42 replies to this topic

[PeterFear]

IIRC (and there's a chance I don't tbf) whilst they were well off the pace in the league, they had a fair few games in hand which would have put them quite close - yeah obviously they still have to win those games. I think if he'd been given a bit more time he'd have been a success there, and he wasn't a complete disaster.

EDIT: Just checked, they had 2 games in hand but if they'd won them they were still 7 points off the top. So yeah I guess he was doing pretty badly. Still stand by him being a success if he'd been given time though.

[DDA]

People say the same about hodgson at liverpool tbf

at the end of the day he took over a team that had been winning the league every season and had just won the champions league, and then didnt do very well.

TBF I think he would have turned it around with time but maybe even the season after when he got his own players, but through not being able to work with the existing squad and falling out with the boss he didnt get a chance too which is his own fault really.

to expand, you can only judge a manager on the job he does, i dont see how you could say he did anything other than crap really but it doesnt make him a bad manager. I think AVB was awful at chelsea and agreed with abramovich sacking him despite everybody saying it was ridiculous, fa cup and champs league final shows it was the right decision, Id still have AVB at liverpool though. Just sometimes a manger gets it wrong at a club, rafa did that at inter.

[NotSureIfSotirios]

F365 did an article recently about "there are no good managers, just good fits" which was pretty spot on. Like Rot at Fulham/West Brom vs his time with us, RDM at West Brom vs his time at Chelsea. Certain managers just work with certain clubs and there's no explainable reason why.