 13, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I didn't ever assess the performance.

I assessed the RESULT - a result that only exists as it does due to the lucky circumstances that caused that goal to actually be a goal.

[eFestivals]

Agreed. But that doesn't make the result flukey, which is the argument.

PMSL

There could have been no winning result without that flukey goal. There was no other goal which was able to give them that winning result.

f**k me, there's more sense to be had from a tantruming two year old saying "it's not fair" on constant repeat.