The, he's finally GONE! Tell us your thoughts Thread

[momo]

As some people have rightly pointed out, 6 wins in 22 League games is not very impressive, but if you look hard enough you can still interpret that as long-term progress:

It took O’Neill 24 games to reach 6 wins.

It took Houiller 23 games to reach 6 wins.

It took McLeish 22 games to reach 6 wins.

So the good news is that, if we keep progressing at the same rate, we can look forward to seeing an immediately successful manager as early as about 2050.

Good one. I guess the team Alex inherited is on par with the one MON inherited. So all in all, an average start.

[briny_ear]

As some people have rightly pointed out, 6 wins in 22 League games is not very impressive, but if you look hard enough you can still interpret that as long-term progress:

It took O’Neill 24 games to reach 6 wins.

It took O’Neill 12 games to reach 6 wins the next season.

It took O’Neill 10 games to reach 6 wins the season after that.

It took O’Neill 12 games to reach 6 wins the season after that.

It took Houiller 23 games to reach 6 wins.

It took McLeish 22 games to reach 6 wins.

So the good news is that, if we keep progressing at the same rate, we can look forward to seeing an immediately successful manager as early as about 2050.

When you put in the full run of seasons, it's hard to describe this as "progress", although I recognise your intent was satirical.

[NormandyVillan]

As some people have rightly pointed out, 6 wins in 22 League games is not very impressive, but if you look hard enough you can still interpret that as long-term progress:

It took O’Neill 24 games to reach 6 wins.

It took O’Neill 12 games to reach 6 wins the next season.

It took O’Neill 10 games to reach 6 wins the season after that.

It took O’Neill 12 games to reach 6 wins the season after that.

It took Houiller 23 games to reach 6 wins.

It took McLeish 22 games to reach 6 wins.

So the good news is that, if we keep progressing at the same rate, we can look forward to seeing an immediately successful manager as early as about 2050.

When you put in the full run of seasons, it's hard to describe this as "progress", although I recognise your intent was satirical.

Well, yes, I did say "if you look hard enough". I wasn't really intending to be either anti-McLeish or pro-McLeish, although I suppose those stats indicate that McLeish's start has hardly been unprecedently poor.

As regards managers' potential to improve results after a slow start:

O'Neill certainly proved he had that potential, although he spent quite a lot of money to achieve the moderate success of successive 6th place finishes.

Houllier we'll never know, although I suspect he would not have been as successful as O'Neill.

McLeish? I suspect he won't either, especially with cash being tight, but it's still a case of wait and see. The football has been fairly dire at times, but the results have not been disastrously poor so far, more like just a fraction below par. A win against QPR and he'll have as many wins as defeats and we'll be back in the top half (8th to 10th depending on other results), which for me would be about what you would have expected from an averagely competent manager.

I'll be generous and give him 5.8 out of 10 so far and a "Could do better." Or perhaps that should be "Might do better, you never know..."

[savosleftboot]

You can luck at results both ways, we should have got the 3 points at QPR, Sunderland and 1 against Arsenal but we were lucky at Everton and Chelsea & Wolves imploded against us. One thing in AMC's favour is we've not had the spanking's we had last season which became too regular

[Copey11]

I am quite ambivalent on the merits of McLeish as a manager but I don't get the criticism of a hard fought and well won local derby away from home.

We were the better side for the first 20-25 mins and for the whole of the second half.

The team selection was both brave and correct, by that I mean he dropped Warnock from the starting eleven because he needed to show that you play badly and you get dropped. It didn't work out as Clark was a little out of his depth so he brought on Warnock (plenty of managers wouldn't have done that) who then came on and played very well. His Half Time reshuffle was good, he could quite easily have made a double sub, replacing Warnock for Clark and Weimann or Bannan for Gabby. He'd didn't however, he chose to keep Clark on the pitch which in itself was inspired, it showed the lad that he appreciated his efforts in an unnatural position and allowed him to regain his confidence in the second half in a more familiar position, great for the kids confidence and it meant he still had two substitutions left. His one substitution and the subsequent reshuffle, completely changed the dynamic of the second half, something his counterpart didn't seem to have an answer for. He played Gardner from the start and took him off with a couple of minutes to go so the crowd again would be applauding him and him alone when he came off, another great confidence boost for one of the youngsters. His reshuffle also gave him evidence that Albrighton can play on both sides (you could argue he's better on the left, he certainly was in this game.)

Hopefully McLeish will have learned a lot about his squad and a little bit about himself and I can't see where any criticism is due to him from that game tbh.

this is a good post, especially the end where hopefully he has learned a lot about the squad.

I am not sure about AM, but I do feel he has been trying to do something that is incredibly difficult for any manager, and that is managing a squad that has too many key players in bad form at the same time.

I know it is part of his mandate to get the players in form, but I do believe he has tried this, and tried to put players into situations or positions to succeed when not in form, or dropping them after a period of time, but bringing them back into the squad to see if they can play their way out of it.

Examples of players with talent and ability in poor form for some period of time this season:

Albrighton - awful early on, got sat down, looking better recently.

Ireland - given a chance but not working, injured sometimes, now brought back in and starting to come on.

Nzog - out of form and match fitness, given plenty of opportunity to play himself into shape, hasn't been able to do so, and rightly not playing. I expect to see him come back in the squad soon, because he is needed.

Warnock/Collins/Hutton - all inconsistent or in poor form, but I think AM wanted to keep a consistent back four to give them every chance to play their way into form. Warnock went off the boil, and got replaced for a half, came on looking more solid (though he scares the hell out of me even when he is "in form"). I have never actually seen Hutton play well, so he may just be crap. Collins tries hard?

Delph - given plenty of time early in the season, couldn't play himself into any sort of form, now on loan.

Bannan - given a lot of opportunities, I would say with mixed results. Sometimes he looked great, other times the game passed him by. Shot himself in the foot with the drinking incident, sat down, has been brought in as a sub recently. Jury is out.

So my point is, it seems to me that AM puts out in many cases a team on paper and in a formation to succeed, but we are often let down by too many players on the pitch in poor form (by the way, I use "form" to represent the performance vs. expectations of the player, not effort put forth). This is difficult to overcome. If the team is playing well but Nzog is out of form, it can be overcome with a single sub. But if Nzog, Delph, Albrighton, Warnock and Hutton are all over the shop at the same time, we look a mess.

I am hoping that getting 2-3 of these players performing closer to their expectations and ability, we will see results come. it is probably too much to ask for all of them to come good (something MON actually was able to achieve through his management style and an unbelievable amount of luck with injuries). If poor form continues for an entire season I expect some of these players to be moved on. But it certainly seems to me that AM is trying to help these guys play to their expected level.

UTV!

[Denis_B]

As some people have rightly pointed out, 6 wins in 22 League games is not very impressive, but if you look hard enough you can still interpret that as long-term progress:

It took O’Neill 24 games to reach 6 wins.

It took Houiller 23 games to reach 6 wins.

It took McLeish 22 games to reach 6 wins.

So the good news is that, if we keep progressing at the same rate, we can look forward to seeing an immediately successful manager as early as about 2050.

Good one. I guess the team Alex inherited is on par with the one MON inherited. So all in all, an average start.

Difference is that at end of first season MON had a shitload of cash to spend....McEck will have feck all!

[Rob182]

What Bicks and Copey11 said!

[thetrees]

As some people have rightly pointed out, 6 wins in 22 League games is not very impressive, but if you look hard enough you can still interpret that as long-term progress:

It took O’Neill 24 games to reach 6 wins.

It took Houiller 23 games to reach 6 wins.

It took McLeish 22 games to reach 6 wins.

So the good news is that, if we keep progressing at the same rate, we can look forward to seeing an immediately successful manager as early as about 2050.

Good one. I guess the team Alex inherited is on par with the one MON inherited. So all in all, an average start.

To be fair to the club, McLeish has been backed to the tune of about £18m in transfer fees for Given, Hutton and N'Zogbia. Houllier was backed with £25-30m ( Bent and Makoun )

It may appear pitiful next to the spending under O'Neill, but it is still substantial.

McLeish inherited some reasonable players, including some decent youth products, and has been allowed to buy. He just needs to get on with the job of coaching the players that he has and wait until the summer to go into the market again.

[Big_John_10]

Will Mcleish make us a team capable of challenging the top teams given time and money? To me there is little evidence. The worrying thing is that more fans seem to be happy with the direction of the club as long as every so often we manage to beat a shit team. I really hope most fans don't start becoming content with midtable obscurity.

Getting expectation levels lower than they were under doug would be an achievement to put next to failing in two major sports for good old Randy.

[bickster]

Will Mcleish make us a team capable of challenging the top teams given time and money? To me there is little evidence. The worrying thing is that more fans seem to be happy with the direction of the club as long as every so often we manage to beat a shit team. I really hope most fans don't start becoming content with midtable obscurity.

Getting expectation levels lower than they were under doug would be an achievement to put next to failing in two major sports for good old Randy.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone say that tbh. Yes our expectations are lower but thats more out of a pragmatic approach, right here, right now, we as a club simply cannot afford to compete with the top teams, we simply do not have the resources. Given time I'm quite sure McLeish can keep us steady in mid table and maybe challenge for a cup every now and again but until circumstances at the club change that really is about the best we can hope for. The very appointment of McLeish signalled that to me but that's not to say McLeish shouldn't be given our support, he should, he and the team need it. Maybe he shouldn't have been appointed but he has been and right now he and the team need the fans all pulling together.

I'm not saying don't criticise him, when it's due its a perfectly fair thing for fans to do on fora such as these but when it goes completely over the top is when he wins an away derby game after making all the correct decisions and he still gets criticism.

Here's something to give us hope, look where we are in the Away Form Table

[brummybloke]

I am quite ambivalent on the merits of McLeish as a manager but I don't get the criticism of a hard fought and well won local derby away from home.

We were the better side for the first 20-25 mins and for the whole of the second half.

The team selection was both brave and correct, by that I mean he dropped Warnock from the starting eleven because he needed to show that you play badly and you get dropped. It didn't work out as Clark was a little out of his depth so he brought on Warnock (plenty of managers wouldn't have done that) who then came on and played very well. His Half Time reshuffle was good, he could quite easily have made a double sub, replacing Warnock for Clark and Weimann or Bannan for Gabby. He'd didn't however, he chose to keep Clark on the pitch which in itself was inspired, it showed the lad that he appreciated his efforts in an unnatural position and allowed him to regain his confidence in the second half in a more familiar position, great for the kids confidence and it meant he still had two substitutions left. His one substitution and the subsequent reshuffle, completely changed the dynamic of the second half, something his counterpart didn't seem to have an answer for. He played Gardner from the start and took him off with a couple of minutes to go so the crowd again would be applauding him and him alone when he came off, another great confidence boost for one of the youngsters. His reshuffle also gave him evidence that Albrighton can play on both sides (you could argue he's better on the left, he certainly was in this game.)

Hopefully McLeish will have learned a lot about his squad and a little bit about himself and I can't see where any criticism is due to him from that game tbh.

while we won, i see it slightly differently, clark was being torn a new a-hole by kightly and something needed sorting out at left back, warnock was on the bench so was the only choice.

gabby was sick at half time wasnt he? tht is the reason he came off, not for any tactical master strokes.

so by taking gabby off and putting on another defender all he really did was try and plug the quite obvious gaping hole at let back.

it worked only through circumstance because despite keane scoring two cracking goals, both long shots, we were still not looking like we were going to win until henry got himself sent off.

i dont mind lucky subs working out fine, as i already said, bobby robson one of englands luckiest ever managers, teams he picked for tournaments always failed until forces changes through injury or sendings off brought others into the team who would stand a chance normally and then we would click and he would be hailed as a great manager despite being flukey beyond belief for england.

the win against wolves should have been expected, 2 wins in 18 games or what ever it was? yet we struggled, were outplayed for 30 minutes of the first half where but through poor finishing, they could have had 3 or 4.

in the second half, one shot from outside the box from keane brough tus level but we were far from looking like we had any control of the game, only when the sending off happened did i think we at least couldnt lose the game.

3 points however is 3 points, it doesnt make everything any better, it doesnt make him a better manager, he had the good fortune that gabby got ill and an obvious replacement was needed for left back and that henry was sent off.

we are stuck with bland football, possibly a bit of luck here and there and mixed in with some good individual performances make provide the glitter on the turd, it is however, still a turd.

with other teams grabbing unexpected points at the weekend, the pressure is still on so when we play the bottom 3 teams we really should not be jumping for joy that we scraped a win, just be grateful that this year the premier league is the weakest it has been for some time.

[bickster]

while we won, i see it slightly differently, clark was being torn a new a-hole by kightly and something needed sorting out at left back, warnock was on the bench so was the only choice.

You're argument here fails because Nathan Baker was on the bench

gabby was sick at half time wasnt he? tht is the reason he came off, not for any tactical master strokes.

Gabby had been ill for a few days leading up to the match, it was known before the game started that he'd play barely more than a half, the gabby sub was expected, if not at HT at some point early in the second half and as I've already explained, there was a much more obvious double substitution that could have been made

we were still not looking like we were going to win until henry got himself sent off.

How do you explain us equalising when Henry and their star player Frimpong were both still on the pitch, that fact makes your assertion a bit mystic meg tbh, we were very much in the ascendancy already before either of those two incidents

yet we struggled, were outplayed for 30 minutes of the first half where but through poor finishing, they could have had 3 or 4.

in the second half

We could have had 3 or 4 before they'd scored their first, that argument is flawed and one sided

we are stuck with bland football

I really enjoyed watching the Wolves match, it was far from bland

Thats three lucky away wins on the bounce, one against a top four side and another in a local derby, I'm going to ask McLeish for Friday's euromillions number at this rate, lucky bastard he is...

[brommy]

Bickster's post at 8:22pm is spot on.

Bickster's responses at 8:38pm, however correct they may be, might be just like doing this -

[Copey11]

^

I agree as well on the 8:22 post. in my earlier response I alluded to my definition of form as 'performance relative to the expectations for the player".

the same holds true for the squad as a whole. I expect less from this squad than in years past. We lost Downing and Young, haven't had any real squad enhancement, bar Bent, but have rather attempted to plug holes that emerged, so yes, expectations are down. I also referred to the MON years, where both the players and squad were in top form, meaning outperformed expectations, which was great while it lasted, but was destined to end at some point.

It remains to be seen in the summer is AM is the man to both manage this squad to at minimum my expectations, but more importantly to change my expectations with improvements to the squad in the transfer window when some big contracts come off the wage bill. I am not too confident he is that man, but I also am willing to give him the chance to try.

[brummybloke]

while we won, i see it slightly differently, clark was being torn a new a-hole by kightly and something needed sorting out at left back, warnock was on the bench so was the only choice.

You're argument here fails because Nathan Baker was on the bench

gabby was sick at half time wasnt he? tht is the reason he came off, not for any tactical master strokes.

Gabby had been ill for a few days leading up to the match, it was known before the game started that he'd play barely more than a half, the gabby sub was expected, if not at HT at some point early in the second half and as I've already explained, there was a much more obvious double substitution that could have been made

we were still not looking like we were going to win until henry got himself sent off.

How do you explain us equalising when Henry and their star player Frimpong were both still on the pitch, that fact makes your assertion a bit mystic meg tbh, we were very much in the ascendancy already before either of those two incidents

yet we struggled, were outplayed for 30 minutes of the first half where but through poor finishing, they could have had 3 or 4.

in the second half

We could have had 3 or 4 before they'd scored their first, that argument is flawed and one sided

we are stuck with bland football

I really enjoyed watching the Wolves match, it was far from bland

Thats three lucky away wins on the bounce, one against a top four side and another in a local derby, I'm going to ask McLeish for Friday's euromillions number at this rate, lucky bastard he is...

why was baker on the subs bench? becuase of illness to several other players, now while most see GC as compelely out of his depth, he did not have a choice, he tried clark it failed, he is not likely to try another young inexperienced player is he?

our second goal was a 1 second shot out of nothing, it went in and was a good goal for keane, it was not exactly through masterful build up play, complete domination and so on, a hoof came in, it was cleared, a header towards kean with his back to goal outside the area keane hit it on the turn and it went in, good for him, good for us but it was a 1 in 20 shot which went in.

then after that wolves started building up the pressure again, only when frimpong got injured did wolves wind start going out of their sails, we still didnt dominate or even look like we could win it, henry gets sent off and keane collects a clearance again outside the box and it goes in, another 1 in 20 shot, 19 out of 20 times it would not have resulted in a goal but it was a fantastic strike which went in. you put the ball in the same position and he wouldnt hit it like that again.

i wont look a gift horse in the mouth, we got 3 very very desperately needed points, i will gladly take them any how, but i will only give credit where it is due. it was no master stroke to keep an extra defender on the pitch in clark to me it was damage limitations by the manager a forward comes off replace him with a defender.

we did not out play wolves apart from the first 15 minutes of the game until we got the 3rd goal and they were down to 10 with both central midfielders off the pitch.

for me at least it was a huge amount of luck and good fortune which i havent seen us have too often all coming good in 1 game ( keanes 2 long shots, an injury a sending off and an illness to one of our forwards forcing a substition which also coincided with the player playing at left back having a mare and our experienced left back being the only sensible option)

nothing wrong with having luck but lets not confuse it with great calculated tactical decisions from our manager ( which at least in my opinion, it wasnt)

[bickster]

then after that wolves started building up the pressure again, only when frimpong got injured did wolves wind start going out of their sails

Keane scored 51 min, Frimpong went off 5 mins later, given that it took a good few minutes for him to get off the pitch, trainer, stretcher etc. (hence the 8 mins time added on at the end) I'd suggest you're in fantasy land, this tremendous pressure that Wolves were building between our goal and Frimpong being injured are yet another argument based on NOTHING! you've imagined it and when did happen in those few seconds you've dressed up to sound rather more grandiose that what actually happened.

So the second half where Wolves were building pressure and could have scored 3 or 4 goals lasted 30 secs? a whole min? or maybe 90secs at a push

[brommy]

^

I agree as well on the 8:22 post. in my earlier response I alluded to my definition of form as 'performance relative to the expectations for the player".

the same holds true for the squad as a whole. I expect less from this squad than in years past. We lost Downing and Young, haven't had any real squad enhancement, bar Bent, but have rather attempted to plug holes that emerged, so yes, expectations are down. I also referred to the MON years, where both the players and squad were in top form, meaning outperformed expectations, which was great while it lasted, but was destined to end at some point.

It remains to be seen in the summer is AM is the man to both manage this squad to at minimum my expectations, but more importantly to change my expectations with improvements to the squad in the transfer window when some big contracts come off the wage bill. I am not too confident he is that man, but I also am willing to give him the chance to try.

Another reasoned post. What's up with VT tonight? :winkold:

I admire your use of the word 'too'. It would have been easy to state 'I'm not confident'. It's where I'm at as well: not too confident but there's a chance that I won't write off yet.

[Laivasse]

I don't often agree with macandally (EDIT: eh, whoops, I meant brummybloke I thought it was macandally, can't remember how much I usually agree with brummybloke ) , but his analysis of the Wolves game is much more accurate than bickster's. While we dominated the first 10 minutes (not 20-25) of the first half, our only good chance from open play was Gardner's early header. After that, they tore us open over and over again. They attacked down our left as if we had no players there and could have been out of sight by HT, if they hadn't repeatedly blasted the ball down Given's throat. No, we could not have killed the game and got '3 or 4' with our 10 minutes of positive play.

It's all very well saying how clever it was to start without Warnock, except that doing so cost us one goal directly and one indirectly through inviting all the pressure that gave them their corners. Bringing Warnock on at HT was a good move, but it really was the only sensible choice, since Baker is untested and pinning a defensive turnaround on him would have been bonkers. It also requires the benefit of some doubt to say that McLeish would have made any subs at all if not for Gabby being sick. Personally, seeing as how McLeish has failed to make subs in dire situations in the past, IMO no changes would have been made if his hand hadn't been forced - HT tactical subs haven't been his style at all so far even when we've been sinking without trace. Furthermore it's all very well saying that leaving Clark on was a masterstroke, but the fact is we missed Gabby. Clark did very little in the second half, and despite having the better of play we continued to create very little. Their lack of dominance came from the fact they gave up attacking our left, whereas they'd spent the entire 1st half doing so. That's without accounting for the Frimpong injury and the red card.

Individual efforts are what won the game. We equalised while Frimpong was still on because our equaliser had nothing to do with momentum or tactical superiority. Keane making two great strikes is not the same as having a successful gameplan. If McLeish deserves credit for anything about the Wolves game, it's for getting Keane in - and I'm eating my words here, since I thought Keane would be useless. He was a gamble that very much paid off, however, and I'm delighted that he won the Wolves game on his own, but that is what he did.

[brummybloke]

then after that wolves started building up the pressure again, only when frimpong got injured did wolves wind start going out of their sails

Keane scored 51 min, Frimpong went off 5 mins later, given that it took a good few minutes for him to get off the pitch, trainer, stretcher etc. (hence the 8 mins time added on at the end) I'd suggest you're in fantasy land, this tremendous pressure that Wolves were building between our goal and Frimpong being injured are yet another argument based on NOTHING! you've imagined it and when did happen in those few seconds you've dressed up to sound rather more grandiose that what actually happened.

So the second half where Wolves were building pressure and could have scored 3 or 4 goals lasted 30 secs? a whole min? or maybe 90secs at a push

i would suggest you actually read what i wrote rather than half reading it and then jumping in where you are wrong

could it possibly be that i actually said we did not look like winning until henry got sent off? why yes i did, so how you come up with ahh but we scored before he got sent off?? what on earth does that have anything what so ever to do with us not looking like WINNING, i didnt say drawing did i? i said WINNING.

and just like with frimpong, did i say that we were in control and scored and then when frimpong went off we looked better? or did i actual say apart from a 1 in 20 shot from keane, with frimpong on the pitch wolves were the better team.

i dont give a rats arse that 5 minutes after keane had his 1 in 20 goal go in frimpong went off, for the time he was on the pitch, they were better than us apart from the fist 15 minutes and until they had frimpong off and only once henry went off did we look like we wouldnt LOSE.

and did i say they could have scored 3 or 4 goals in the second half? REALLY? i dont think i did, yet more nonsense and mis reading

nothing wrong with having your own opinion but at least when trying to be critical of others posts, read what was written.

so take your own advise and get out of the fantasy land i suggest you are obviously in

[bickster]

You said between us scoring and Frimpong going off Wolves were building up the pressure again and only when he went off did the wind go out of their sails, that period of building pressure was factually 90 secs at best