[Archived] The Dawn Of A New Era

[Majiball]

You hated winning 12 out of 19 games at home?

I fecking loved those days, regardless of some of your (I say your, I actually mean Arsen Wenger's) opinions

Results were generally fine under Sam, but that doesn't mean I have to like the method.

[jim mk2]

Agree with the first part which one looks the most right to you?

- but that wasn't enough for the playstation generation who THINKS football is some sort of entertainment.

- but that wasn't enough for the playstation generation who THINK football is some sort of entertainment.

I know which one I think does. And is the original post sarcasm or what? Football isn't meant to be entertaining? Why did you start watching it in the 1st place?

To watch Rovers win football matches, no other reason. If you want entertainment watch the TV or go to the theatre.

See below for guidance on the use of generation: in the sentence above singular is correct.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2404794

[gumboots]

To watch Rovers win football matches, no other reason. If you want entertainment watch the TV or go to the theatre.

See below for guidance on the use of generation: in the sentence above singular is correct.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2404794

actually I feel that on the grammar point if you said generation that thinks it would be correct in that it suggests that you are thinking of generation as one entity. the use of who suggests that you are thinking of the individuals making up that entity and therefore think would be more appropriate. I have no grammatical basis for thinking this but it sounds right to me.

On topic I do get very tired of people telling me to go and watch something else if i want entertainment. I do those things, but i don't see why it's wrong to want some entertainment other than the pleasure of watching my team win from a football match. Winning is good, great even. winning with a bit of style is better. Losing in any shape or form is not entertaining but I don't see why entertaining football has to necessarily be losing football, even with the weakish squad we had when Kean took over.

[rigger]

You hated winning 12 out of 19 games at home?

I fecking loved those days, regardless of some of your (I say your, I actually mean Arsen Wenger's) opinions

.

I certainly hated going to away matches with big Sam. It was the blue print, for how the entire season went under Keans stewardship. To me Sam was an average manager whereas Kean is p1ss poor. Where Sam did score big over Kean, where in his press statements. In my opinion Sam came across as a politician, Kean as a clown.

[thenodrog]

actually I feel that on the grammar point if you said generation that thinks it would be correct in that it suggests that you are thinking of generation as one entity. the use of who suggests that you are thinking of the individuals making up that entity and therefore think would be more appropriate. I have no grammatical basis for thinking this but it sounds right to me.

On topic I do get very tired of people telling me to go and watch something else if i want entertainment. I do those things, but i don't see why it's wrong to want some entertainment other than the pleasure of watching my team win from a football match. Winning is good, great even. winning with a bit of style is better. Losing in any shape or form is not entertaining but I don't see why entertaining football has to necessarily be losing football, even with the weakish squad we had when Kean took over.

And you never will.

[gumboots]

And you never will.

barcelona style football is only possible with a squad like Barcelona have. But there is a world of difference between playing percentage stuff all the time and playing a style which entertains whilst still being efficient. And as sopmeone else said - watching allardyce's team's tactics away was dire. I don't want expansive pass and move football - it's not realistic, but it is realistic, as other teams have shown, to play more attractive football and still get results.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

barcelona style football is only possible with a squad like Barcelona have. But there is a world of difference between playing percentage stuff all the time and playing a style which entertains whilst still being efficient. And as sopmeone else said - watching allardyce's team's tactics away was dire. I don't want expansive pass and move football - it's not realistic, but it is realistic, as other teams have shown, to play more attractive football and still get results.

But haven't you realised? If it didn't work for Ince and Kean then it couldn't for anyone. It's not like Lambert got Norwich playing some pretty nice stuff with a good percentage of his squad coming from League 1.

[Mattyblue]

But haven't you realised? If it didn't work for Ince and Kean then it couldn't for anyone. It's not like Lambert got Norwich playing some pretty nice stuff with a good percentage of his squad coming from League 1.

You are missing the point. There is always someone 'better' out there, but you don't gamble.

If you have a manager in place that gets results on a budget, therefore ensuring a PL windfall each year, you don't sack him. End of.

[Majiball]

He who dares, wins, rodders.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

You are missing the point. There is always someone 'better' out there, but you don't gamble.

If you have a manager in place that gets results on a budget, therefore ensuring a PL windfall each year, you don't sack him. End of.

It's not a big gamble though is it. It would take a pretty terrible manager to get a team like us relegated in a division where there is almost always guaranteed to be at least 3 worse teams. He spent quite a fair bit of money and was hit-and-miss in the transfer market. I don't know how many fans were unhappy with Allardyce. People support a football team for different reasons. For many, the reason they started watching football in the first place was because they found it entertaining and therefore for some, even a win did not feel like a real win.

Therefore I imagine there were quite a few, for a variety of reasons, who were prepared to take this gamble. At the very least to watch a football game in which you didn't only get excited when the ball went out of play. I'm not saying that just because a portion of fans were unhappy with him then it would justify sacking him however. Some explicitly care about the result, others want a degree of excitement to the games. Barring some cup matches, the Burnley games, Chelsea at home and most likely a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head the matches were not exciting to watch at all. Some will not care in the slightest and that's fine as long as they appreciate that it is not the case for everyone.

[Mattyblue]

Well it was a good job we had people with sense running the club then, wasn't it?

[Tom]

These discussions just go round and round and will forever more I imagine

Like others said I suppose there's naff all else to talk about

[Mattyblue]

Lock it Tom, for everyones sake.

[47er]

It's not a big gamble though is it. It would take a pretty terrible manager to get a team like us relegated in a division where there is almost always guaranteed to be at least 3 worse teams. He spent quite a fair bit of money and was hit-and-miss in the transfer market. I don't know how many fans were unhappy with Allardyce. People support a football team for different reasons. For many, the reason they started watching football in the first place was because they found it entertaining and therefore for some, even a win did not feel like a real win.

Therefore I imagine there were quite a few, for a variety of reasons, who were prepared to take this gamble. At the very least to watch a football game in which you didn't only get excited when the ball went out of play. I'm not saying that just because a portion of fans were unhappy with him then it would justify sacking him however. Some explicitly care about the result, others want a degree of excitement to the games. Barring some cup matches, the Burnley games, Chelsea at home and most likely a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head the matches were not exciting to watch at all. Some will not care in the slightest and that's fine as long as they appreciate that it is not the case for everyone.

This is the umpteenth time you've mentioned Sam having a lot of money to spend. In fact he had a negative transfer budget_____ie less than nothing. Hughes was brilliant in the transfer market but he was given money. Sam had to scrounge very penny he could from players who'd been sold. Even then he got us Givet and NZonzi.

[jim mk2]

It's not a big gamble though is it. It would take a pretty terrible manager to get a team like us relegated in a division where there is almost always guaranteed to be at least 3 worse teams. He spent quite a fair bit of money and was hit-and-miss in the transfer market. I don't know how many fans were unhappy with Allardyce. People support a football team for different reasons. For many, the reason they started watching football in the first place was because they found it entertaining and therefore for some, even a win did not feel like a real win.

Therefore I imagine there were quite a few, for a variety of reasons, who were prepared to take this gamble. At the very least to watch a football game in which you didn't only get excited when the ball went out of play. I'm not saying that just because a portion of fans were unhappy with him then it would justify sacking him however. Some explicitly care about the result, others want a degree of excitement to the games. Barring some cup matches, the Burnley games, Chelsea at home and most likely a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head the matches were not exciting to watch at all. Some will not care in the slightest and that's fine as long as they appreciate that it is not the case for everyone.

It was a huge gamble to sack the previous manager and his replacement was a terrible manager who did get us relegated so what's your point ?

[Salgado Is A Hero]

This is the umpteenth time you've mentioned Sam having a lot of money to spend. In fact he had a negative transfer budget_____ie less than nothing. Hughes was brilliant in the transfer market but he was given money. Sam had to scrounge very penny he could from players who'd been sold. Even then he got us Givet and NZonzi.

My point is he made some poor signings. I appreciate the negative transfer budget but this shouldn't be used as an excuse for any bad signings. And well yea Santa Cruz wasn't the same player anyway so it was hardly a huge loss, unlike Warnock, but instead of replacing him he bought 3 right backs instead. But yea Salgado, Givet and Nzonzi were excellent signings.

jim - My point was exactly that. That only a pretty awful manager could get us relegated eg Kean or Ince. I'm sure there are other managers out there eg Avram Grant who could do the same but imo the vast majority would have seen us preserve our premier league status, with a budget and all the rest. Ordinarily, Kean would have been sacked last summer and a new replacement would have most likely also have kept us up. Irrelevant and impossible to prove either way but I feel that because we have had to put up with Ince and Kean within a few years of each other, it looks like only an accomplished manager could have done this, whereas I feel any half-decent manager could have.

[Silencio]

It's not a big gamble though is it. It would take a pretty terrible manager to get a team like us relegated in a division where there is almost always guaranteed to be at least 3 worse teams.

It was a massive gamble because the squad Sam inherited was average at best and he was getting the best out of them. Did you not notice this when we had Ince in charge?

It required good management to keep that squad up, we had a good manager so there was no excuse or reason for sacking him.

[47er]

It was a massive gamble because the squad Sam inherited was average at best and he was getting the best out of them. Did you not notice this when we had Ince in charge?

It required good management to keep that squad up, we had a good manager so there was no excuse or reason for sacking him.

No good football reason or excuse that is ......

[John]

Some people are never happy, they want more and expect perfection.

They also need to look at the situation when Sam first came in, we were 5 points off safety and thanks to Ince in a world of ###### - for saving us that season, Big Sam already did a very good job on its own.

The season we finished 10th was a very proud moment - finished the season by matching and beating some of the best teams in the land - considering our resources that was an amazing achievement.

The fact is, wherever he had been, he always improves football clubs. It may not be pretty but it is effective and ultimately managers are paid to get results.

[Amo]

The fact remains that WE could play better football under Sam, he just wasn't willing to compromise his percentage-based tactics. It was painfully obvious that we never had a Plan B. I've lost count of the amount of times we would aimlessly punt it into the box to no avail. Instead of the players putting their foot on the ball and looking for another avenue, they would just resort to what they were drilled by the manager. Because that's Sam's way. Hit the ball into the right areas 'x' amount of times and by the law of averages something will come off. Except that wasn't always the case and it was ******* torture to watch.

[John]

Personally did not find it painful when we were winning matches and teams hated coming to Ewood.

IMO, away performances were usually pretty dire, but at home we were not as bad as some like to make out - in his last season there was a slight improvement in away performances/results too.

[Mattyblue]

Torture to watch? No that was the season just gone and probably many more seasons to come.

[thenodrog]

Lock it Tom, for everyones sake.

I don't think the powers that be will allow the locking of busy topics quite so freely anymore matty. The traffic on this board must already be on a downward curve. How ironic that only the intense hatred of the slumdogs seems to be the main thing keeping people posting?

[thenodrog]

It's not a big gamble though is it. It would take a pretty terrible manager to get a team like us relegated in a division where there is almost always guaranteed to be at least 3 worse teams.

What??? Of course it is. Good God we were the worst team in the division just 2 years previously! Just how poor is your memory?

In an nutshell every managerial change in every divison represents a gamble (with the only exception ironically being a managerial change at BRFC). Liverpool have just taken a massive one this week and Villa are attempoting to do the same. It's not even a gamble when you sack a proven top manager and replace him with someone who is not a manager and never has been..... thats called suicide.

My point is he made some poor signings. I appreciate the negative transfer budget but this shouldn't be used as an excuse for any bad signings. And well yea Santa Cruz wasn't the same player anyway so it was hardly a huge loss, unlike Warnock, but instead of replacing him he bought 3 right backs instead. But yea Salgado, Givet and Nzonzi were excellent signings.

Salgado you appear to have tunnel vision. Head up and look around and you will see that every manager makes bad signings and that includes the most succesful manager of all time SAF, it includes the likes of Wenger, Redknapp etc and even legends like Clough, Revie and Shankly. Name me one who hasn't.

[Amo]

Torture to watch? No that was the season just gone and probably many more seasons to come.

Come on, Matty, you can do better than to throw Kean into the mix.

I'm just dispelling this myth that "Sam's way" was an absolute necessity to our PL survival.