[Archived] Sam Allardyce

[John]

Big Sam pundit on Sky Sports 2.

[FourLaneBlue]

Can't agree with this.

Players are just like everybody else, they have to enjoy their work.

Who knows, they may enjoy playing "Who can punt it the furthest?", but given what performances have been like, you have to wonder.

I work in IT, and if my boss said that I had to write programs in a certain way, and I knew that that way was gash, I wouldn't be too happy.

Can you give any examples to support this argument other than from your line of work? I don't think the analogy is quite the same. Writing a program isn't exactly like beating the eleven opposition players.

I remember Mourinho's Chelsea side being dour and workmanlike at times but they ran away with the league twice in a row. Don't remember any of their regulars wanting out. Arsenal played fantastic football at the time yet a load of their players left. Cole, Viera, Henry etc.

Why wouldn't the players enjoy their work? They love playing football. They play to win.

Did Wimbledon players hate it when their reviled style was shooting them up the leagues and to Wembley?

Furthermore using "their performances" doesn't back it up. They were truly awful under Ince. So much for that attacking licence inspiring them...

[mellison24]

Can you give any examples to support this argument other than from your line of work? I don't think the analogy is quite the same. Writing a program isn't exactly like beating the eleven opposition players.

I remember Mourinho's Chelsea side being dour and workmanlike at times but they ran away with the league twice in a row. Don't remember any of their regulars wanting out. Arsenal played fantastic football at the time yet a load of their players left. Cole, Viera, Henry etc.

Why wouldn't the players enjoy their work? They love playing football. They play to win.

Did Wimbledon players hate it when their reviled style was shooting them up the leagues and to Wembley?

All down to relative success and money then. Wimbledon and Chelski (in ur examples) had both (in relative terms). Our players seem to have the money, but not the success. Maybe that's why? If we had players of the same standard on lower wages, then maybe the camp would be happier as it is then more relative/more 'accepted'?

[CrazyIvan]

All down to relative success and money then. Wimbledon and Chelski (in ur examples) had both (in relative terms). Our players seem to have the money, but not the success. Maybe that's why? If we had players of the same standard on lower wages, then maybe the camp would be happier as it is then more relative/more 'accepted'?

If poor performance is the result of the players being unhappy with the tactics, then winning at home, as we have, must be because they like them there. Away, lots of teams must hate their tactics because, this season, very few teams have a good record away.

[broadsword]

Can you give any examples to support this argument other than from your line of work? I don't think the analogy is quite the same. Writing a program isn't exactly like beating the eleven opposition players.

I remember Mourinho's Chelsea side being dour and workmanlike at times but they ran away with the league twice in a row. Don't remember any of their regulars wanting out. Arsenal played fantastic football at the time yet a load of their players left. Cole, Viera, Henry etc.

Why wouldn't the players enjoy their work? They love playing football. They play to win.

Did Wimbledon players hate it when their reviled style was shooting them up the leagues and to Wembley?

Furthermore using "their performances" doesn't back it up. They were truly awful under Ince. So much for that attacking licence inspiring them...

I'm not sure why the onus is on me to give more examples, football is a job like any other.

Wimbledon's players were in the main, and without being rude, limited. they knew that the only way they could be successful was to play route one. Although their route one seemed to be more effective than our's! It was drudgery with a purpose, they bought into it because they knew it was the only way for them to be successful. Chelsea could be workmanlike and grind out results, but I wouldn't have said they were awful to watch, you don't win the title without being able to pass the ball accurately.

I think using their performances does back it up, it proves my point. The players didn't believe in Ince and his methods, not just they way they were set up on match days, but the training, if you can call it that. It showed in their performances. I'm getting similar vibes about Blackburn under Allardyce, it's only an intuitive feeling, but that's how I see it.

[FourLaneBlue]

I'm not sure why the onus is on me to give more examples, football is a job like any other.

It's a messageboard and we are having a debate. People generally back up their arguments with examples in an attempt to reinforce their point. Not sure why that is putting the "onus" on you especially after I supplied examples to reinforce my points.

As for your second point...yes...football is a job. However that does not make it exactly a job like any other as it is a results-based business in such an instant way. It also invloves a lot more than just the way of playing during the matches. Training, playing, development etc. If we are using analogies then I will say that I never remember having played football and won the game only to say "you know...i'm not really satisfied. Yes we won and I set one up and enjoyed myself but hmmm...was it really aesthetically pleasing to the onlookers. That long ball we use now and then doesn't really match my footballing philosphy and that long throw we try really clashes with my round-ball-based principles..."

I don't think so. I think players want to play and win games. When that happens they are happy. I don't remember Bolton players complaining when it was working for them.

Ultimately...football is a results business for players. For fans it might be different. That is the difference between succeeding at your job or having to pay good money to watch crap entertainment. Different things.

Wimbledon's players were in the main, and without being rude, limited. they knew that the only way they could be successful was to play route one. Although their route one seemed to be more effective than our's! It was drudgery with a purpose, they bought into it because they knew it was the only way for them to be successful. Chelsea could be workmanlike and grind out results, but I wouldn't have said they were awful to watch, you don't win the title without being able to pass the ball accurately.

Are those Wimbledon players over the years - which included quite a few future England internationals - really that much more limited than our current lot? Chelsea were awful to watch at times but they were damn effective and their fans didn't mind as they won and kept on winning.

I think using their performances does back it up, it proves my point. The players didn't believe in Ince and his methods, not just they way they were set up on match days, but the training, if you can call it that. It showed in their performances. I'm getting similar vibes about Blackburn under Allardyce, it's only an intuitive feeling, but that's how I see it.

This board and this club has been on a downer for - at the very least - 18 months. I would like to see Sam having us playing more positive football and especially picking more optimistic teams from the start of the match. Slowly but surely I think he will but we do need more creative players coming in. We have so little to spend that everything is taking a long time in a slow process.

As for the Hull game...an attacking formation would be nice.

[mellison24]

It's a messageboard and we are having a debate. People generally back up their arguments with examples in an attempt to reinforce their point. Not sure why that is putting the "onus" on you especially after I supplied examples to reinforce my points.

As for your second point...yes...football is a job. However that does not make it exactly a job like any other as it is a results-based business in such an instant way. It also invloves a lot more than just the way of playing during the matches. Training, playing, development etc. If we are using analogies then I will say that I never remember having played football and won the game only to say "you know...i'm not really satisfied. Yes we won and I set one up and enjoyed myself but hmmm...was it really aesthetically pleasing to the onlookers. That long ball we use now and then doesn't really match my footballing philosphy and that long throw we try really clashes with my round-ball-based principles..."

I don't think so. I think players want to play and win games. When that happens they are happy. I don't remember Bolton players complaining when it was working for them.

Ultimately...football is a results business for players. For fans it might be different. That is the difference between succeeding at your job or having to pay good money to watch crap entertainment. Different things.

Are those Wimbledon players over the years - which included quite a few future England internationals - really that much more limited than our current lot? Chelsea were awful to watch at times but they were damn effective and their fans didn't mind as they won and kept on winning.

This board and this club has been on a downer for - at the very least - 18 months. I would like to see Sam having us playing more positive football and especially picking more optimistic teams from the start of the match. Slowly but surely I think he will but we do need more creative players coming in. We have so little to spend that everything is taking a long time in a slow process.

As for the Hull game...an attacking formation would be nice.

I agree with a FEW points but deffo not the two highlighted.

Football is a job and ALL jobs are results based. If you don't do well in your job you will lack a good reputation or even be sacked. Also, many jobs require training (although not every day). Teachers take training courses, on random days in mid-term half the time. The police force require regular checks to ensure they are up to standard. Those in trades also often take exams every few years to ensure they are still performing safely and adequately etc. The only ways football REALLY differ are the media focus, the wages involved, the time off and the constant need to 'improve' rather than 'stay up to scratch'. Otherwise, most jobs are comparable imo.

Also, somebody has a signature which I fully agree with. It states that it isn't the formation that determines how a team plays, but the application of that formation. The attitude of the play, rather than the system used to facilitate that play. Basically, we can play 451 however much we like, as long as we mix up the play more than long ball time and again. Either way, we have 11 men on the field and we must choose the most effective way to play and score goals, while also defending well. We must NOT shoehorn players into a formation they aren't comfortable with or attempt to play a style which they aren't happy with. This last point ties in with Bryan's analogy. I would love to be happy in my future job. But if my boss insists on me executing a task in a way I don't deem to be appropriate, I wouldn't be happy with my job. Or at least the man I work for.

[broadsword]

It's a messageboard and we are having a debate. People generally back up their arguments with examples in an attempt to reinforce their point. Not sure why that is putting the "onus" on you especially after I supplied examples to reinforce my points.

As for your second point...yes...football is a job. However that does not make it exactly a job like any other as it is a results-based business in such an instant way. It also invloves a lot more than just the way of playing during the matches. Training, playing, development etc. If we are using analogies then I will say that I never remember having played football and won the game only to say "you know...i'm not really satisfied. Yes we won and I set one up and enjoyed myself but hmmm...was it really aesthetically pleasing to the onlookers. That long ball we use now and then doesn't really match my footballing philosphy and that long throw we try really clashes with my round-ball-based principles..."

I don't think so. I think players want to play and win games. When that happens they are happy. I don't remember Bolton players complaining when it was working for them.

Ultimately...football is a results business for players. For fans it might be different. That is the difference between succeeding at your job or having to pay good money to watch crap entertainment. Different things.

Are those Wimbledon players over the years - which included quite a few future England internationals - really that much more limited than our current lot? Chelsea were awful to watch at times but they were damn effective and their fans didn't mind as they won and kept on winning.

This board and this club has been on a downer for - at the very least - 18 months. I would like to see Sam having us playing more positive football and especially picking more optimistic teams from the start of the match. Slowly but surely I think he will but we do need more creative players coming in. We have so little to spend that everything is taking a long time in a slow process.

As for the Hull game...an attacking formation would be nice.

How many examples do you need?

Although I think you're missing my point. if you don't believe in what the manager's doing, then it's difficult to put your full energy into that. Didn't really need some arsey quote about aesthetically-pleasing football. If players don't believe in the leadership, they're not going to enjoy what they're doing are they?

It is a results business and players want to win first and foremost, wouldn't disagree with that.

don't know how else to express it, and it's getting a bit tedious, so I'll leave it there.

[cn174]

Either way, we have 11 men on the field and we must choose the most effective way to play and score goals, while also defending well.

Well durr!!!

[mellison24]

Well durr!!!

Stating the obvious is sometimes a requirement! (that's my excuse anyway)

[Exiled in Toronto]

I too agree that 4-5-1 / 4-4-2 is not the issue. The issue is that we have around 40% possession per game and give away 45% of our passes when we have the ball. I know they are connected, but when the opposition have the ball for 50% longer than we do, surely we need either better players than them or be more skilled in our use of the ball when we have it?

But Allardyce doesn't seem to agree. I don't think he cares one bit about what happens between his precious long punts, long throws and free-kicks. The trouble is, a lot of fans do care, especially as under his way we are not winning 72% of our league games. Nearly 3 games in every 4 where we have no win to celebrate nor any thrilling play to savour.

[unluckymorton]

All down to relative success and money then. Wimbledon and Chelski (in ur examples) had both (in relative terms). Our players seem to have the money, but not the success. Maybe that's why? If we had players of the same standard on lower wages, then maybe the camp would be happier as it is then more relative/more 'accepted'?

Sadly low wages doesn't bring the right calibre of player to a club like ours.

[FourLaneBlue]

How many examples do you need?

"Examples"? You gave one example...I asked for a different one so we could carry on the debate. What's your problem with that?

Although I think you're missing my point. if you don't believe in what the manager's doing, then it's difficult to put your full energy into that. Didn't really need some arsey quote about aesthetically-pleasing football. If players don't believe in the leadership, they're not going to enjoy what they're doing are they?

Why exactly was it an "arsey quote"? I thought it was quite good even if I came up with it by myself. Don't remember saying what you came out with was "arsey" or anything else other than disagreeing politely enough.

True enough if players don't believe in the leader then they won't enjoy it. That showed as under Ince we were going down. However we are midtable at the moment...I don't think another manager would have got us much higher irrespective of style played.

It is a results business and players want to win first and foremost, wouldn't disagree with that.

don't know how else to express it, and it's getting a bit tedious, so I'll leave it there.

I said "I think players just want to be playing and winning. A winning side can get away with negative football." You were the one disagreeing with my point even though I hadn't even addressed it at you.

What is there to disagree with? If players are winning games then they will believe in the manager. Players follow success...

May I suggest you are a wee bit more sensitive than usual for some reason tonight Bryan?

[broadsword]

"Examples"? You gave one example...I asked for a different one so we could carry on the debate. What's your problem with that?What is there to disagree with? If players are winning games then they will believe in the manager. Players follow success...

May I suggest you are a wee bit more sensitive than usual for some reason tonight Bryan?

Oh naff off! :-)

Just not in the mood to get sucked into a long drawn-out argument. However, point taken that I am being a little cantakerous, I do apologise.

I agree that if the players are winning games, then their hearts and minds will follow. However, for there to be a chance of that, they have to buy into it initially and I'm not sure that that is the case. How would you win a group of players over to the tactical plan of leathering it up the field for most of the game?

We are 12th at the moment, but it's a rather precarious 12th, and our run-in isn't the best. Let's hope we can stay there.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong, and that the players believe in what Sam is doing, they feel challenged and look forward to training sessions, and that they feel that come match day everything's set up for them to have every chance of a result. That's what I would like to be the case since I want the best for my team.

[FourLaneBlue]

I wasn't disagreeing with that. However you do have mellison battling in your corner now so maybe I will leave it at that!

[broadsword]

I fired up the mellison signal across the Gotham night-sky :-)

[FourLaneBlue]

Well...it is a bit like an M isn't it?

[Miker]

If we are using analogies then I will say that I never remember having played football and won the game only to say "you know...i'm not really satisfied. Yes we won and I set one up and enjoyed myself but hmmm...was it really aesthetically pleasing to the onlookers. That long ball we use now and then doesn't really match my footballing philosphy and that long throw we try really clashes with my round-ball-based principles..."

I don't think so. I think players want to play and win games. When that happens they are happy. I don't remember Bolton players complaining when it was working for them

It really depends on how ambitious the team and the players are. If the team is ambitious and we aren't playing too our best they may become unhappy and want to leave. In general though, players are happy as long as they play and they can put in a good performance. I was exactly the same when I played football, no matter what the game was, as long as I played and felt good about the way I played I was happy. I would be frustrated if I was put into an unfamiliar position or a position I did not like. I would also be frustrated if I wasn't happy with the coach's instructions, but this was rare, as generally you accept what the coach is saying as they have a better view of the game.

No matter what though, the players definitely just want to play some football. You don't play football because you want to make money, you play it because you have talent and you love it.

[mellison24]

Well...it is a bit like an M isn't it?

[47er]

I too agree that 4-5-1 / 4-4-2 is not the issue. The issue is that we have around 40% possession per game and give away 45% of our passes when we have the ball. I know they are connected, but when the opposition have the ball for 50% longer than we do, surely we need either better players than them or be more skilled in our use of the ball when we have it?

But Allardyce doesn't seem to agree. I don't think he cares one bit about what happens between his precious long punts, long throws and free-kicks. The trouble is, a lot of fans do care, especially as under his way we are not winning 72% of our league games. Nearly 3 games in every 4 where we have no win to celebrate nor any thrilling play to savour.

The issue is that we have a very poor midfield. with Dunny out we lose creativity, with Grella out we lose the "bite". Everything stems from that. No midfield so we play over it, front players are outnumbered or ball comes to defender, no chances created so no goals,no possession so ball comes straight back to defence who've just cleared it.Repeat ad nauseum.

Thats a worst case scenario of course but much of our away games are like that.

[den]

The issue is that we have a very poor midfield. with Dunny out we lose creativity, with Grella out we lose the "bite". Everything stems from that. No midfield so we play over it, front players are outnumbered or ball comes to defender, no chances created so no goals,no possession so ball comes straight back to defence who've just cleared it.Repeat ad nauseum.

Thats a worst case scenario of course but much of our away games are like that.

Back to my first point 47er, the reason we don't play enough pass and move football is because we don't have the talent. Yeah, it might go against the grain with Sam, but if you don't have the quality, you don't have the quality.

As Gord said, it's all about the players.

[Miker]

The issue is that we have a very poor midfield. with Dunny out we lose creativity, with Grella out we lose the "bite". Everything stems from that. No midfield so we play over it, front players are outnumbered or ball comes to defender, no chances created so no goals,no possession so ball comes straight back to defence who've just cleared it.Repeat ad nauseum.

Thats a worst case scenario of course but much of our away games are like that.

I think that's an accurate assessment as we've arguably played our best football with those 2 in the side.

[Seedstral]

I think at times some people need to wake up and smell the coffee!! Premier league football now is nothing like it was when it was 1st brought in. When we 1st got promoted back in 91/92 all the talk from JW and the management was along the lines of "great we can now pit our wits and rub shoulders with the big clubs". Nowadays its great we've just won the jackpot as in our clarets friends case. When they got promoted the big clubs were never mentioned only money and the £60 million windfall. Money for me is ruining football as a spectacle. How many teams in the bottom half constantly draw with each other (bloody hell its happening virtually every week) as teams are frightened of losing. Look at the table and look at the away wins what the bottom half have had and the day we played Fulham they had the most with 3 everyone else was more or less on an equal footing. Granted our football isn't great but Big Sam has a mandate to keep us in the top flight no matter what and if he fails the club could well be in free fall. Be grateful that we are still 5 points above the relegation zone and a win tomorrow would obviously further enhance our chances of staying in the top flight. Like it or loathe it this is the world we now live in!!

[John]

Back to my first point 47er, the reason we don't play enough pass and move football is because we don't have the talent. Yeah, it might go against the grain with Sam, but if you don't have the quality, you don't have the quality.

As Gord said, it's all about the players.

Exactly and some of our players are either short of the level required or too inconsistent. Of course it is up to management to get the best out of players but there is no doubt we lack real quality throughout the squad.

As he said himself last night on Sky, because of the disastrous financial implications of relegation, Sam's mandate is firstly to retain our Premier League status. A win this evening and we will be much closer to doing just that.

[Majiball]

If you don't practice or use certain skills your proficiency at that skill deteriorates.