[Archived] Will the purists learn from this?

[den]

Suggesting that we must only play bad football in order to survive is ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous, if some had actually suggested that. They haven't.

[he6rt6gr6m]

I've been questioning this since Sam was fired, and the argument will always come up, especially if we go down.

Simply put, the results are what count. It's a results business.

"the aim should always be to play football"

A ball being kicked around for 90 minutes - that's football. Doesn't matter if it is up in the air for half of the game, if it gets us points and relative success, who cares? We'd all celebrate the same way as we would if we'd have done it the Barcelona way or the Brazil way.

The "purists"... the hypocrites, should take a look at themselves and realise their WANTS aren't necessarily in the best interests of the club.

[Elvis McSmithy]

I agree with you 100% Beerwins.

and in reply to Elvis above who says "the aim should always be to play football" - no it shouldn't. The aim has to be to beat the opposition. If you've done that, you've done the job.

Talk about takin things out of context!,

I was only refering to tactics/playing style, Nobody plays to loose so what your saying is just a bit of a silly cliche.

In the last 20 years how many teams have won the league or finished in top 4 playing flat out allardyce style hoofball, i cant think of any.

[wolfie]

The thing i dislike most about the original question, and generally this whole topic on this board, is the way it's implied there are only 2 options

1, Stay up under Big Sam

2, Get relegated under someone trying to play a more attractive type of game

Big Sam has gone, you need to move on, surely we have more pressing things to deal with?

[Elvis McSmithy]

Sam was involved in a firefighting exercise in his first season to save the club from relegation; in the second season we finished 10th and reached a cup semi-final and in the first half of the third season he was sacked with Rovers within reach of the top six.

We were improving all the time under him and given an extended period in charge there is every chance he would taken the club farther. The man was never given the chance to finish his work at Ewood.

i think we where playing terrible and had some very poor results leading up to his sacking, the league position we where in was a bit missleading as it was very tight in the league at the time he was sacked, i think we would have still been in a relegation battle if allardyce had stayed, but we most likely would have stayed up and it prob wouldnt have gone down to the last game, but the is all pointless guess work, nobody could have reaally forseen what has happened since he left(unless your a complete cynic).

[Rovermatt]

It would be ridiculous, if some had actually suggested that. They haven't.

It's been suggested before. Certain people pine for Sam Allardyce as if we would never have been in trouble had he stayed. I agree with that hypothesis however his football was undoubtedly dreadful so what other line of reasoning could there be in the context of Allardyce? Plenty of other proper managers sustain a Premiership existence while promoting the virtues of passing to teammates.

[Doug]

i think we where playing terrible and had some very poor results leading up to his sacking, the league position we where in was a bit missleading as it was very tight in the league at the time he was sacked, i think we would have still been in a relegation battle if allardyce had stayed, but we most likely would have stayed up and it prob wouldnt have gone down to the last game, but the is all pointless guess work, nobody could have reaally forseen what has happened since he left(unless your a complete cynic).

Apart from the top 6 or 7 clubs, all the rest are involved in a relegation fight until you hit 40 points.

[Elvis McSmithy]

12mile-"Apart from the top 6 or 7 clubs, all the rest are involved in a relegation fight until you hit 40 points. "

agreed.

[jim mk2]

In the last 20 years how many teams have won the league or finished in top 4 playing flat out allardyce style hoofball, i cant think of any.

None. But then they all had money to spend - and significant amounts over many years, not the peanuts handed to our managers on an ad hoc basis. There was never any "flat-out hoofball" style - to say that is wrong. To remind you also, the Rovers championship winning team of 1995 was very direct and would be seen as old-fashioned these days.

[Mattyblue]

Forget Allardyce and answer the original question:

Will the nightmare of Kean mean those who are partial to booing and constantly griping at 'pragmatic' football behave differently next time if we make a similar appointment to Sam?

[K-Hod]

This topic has already been done to death, and frankly has been started IMO as a statement of self-righteousness,they were wrong not to back SA? Not to mention a massive 'I told you so'. What kind of hollow pleasure are you getting in reminding fans who wanted SA gone that they were wrong? We're all suffering in watching the club stare into the abyss together...

We all know that getting rid of SA in favour of SK was a ludicrous decision.

Why re-open this debate that's long since been put to bed?

Winning football=good football. In my view, SA's finest achievement in management was at the Rovers.

Not being funny, but where are the purists you allude to now? All these fans of football that claim they'd rather watch good football in the championship are full of cr@p and are just bitter.

I remember at times during SA's tenure the football was superb- Burnley away is one such example.

It was always a case of safety first with him, and fair enough. I never thought I would get any lower than I was after sitting in the stand at Old Trafford having witnessed us get destroyed 7-1, but it was one bad day at the office, whereas with Kean it's been a long series of bad days.

We couldn't win when we were 'playing well' under SK, and now we're playing terribly it just compounds the misery of watching SK and his 'good football' that probably contains more 'hoofball' than at any time under SA.

[Amo]

To be honest, if Venky's had replaced Allardyce with Martin Jol, Martin O'Neill or any of the established names speculated at the time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Using Venky's and Kean's monumental cock-up of the club as some kind of justification for Sam's 'flavour' of football is way off the mark.

[jim mk2]

Using Venky's and Kean's monumental cock-up of the club as some kind of justification for Sam's 'flavour' of football is way off the mark.

No it isn't. He did not have to justify the way his teams played and there was no justification for sacking him - none.

[K-Hod]

No it isn't. He did not have to justify the way his teams played and there was no justification for sacking him - none.

But the topic has been done to death Jim. Regardless of people's thoughts regarding SA as a person and his management style, his record spoke for itself. 2 consecutive away defeats does not a bad manager make, but like I said, done to death, what more needs to be said?

I'll summarise quickly- Sam Allardyce-good Steve Kean-bad.

[BuckyRover]

I don't know why everyone is worrying. As soon as West Ham get back to the Premiership Sam will be available again.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Goodness. They didn't have to reduce ticket prices because of Sam's type of football. John Williams has for years been trying all sorts of ticketting deals in order to get more fans into the ground. He was offering cheap ticket deals as part of the taking back Ewood campaign when Sam took charge. Not though because of Sam's "style of football", but because we were in real danger of relegation at that point.

I noticed that you cut out my question about Bolton's attendances under Allardyce. Did they drop because of him and his football?

I notice you missed my main point - we had seen steady improvement of results under Sam - and yet the club still felt it had to vastly reduce ST prices. Surely if your theory is correct the steady improvement in results would have been enough to at least maintain the fan base the following season ?

Regarding Bolton - not too bothered what happened there - all I know is that most Bolton fans I know hated the football they played under Sam - though all appreciate how he took them to where he did.

And still they don't get it.........

Rovers had a very good media image under Sam and was in fact far worse under Hughes - remember the headlines after the cup-semi-final with Arsenal ? And Sam did not get a bad press - the press generally liked him because he is open and accessible and always has something interesting to say. His teams were recognised for what they were - pragmatic, tough, effective, respected and hard to beat. In fact, all the attributes we have lost over the past 12 months.

As has been stated, the only bad "press" Sam received was on messageboard such as this from the playstation generation who think football is about entertainment, and teams on limited budgets like Rovers can play like Arsenal and Barcelona.

Amazing the derision this supposed media darling got when he said he was good enough to manage Real Madrid.

I think you have different memory of the Sam era than I do - and the type of media attention we got.

[Amo]

Rovers had a very good media image under Sam and was in fact far worse under Hughes - remember the headlines after the cup-semi-final with Arsenal ? And Sam did not get a bad press - the press generally liked him because he is open and accessible and always has something interesting to say. His teams were recognised for what they were - pragmatic, tough, effective, respected and hard to beat. In fact, all the attributes we have lost over the past 12 months.

As has been stated, the only bad "press" Sam received was on messageboard such as this from the playstation generation who think football is about entertainment, and teams on limited budgets like Rovers can play like Arsenal and Barcelona.

In other news, Gordon Brown loved by all.

[Tony Diamond Inc]

And still they don't get it.........

Rovers had a very good media image under Sam and was in fact far worse under Hughes - remember the headlines after the cup-semi-final with Arsenal ? And Sam did not get a bad press - the press generally liked him because he is open and accessible and always has something interesting to say. His teams were recognised for what they were - pragmatic, tough, effective, respected and hard to beat. In fact, all the attributes we have lost over the past 12 months.

As has been stated, the only bad "press" Sam received was on messageboard such as this from the playstation generation who think football is about entertainment, and teams on limited budgets like Rovers can play like Arsenal and Barcelona.

and they still trot out the same tripe. Believe me Jim, we were the laughing stock amongst other fans under Allardyce (hooofff was the cry).

It needn't be one or t'other. I give you Mark Hughes. His was a very capable team footballing wise, but also knew how (and when) to play direct. The supporters loved it.

Allardyce drove fans away (fact). Kean - ditto.

[Mattyblue]

and they still trot out the same tripe. Believe me Jim, we were the laughing stock amongst other fans under Allardyce (hooofff was the cry).

It needn't be one or t'other. I give you Mark Hughes. His was a very capable team footballing wise, but also knew how (and when) to play direct. The supporters loved it.

Allardyce drove fans away (fact). Kean - ditto.

Not a fact as ST sales were consistent in both summers he was manager, Kean on the other hand...

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Forget Allardyce and answer the original question:

Will the nightmare of Kean mean those who are partial to booing and constantly griping at 'pragmatic' football behave differently next time if we make a similar appointment to Sam?

Apparently not. Obviously both sides of the arguent firmly entrenched themselves long ago. I just figured one side gettings its wish and that wish then leading to the worst thing to happen to Rovers in living memory might shake their standpoint somewhat.

[Mattyblue]

Oh and are Stoke a laughing stock? They must be ashamed to see their club as a comptent PL outfit. Face it Tone, you backed the wrong horse.

[RovertheHill]

It's not an either-or question to me. I quite enjoyed most of the football we played under Sam, and much of the criticism was unwarranted and "hoofball" was unfair. But equally it's a fantasy to say it was always about results - when we played the top teams away from home we'd often lost before we kicked a ball and whether he meant it or not Sam gave the impression he wasn't too bothered.

But the fact remains and has been proved by Kean - if you keep losing, then the football cannot be described as good

[Majiball]

I must admit I am enjoying the fact that your whole argument is based on the reason given for Sam's sacking being that they (The Chicken Overlords) wanted a better brand of football to please the fans.

So given all that's been said by them and promised since the day they darkened our doorstep why do you actually believe that on that occasion they were telling the truth? You see all I've seen & heard in the last 12 months from our club are ###### and bullshit's, so consequently I am not convinced they really sacked Sam for those reasons.

No one got what they wanted when they sacked Sam.

[beastlove]

Depends what you define as good football. I believe you should enjoy watching your team. I prefer the ball played on the ground, players interchanging positions and possession based football. However to say one style over the other equals success is stupid. To say smaller teams must play long ball is also silly. In terms of attracting new fans the style of football is more important. Who wanted to watch Bolton under big sam or rovers for that fact. Some of my favourite teams played attacking football I.e. Newcastle under king Kev, udinese, 1998 Kiev etc.

[47er]

I believe Sam was sacked for other than football reasons which most of us didn't understand at the time.

Venkys couldn't run the club the way they wanted to without a yesman as manager. John Williams was sacked for the same reason.

Given time and adequate financial backing (which he never had------he didn't even get one transfer window because he wouldn't have signed the players Anderson was pushing on us) I think he would have taken us places and the football would have gradually improved as Bolton's did.

People who say or used to say "I was happy he got sacked but I didn't approve of his successor" have got it all wrong because it was never about football.

Edit---one transfer window with the new owners is what I meant.