[Archived] Sam Allardyce Messiah or simply a good manager?

[Gav]

Well you could have explained why. Coyle reckoned Burnley outfootballed us at Ewood last season, when the truth was nothing like that. Did you watch the game yesterday?

We've done this to death den, didn't think I needed to bother explaining.

[den]

We've done this to death den, didn't think I needed to bother explaining.

I give up.

Enjoy the game Gav.

[Gav]

I give up.

Enjoy the game Gav.

and you den

[SD4E]

Bunkum.

The decent football that Coyle's teams play is just a myth

Bunkum. One game against the rovers where coyle said that doesn't change the fact the he plays decent stuff. On a limited budget.

[Amo]

It's true that Bolton do play long-ball, with someone like Kevin Davies it would be madness not to, but Coyle has also peppered them with the finesse to mix it about.

[SD4E]

Congratulations, you've picked one manager who's had two successful seasons at the top level.

If he carries on in this vein, then great for him. But there's literally no other names you can pick out in the last 10 years of Premier League football who've consistently produced decent football on a small budget.

Cheers. Your congratulations means a lot!?!

David moyes? Another who has done exactly that. Yes a bigger club, bit still on a limited budget.

[tony gale's mic]

Cheers. Your congratulations means a lot!

David moyes? Another who has done exactly that. Yes a bigger club, bit still on a limited budget.

David Moyes has been able to spend 25 million on two midfielders combined, let alone the rest of his team. Remind me exactly when Sam has been able to spend that much or even close?

[SD4E]

David Moyes has been able to spend 25 million on two midfielders combined, let alone the rest of his team. Remind me exactly when Sam has been able to spend that much or even close?

Which 2 midfielders were 25 million?

Would you have trusted bfs with 25 million? Niko at 6 looks a bargain....

[DE.]

Which 2 midfielders were 25 million?

Would you have trusted bfs with 25 million? Niko at 6 looks a bargain....

I'd guess TGM is talking about Fellaini (£15M) and Bilyaletdinov (£10M).

[Amo]

As for those "defending Sam" as you put it, I think it is something to do with the fact he is a very good manager and did an excellent job whilst manager of this football club, pity some still can't see it (or don't want to because they dislike the man).

Come on, John. Plenty of people have afforded Sam praise for the job he did here, even those of us who didn't enjoy his football and wanted him gone in the summer. Just because people aren't climbing over each other to idolize him doesn't mean they don't appreciate his work.

He left at that point that Villa made an offer. Do you think Villa coordinated their offer to when Salgado arrived too?

There was plenty of interest in Warnock over the summer. However, suddenly Rovers were resigned to losing him, a week after signing an expensive new full-back.

If you sign a 28 year old for £4 million you're staking both the £4 million and the wages you're paying that player on the player being good. If you get two or three good seasons and sell them for £4 million, it's usually seen as a good buy.

But you're still risking more money (ie £4 million + wages) than you are signing a 31-32 year old who is extremely talented, who has been performing at a high level and who is still fit (just wages).

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that.

But it all depends on the player, doesn't it? That's why it's too hypothetical a scenario to entertain. There's more chance of 33 year-old, no matter his pedigree, struggling to cope with the pace of the PL week-in, week out. So that's big wages you're wasting on a player who isn't up to it, whereas a younger player would have an obvious advantage.

I don't think the plan was to sign Guti AND Raul, just one or the other. But when you think that we're currently paying Santa Cruz's £90,000 wages for half a season, or have just spunked £3.5 million on a midfielder who hasn't played yet, either would still look like decent value.

I don't approve of paying that kinda money for Santa Cruz, anyway. He's another expensive gamble, but at least he's only here for six months tops. And the jury's still out on Formica. I'd rather Rovers invested £3.5m on a highly-rated young player than paid those wages to fading superstars.

And in any event, the point was that Sam wanted to bring creativity and flair to our team, but the circumstances wouldn't allow it.

Simply not true. Remind me how much Charlie Adam cost? Or Stuart Holden? (a player Sam turned down), Thomas Hitzlsperger? Lee Chung-Yong? I'm not gonna make excuses for Sam. He could improve our football without having to spend £10-20m or recruiting golden oldies. Although I'm sure, as usual, that will translate to: OMG WE SHUD PLAY LIEK THE ARSENUL OR DEM BARCELONA!

So you read Sam's mind and figured out what his motives were? I'm happy to go with the motives that were expressed publicly rather than invent ones out of nowhere. And those seem to make sense - Sam had took the side to a point where they need extra investment to move onto the next level (Champions League football) but the funds weren't available to provide that.

And why was that? Because Bolton were lumbered with a squad past it best and with enormous debts.

Now, I honestly believe under Hughes we would've had our best shot at Champions League football, had the board backed him. He actually left our team in great shape, considering his financial constraints, and the club made over £40m in player sales. In contrast to Sam, who left a saggy Bolton side which needed new investment and possessed no assets to balance the piling debts.

Yes his players didn't have big resale values, but they also didn't cost anything either.

They cost Bolton plenty in wages and signing-on fees. In Dec 2003, it was reported that Bolton's wage bill has risen from £5.2m to £21.7m during the last financial year.

Of course there's exceptions, no ones saying Raul would have been 100% a success. But it's likely he wouldve been.

There's plenty of exceptions. Fernando Morientes came to England with a great pedigree and flopped spectacularly. So yeah, it's not "likely" that Raul would have been a success at all.

So on one hand you're saying Sam's incapable of changing his tactics to adjust the situation, but on the other hand you said that he did change his tactics on occasion?

I said 'Not really' - There were times when Sam let the shackles off, but much more other than not he kept us trapped within the confines of his percentage game.

I remember watching the Chelsea match and marvelling at how Pedersen wasn't launching every throw-in, and how the players were actually trying to string passes together, instead of lumping it long and high. There was clearly a change in emphasis that day.

And if not for a Jason Roberts classic, we would have deservedly drawn that game.

Really? Which players? There's Hoilett who's still only 20 and was in his first season in the league last term, Olsson on a good day...and then I'm really struggling to think of anyone else. We have players capable of doing it occasionally, like Pedersen, but no one capable of doing it on a regular enough basis to incorporate it into our tactics.

Hoilett, Olsson, Nzonzi, Emerton, Dunn, Pedersen, Salgado, Diouf, Phil Jones,

We have players with raw talent and older players with international pedigree. They haven't been raised playing the long-ball game throughout their careers. A lot of them have seen better days, but they still have that experience which can be complemented by our younger players. Of course they can't do it on a regular basis, but then that's why we're a mid-table side.

[thenodrog]

Btw I said season ticket holder since 91, not fan. My dad took me from the early 80's but 91 was the first time I bought my own ticket.

Bfs the best man on our budget? Owen coyle seems to be doing ok with Bolton on a similar budget? Why can he play decent footy with a similar talent level? Or are Bolton miles better?

Did you go to the Reebok? I'm glad you brought Bolton into the equation. I did and we were the better team even before the sending off, we were virtually level pegging in mid table with Bolton at the time and most likely where we'd be now but for the pillocks frpm Pune sacking the manager ....... and we were undone by sheer unadulterated hoofball! Get your facts right SD4E.

[SD4E]

Did you go to the Reebok? I'm glad you brought Bolton into the equation. I did and we were the better team even before the sending off, we were virtually level pegging in mid table with Bolton at the time and most likely where we'd be now but for the pillocks frpm Pune sacking the manager ....... and we were undone by sheer unadulterated hoofball! Get your facts right SD4E.

Not sure what your point is really. I gave coyle as an example of someone on a limited budget who manages to play football and be successful. You reply by saying that in one match, we were better than them (but still lost to 10 men under bfs)?!?!

That doesn't alter the facts that coyle and Bolton have played some good stuff and have widely been praised for it this year rather than hoof ball. It can be done, that's the point you can't seem to grasp for some reason.

[tony gale's mic]

There was plenty of interest in Warnock over the summer. However, suddenly Rovers were resigned to losing him, a week after signing an expensive new full-back.

Either way, the maths don't add up whatsoever. Salgado may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but he wasn't the reason for Warnock's sale. The instant we brought in another first teamer, we wouldve had the same problem.

The overall wage bill was the issue - something which Sam largely wasn't to blame for since he'd only been there for half a season.

And in hindsight - was it such a bad move? Salgado's been a success story at Rovers, Warnock whilst being great for us had ended up being an outcast at Villa Park and we got £7 million for it. Granted that wasn't used on players really but it did cover a hole in our budget which is just as handy.

But it all depends on the player, doesn't it? That's why it's too hypothetical a scenario to entertain. There's more chance of 33 year-old, no matter his pedigree, struggling to cope with the pace of the PL week-in, week out. So that's big wages you're wasting on a player who isn't up to it, whereas a younger player would have an obvious advantage.

But in Sam we had a manager who specialises in bringing in these players and getting the best out of them - using sports science to optimise their fitness, motivating them to perform to the best of their abilities and building a good rapport with them. Maybe with a lot of other managers there'd be a big risk, but when you've got a manager who's got such a good track record and you've got players who have come from teams where they've been performing at the very highest level the season before, the risks are pretty minimal.

I don't approve of paying that kinda money for Santa Cruz, anyway. He's another expensive gamble, but at least he's only here for six months tops. And the jury's still out on Formica. I'd rather Rovers invested £3.5m on a highly-rated young player than paid those wages to fading superstars.

The jury's not really out on Formica. We're in the midst of a relegation scrap and instead of spending £3.5 million on someone who can improve the team and who couldve made a real difference at this crucial time, we wasted £3.5 million on someone who hasn't played a minute and who wasn't even THAT highly rated anyway. If we're using courtroom analogies, the jury has very much retired - but maybe next season he can lodge an appeal.

I'd rather have players who can improve the team. Every team needs a mix of youth and experience, and in Jones, Hoilett, Olsson and N'Zonzi we've got some great prospects. A bit of experience and quality in the middle of the park right now would be infinitely more preferable to someone who'd need time to develop. If anything, the transfer fee and wages for Formica are likely to cost more than what bringing in Guti on a free for two seasons would've cost. I know which one I'd prefer - although granted Guti wasn't available when the decision was made, the principle still stands.

Simply not true. Remind me how much Charlie Adam cost? Or Stuart Holden? (a player Sam turned down), Thomas Hitzlsperger? Lee Chung-Yong? I'm not gonna make excuses for Sam. He could improve our football without having to spend £10-20m or recruiting golden oldies. Although I'm sure, as usual, that will translate to: OMG WE SHUD PLAY LIEK THE ARSENUL OR DEM BARCELONA!

Is that the same Charlie Adam who Sam was trying to get earlier this season before Liverpool and Spurs made massive offers for him? Granted he didn't get him from Rangers but still. Liverpool turned down Cristiano Ronaldo. Holden - it's not always easy to predict how well MLS players will do in the Premier League. Hitzlsperger - 4 league appearances this season - that would've been a good addition to the wage bill!

Sam wanted to make our side solid, difficult to beat and sort out our defence before signing creative players. That much is obvious - look at his targets this season compared with last season. Last season we finished above every team we couldve realistically hoped to have finished ahead of (bar Birmingham, who we finished level on points with and who'd spent a lot more money), and even then most of those teams had more resources so he was fully justified. This season he started well and shifted his focus onto players with some guile and creativity to try and get us playing a little differently.

And why was that? Because Bolton were lumbered with a squad past it best and with enormous debts.

Now, I honestly believe under Hughes we would've had our best shot at Champions League football, had the board backed him. He actually left our team in great shape, considering his financial constraints, and the club made over £40m in player sales. In contrast to Sam, who left a saggy Bolton side which needed new investment and possessed no assets to balance the piling debts.

They cost Bolton plenty in wages and signing-on fees. In Dec 2003, it was reported that Bolton's wage bill has risen from £5.2m to £21.7m during the last financial year.

The reason why Bolton couldn't qualify for the Champions League wasn't due to being "lumbered with a squad past its best and enormous debts". That's total rubbish. The reason why Bolton couldn't qualify for the Champions League wasn't because of that - after all the last season under Sam they finished 7th and god knows how many CL clubs have debts - but because they're not a big city club and wouldn't have the resources to outperform the big four. That much is bloody obvious.

Yes Hughes left the club with more saleable assets. But in Anelka and Nolan alone they brought in £20 million after Allardyce's departure. £2 million for Diouf (admittedly bought by Sam but helped keep us up when he first came with some good performances so justified his transfer fee), £2.5 million for Meite, £2 million for Faye (I count £26.5 million already)...and then when you consider they were being offered some decent money for the likes of Davies too and things weren't that bad. Hardly "no assets" is it?

You talk about Bolton's wage bill but you don't give the whole story - in fact you give a wildly inaccurate one. In 2002-03 the AVERAGE Premier League club's wage bill was £38.7 million. That means that even after they upped their wage bill in 2002-03, it was still only just over half the league average. Man United were the top that year, with £79.5 million - only a little over double the average so it's not like a few clubs were wildly skewing the average like they would do now.

More to the point, there's a very interesting article from the Times which further disproves your point. It's from the end of Allardyce's final season.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/fink_tank/article2697754.ece

"Let’s start with the most direct measure used by the Fink Tank’s Dr Henry Stott and Dr Ian Graham. The statisticians relate the size of club wage bills to the points gained by the team and then plot the numbers on a graph, giving a curve for the expected relationship. Managers whose clubs appear above the curve are winning more points than their owners should expect, given the wage bill, while those below the curve do the opposite. And Allardyce? He is an “above the curve” manager and that was a consistent feature of his reign at Bolton. Each year the Fink Tank has been picking its manager of the season. Allardyce is the only person to come near the top every time we have done the calculation"

So looking at WAGE BILL, not transfer fees, Sam was still one of the best, if not the best value for money manager in the league.

I think we can once and for all put your myth about him needing a massive wage bill to succeed to bed.

There's plenty of exceptions. Fernando Morientes came to England with a great pedigree and flopped spectacularly. So yeah, it's not "likely" that Raul would have been a success at all.

In that class of player, there's far more success stories than failure stories in this league. Especially under Sam Allardyce. So yes, it is likely he wouldve been a success, highly likely if you take into account how good Sam's been with these type of players.

All you've managed to prove is that it wasn't definite Raul wouldve been a success - something everyone knows already.

I said 'Not really' - There were times when Sam let the shackles off, but much more other than not he kept us trapped within the confines of his percentage game.

I remember watching the Chelsea match and marvelling at how Pedersen wasn't launching every throw-in, and how the players were actually trying to string passes together, instead of lumping it long and high. There was clearly a change in emphasis that day.

And if not for a Jason Roberts classic, we would have deservedly drawn that game.

And like I said, you watch most good sides in enough detail for a season and they'll have one overriding style which they use most of the time. It doesn't make sense to keep chopping and changing styles all the time, unless you have an especially gifted squad of players who are able to adapt between styles that fluently. And this overriding style is usually built around the players available.

The reason why we kept playing a similar style under Sam is the exact same reason why Arsenal have had such a soft centre over the last few years and have struggled to hold onto leads, have struggled against certain type of teams etc. It's just different sides of the same coin.

Hoilett, Olsson, Nzonzi, Emerton, Dunn, Pedersen, Salgado, Diouf, Phil Jones,

We have players with raw talent and older players with international pedigree. They haven't been raised playing the long-ball game throughout their careers. A lot of them have seen better days, but they still have that experience which can be complemented by our younger players. Of course they can't do it on a regular basis, but then that's why we're a mid-table side.

Hoilett and Olsson apart (and Hoilett is only 20 and Olsson still blows hot and cold), the rest of the players you name aren't players that can create that spark. Phil Jones is excellent, and today he made some out of character marauding runs forward, but other than that he's a solid, ballwinning player rather than a creative player. His distribution is good but nothing exciting. Pedersen's delivery has been awful for so long, Dunn breaks down too easily now, Emerton is an engine, not a creative player, Diouf (Mame I assume you mean) barely gets a game..

To successfully play a more expansive style you need at least a few players with pace, creativity or both. See our most attractive season - we had Bellamy and Tugay in the side. Under Souness - Dunn, Duff and Jansen all playing their best stuff. Hoilett was in his first season last season and got lots of game time considering that (and hardly produced the goods), Olsson did on occasion, but other than that right now? Nothing.

[ABBEY]

thought you had to go to bed early so you couldnt come tonight

[tony gale's mic]

thought you had to go to bed early so you couldnt come tonight

No, it's because I had to leave Blackburn in the afternoon as I'm working early tomorrow here.

Shall I send you a PM when I next take a dump?

[sambo]

Didn't Abbey say he was going to stop going under Sam, or was that just away games? Or is it the wrong person?

[ABBEY]

just away games....its like taking candy from a baby lol

No, it's because I had to leave Blackburn in the afternoon as I'm working early tomorrow here.

Shall I send you a PM when I next take a dump?

ive been dumping since friday! about 300 times do i need to see a doc doc?

[sambo]

Fair play.

I spent so much money I shouldn't have on away games. Still do - when will I learn?

[Steve Moss]

Sam wanted to make our side solid, difficult to beat and sort out our defence before signing creative players. That much is obvious -

Which is nothing more than common sense. Can't win a match if the opposition is banging in goal after goal. With a strong defense, one can at least aspire to a draw. With a strong defense and a decent offense, matches can be won.

[ABBEY]

Fair play.

I spent so much money I shouldn't have on away games. Still do - when will I learn?

im thankful,sam stopped me going away matches after 28 years of doing so.

[onlyonejackwalker]

im thankful,sam stopped me going away matches after 28 years of doing so.

Well I doubt you will wish to change your mind anytime soon under Keano.

Anyone noticed our hoofball last night targeting Zabaletta at every opportunity from Robinsons long hoofs? It became so obvious it was predictable and the full back even started winning some of the headers he had so much practice.

[A cup of beans]

Nope, just a season ticket holder since 1991 who attends every home match and many away. I think it's more relevant to question if you actually went to any games?

If you think robinson didn't take every free kick in our half and sometimes there's, then you clearly didn't.

I understand you loved bfs, that's fine. I too didn't want him sacked half way through the season, which was ridiculous.

Good job done for rovers? Yes. Was it pretty? No. Did we like winning games at home? Yes.

If you liked the style of percentage football we used for most home games under bfs, then great, your easily pleased.

agree 100%

on robinson lumping SOME freekicks long... he only recently started doing that... when we were behind against blackpool and he's continued that in the following games.

if we dont play MGP til the end of the season.. maybe robinson should adopt the role of south american keepers and take free-kicks in goal scoring positions ?

[thenodrog]

Not sure what your point is really. I gave coyle as an example of someone on a limited budget who manages to play football and be successful. You reply by saying that in one match, we were better than them (but still lost to 10 men under bfs)?!?!

That doesn't alter the facts that coyle and Bolton have played some good stuff and have widely been praised for it this year rather than hoof ball. It can be done, that's the point you can't seem to grasp for some reason.

Neither can Steve Kean quite obviously.

btw were you at the Reebok in Dec to judge the performance? We were beaten by the best example of how very effective 'hoofball' can be.

[thenodrog]

agree 100%

on robinson lumping SOME freekicks long... he only recently started doing that... when we were behind against blackpool and he's continued that in the following games.

if we dont play MGP til the end of the season.. maybe robinson should adopt the role of south american keepers and take free-kicks in goal scoring positions ?

HT v Blackpool. A memorable landmark in the season. That was the last time Steve Kean had any control over team affairs.

[blue_and_white]

Not sure what your point is really. I gave coyle as an example of someone on a limited budget who manages to play football and be successful. You reply by saying that in one match, we were better than them (but still lost to 10 men under bfs)?!?!

That doesn't alter the facts that coyle and Bolton have played some good stuff and have widely been praised for it this year rather than hoof ball. It can be done, that's the point you can't seem to grasp for some reason.

It can be done but how often is it done? The odd season (West Brom) or half-season (Blackpool) doesn't count in my book. How many managers can take a small club with limited funds and play attractive passing football while remaining in the top half for a number of consecutive years? Hughes and Coyle are honestly the only ones I can think of among hundreds who have had a go over over the years, and Hughes' style of play is certainly being looked back on with rose-tinted specs if its being described as attractive passing. It was idiotic to sack Sam on the very slim one-off chance that we could uncover another Coyle.