[Archived] sam glad to be out of brfc

[SydneyRover]

I plenty understand the crux of your argument.

Here's some names I would've looked at: Martin Jol, Michael Laudrup, Dick Advocaat, and Ronald Koeman (ETA: Martin O'Neill was out of work at the time too, wasn't he?). All of which I am fairly confident would have been able to keep us in this league without resorting to spoiler tactics. Again, it's a risk, but as I was trying to illustrate, both Hughes & Souness were gambles that paid off, and neither of them were established at the time. Souness had never taken a team into the Premier League before and Hughes was a total wild card at club management. So my point remains. Would it have been safer to renew Allardyce's contract? Most probably. But I wouldn't want any team I own playing that way week in, week out.

The fact remains that of the four managers that have consistently achieved mid table or higher positions, three of them played football pretty similar to Allardyce's, and even Hughes has a reputation for not that great football.

The fact remains that if you'd ask any of those men you named to consistently achieve what Sam did in terms of results whilst playing considerably more attractive football, you'd be asking them to basically do what hardly anyone has done in the recent history of the Premier League, certainly since the big financial disparities between clubs really started to appear. This is the fundamental crux of my argument and this question is something you're avoiding, is this something you agree with or disagree with?

The fact you persist by naming the appointments of Souness and Hughes still makes me think you're not understanding my argument as they're totally different situations. If you sacked Sam and appointed someone else, their task would be to keep us well away from the relegation slots all whilst playing a considerably more attractive style than under Sam. Like I pointed out this would be asking the new man to do something that had hardly been achieved with the league the way it is currently.

We didn't ask Souness to do something that had hardly been achieved. We had the second most amount of resources in the league after Fulham and some of the best players. Nor did we ask Hughes to do that either - his brief was keeping us in the league.

Still, let's go through those names you listed.

Jol may well join that list I named, he had a good season with Fulham last year, but he turned down Birmingham in 2007 and I think he only joined Fulham because they were in London. So when you name him, you'd be advocating sacking Sam for a manager who may or may not have even joined us.

Advocaat? Some successes but overall his career has had more failures than successes. Surely sacking someone who has succeeded far more than he's failed for someone who's done the opposite would be madness?

Ronald Koeman? His career has been pretty mixed. Some successes in the Dutch League with PSV and Ajax (it's hard not to win domestic trophies with those teams), but failed at Valencia and AZ.

Laudrup has started well with Swansea, but it's early days.

Sam consistently succeeded at the clubs he was at. Even the Newcastle team he picked up had just finished 4 points off relegation the season before and he was sacked with them being 9 points off the relegation spots.

I don't think you fundamentally understand the concept that to play vaguely attractive football you need pace, creativity and usually both. Sometimes you get lucky and find those players on the cheap, but on average those players cost considerably more money than players with strength and aerial ability. That's the reason why our team was set up the way it was.

Another key point to make here is that Sam's initial season in charge was spent buying up players with strength and aerial ability, defenders/defensive midfielders etc - this was to shore us up defensively. But the summer before he left he was after a lot of midfielders including Charlie Adam but wasn't given funds to buy them. This is similar to what he did at Bolton - do you think Okocha and Djorkaeff would have flourished if Bolton just played route one football? Given time and the opportunity to sign a bit of creativity, I think our football would have improved too.

[Steve Moss]

Another key point to make here is that Sam's initial season in charge was spent buying up players with strength and aerial ability, defenders/defensive midfielders etc - this was to shore us up defensively. But the summer before he left he was after a lot of midfielders including Charlie Adam but wasn't given funds to buy them. This is similar to what he did at Bolton - do you think Okocha and Djorkaeff would have flourished if Bolton just played route one football? Given time and the opportunity to sign a bit of creativity, I think our football would have improved too.

I think this is dead on. From what I've read, Sam is very much in favor of playing "attractive" football if one has the team for it. In my opinion, Sam was building that team, starting (as is sensible) from the back and working his way forward. If given a season or two with the funding Kean had available, I think we'd have seen a different and vastly competitive Rovers under Sam's management.

[CrazyIvan]

This is daft. It's like watching a dog chase it's tail or bark at the mirror.

The best thing you can say about the sacking of Big Sam was that it was a decision (albeit one made by idiots). They don't seem to have made many since.

[Amo]

*snip*

I'm not disputing that Allardyce is good at what he does, but that's besides the point. Who would've thunk Roberto Di Matteo would win the CL for Chelsea, where the likes of Mourinho, Scolari and Ancelotti all failed before him? No risk, no reward. Any one of those managers I named previously had the credentials to be a success here, and all without resorting to the Allardyce brand of football.

And yes, to play attacking football you do need an element of pace. Which is why we had Hoilett sat on the bench being shunned, albeit the odd 15min or 20min cameo here and there. Perhaps Sam was breaking him in slowly, but that is somewhat foiled by Hoilett's impact on the first-team almost straight after Sam had left. He was ready. I very much doubt Hoilett had any future here under him (not that he had much future here either, thanks to Venky's...). Blooding old-fashioned centre-halves like Jones & Hanley is one thing. Taking a chance on a capricious winger is another. Which proves that Sam wasn't willing to gamble on someone like Hoilett in order to improve our style of play.

Effectively, you could argue it was sacking Sam that relegated us. Or it was down to backing Steve Kean for 18months. I know which one I'm going with.

[Andy]

I think this is dead on. From what I've read, Sam is very much in favor of playing "attractive" football if one has the team for it. In my opinion, Sam was building that team, starting (as is sensible) from the back and working his way forward. If given a season or two with the funding Kean had available, I think we'd have seen a different and vastly competitive Rovers under Sam's management.

This is exactly right by my understanding too.

Sam does things completely the right way, in stablising the club he's at my utilising the players at his disposal - which is our case was playing a more direct and effective style of football.

From there, you build from the back to the front and with the funding that Baldylocks had, Sam could have built something special at Rovers and had us challenging at the top end of the league as we were under Hughes.

[thenodrog]

...

[chris_h]

This is exactly right by my understanding too.

Sam does things completely the right way, in stablising the club he's at my utilising the players at his disposal - which is our case was playing a more direct and effective style of football.

From there, you build from the back to the front and with the funding that Baldylocks had, Sam could have built something special at Rovers and had us challenging at the top end of the league as we were under Hughes.

Stuart Hall from the DW last saturday-

"I learned my West Ham football at the feet of Ron Greenwood, this was an abomination" and "Football from the dark ages"

Allardyce is good at what he does but I cant have it that he evolves footballing teams.

[LeChuck]

Stuart Hall from the DW last saturday-

"I learned my West Ham football at the feet of Ron Greenwood, this was an abomination" and "Football from the dark ages"

Allardyce is good at what he does but I cant have it that he evolves footballing teams.

Allardyce was equally disappointed by the sounds of it:

"We didn't play any football today, we didn't get past half-decent. I'm disappointed our performance has reduced to such a level. We can't keep giving the ball back to them. We were not good enough, in any shape or form. Our problems were all over the pitch."

A pretty damning assessment, and obviously a million miles from what he wanted them to do judging by his reaction.

Whenever an Allardyce team plays badly, a lot of people seem to suggest it's because Allardyce set them up to play badly. It was a constant reaction to poor displays during his time with us.When other teams have a bad day, no other manager seems to be accused of doing it deliberately. Did Stuart Hall make any comment on their 4-1 win the week before? Probably not.

[chris_h]

Allardyce was equally disappointed by the sounds of it:

"We didn't play any football today, we didn't get past half-decent. I'm disappointed our performance has reduced to such a level. We can't keep giving the ball back to them. We were not good enough, in any shape or form. Our problems were all over the pitch."

A pretty damning assessment, and obviously a million miles from what he wanted them to do judging by his reaction.

Whenever an Allardyce team plays badly, a lot of people seem to suggest it's because Allardyce set them up to play badly. It was a constant reaction to poor displays during his time with us.When other teams have a bad day, no other manager seems to be accused of doing it deliberately. Did Stuart Hall make any comment on their 4-1 win the week before? Probably not.

If he did I didn't hear it although, to be fair he doesn't do many games in the capital. He isn't a fan of the more 'basic' teams to be honest and has a pop at Stoke every now and then.

[thenodrog]

Did Stuart Hall make any comment on their 4-1 win the week before? Probably not.

Does anybody listen to Stuart Hall? Really?

[John]

Chatting to few West Ham fans yesterday, some think he is the best manager they have ever had. They said they feel so proud of their club at the moment.

@iainmacintosh: Don't tell anyone I said this, but I was so impressed with West Ham y'day. Allardyce might be an arse, but by thunder he can build a team.

[Stuart]

Big Sam is a bit like Robbie Savage and El Hadji Diouf in that regard, John. Except a lot of Rovers fans didn't like Allardyce when he WAS our manager.

And there are still those who wouldn't want him back - even now!

Still, as I've said in the Ollie thread, all this dredging up what we've lost or what might've been isn't doing our psyche any good at all.

Berg is the word!

[John]

True Stuart, no point continuously looking back or being negative on everything which goes on.

Personally always follow our ex managers to see how they are doing.

[AndyC]

I'm not disputing that Allardyce is good at what he does, but that's besides the point. Who would've thunk Roberto Di Matteo would win the CL for Chelsea, where the likes of Mourinho, Scolari and Ancelotti all failed before him? No risk, no reward. Any one of those managers I named previously had the credentials to be a success here, and all without resorting to the Allardyce brand of football.

And yes, to play attacking football you do need an element of pace. Which is why we had Hoilett sat on the bench being shunned, albeit the odd 15min or 20min cameo here and there. Perhaps Sam was breaking him in slowly, but that is somewhat foiled by Hoilett's impact on the first-team almost straight after Sam had left. He was ready. I very much doubt Hoilett had any future here under him (not that he had much future here either, thanks to Venky's...). Blooding old-fashioned centre-halves like Jones & Hanley is one thing. Taking a chance on a capricious winger is another. Which proves that Sam wasn't willing to gamble on someone like Hoilett in order to improve our style of play.

Effectively, you could argue it was sacking Sam that relegated us. Or it was down to backing Steve Kean for 18months. I know which one I'm going with.

i thought sam was doing an excellent job of giving him game time and getting him used to the pace of the game and more importantly, his duties to the team.

He played in 50% of the games in that season for sam, before he was sacked. But whilst he showed promise, he left our defence and midfeld so exposed. It was pretty obvious from the sidelines that sam was trying to correct his positional play.

We were relegated because the team had no structure. PLayers like Hoillet simply not experienced enough to know where they are supposed to be when we lost possession.

I've always liked him as a player, but he had a lot of learning ahead of him and Sam was never afraid to give youth a chance if they were good enough

[thenodrog]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...013_04_11_2012/

MoTD 2 Sunday. 44.20 in. Ouch!!! Not for those with nervous disposition! Sav and Lawrenson two footballing men summing up what most of us with any sense already knew. Still hurts though.

[ABBEY]

twas great to see footy on the deck last night again.

[Andy]

twas great to see footy on the deck last night again.

Only to be reminded of the effectiveness of occasional direct football, with their last-gasp equaliser!

[roversfan99]

Also, the fact of the matter was it was against Huddersfield, and if we still had Big Sam all evidence pointed to the fact we would have been playing a Premier League team. (Well no team actually as there was no Premier League mid-week games)

And anyone who has seen West Ham this season would have noticed a side with the capabilities to go more direct if needed, however also a side with very good technical ability able to keep it on the deck and keep possession.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

So Kean couldn't do it in the premiership and Berg can't do it in a league below. The argument that the mistake wasn't sacking Allardyce, it was hiring Kean, is looking weaker by the manager.

[Amo]

So Kean couldn't do it in the premiership and Berg can't do it in a league below. The argument that the mistake wasn't sacking Allardyce, it was hiring Kean, is looking weaker by the manager.

Someone's after that 'Talks the most rubbish' Award, I see.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Someone's after that 'Talks the most rubbish' Award, I see.

2 fantastically constructed and mature rebuttals to my comments about Allardyce and Pedersen. You should join a debating team or something.

[Andy]

So Kean couldn't do it in the premiership and Berg can't do it in a league below. The argument that the mistake wasn't sacking Allardyce, it was hiring Kean, is looking weaker by the manager.

Does anyone genuinely believe that sacking Sam wasn't a terrible decision?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Does anyone genuinely believe that sacking Sam wasn't a terrible decision?

Yes quite a few fans, and a lot more at the time, incredible isn't it!

[Amo]

2 fantastically constructed and mature rebuttals to my comments about Allardyce and Pedersen. You should join a debating team or something.

I treat your post with the derision it deserves.

If Kean was out of his depth and Berg turns out the same, what does that prove? That Venky's are ill-equipped to pick a manager - that's what. It has nothing to do with Allardyce.

Why dig up this dinosaur of a topic? You and Jim should merge accounts for parsimony sake.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I treat your post with the derision it deserves.

If Kean was out of his depth and Berg turns out the same, what does that prove? That Venky's are ill-equipped to pick a manager - that's what. It has nothing to do with Allardyce.

Why dig up this dinosaur of a topic? You and Jim should merge accounts for parsimony sake.

The derision it deserves, who the **** are you exactly? Your know-it-all attitude on here is an absolute joke considering how completely wrong you are about most things. And when people point out that you're wrong, this standard sarcastic insulting reply is rolled out. I suppose someone who talks as much garbage as you must have a well-honed technique for side-stepping the point.

It proves both that Venkys are rubbish at choosing managers and that there are very few managers out there as good as Allardyce, or if the sample is too small, then thats already been proven multiple times in this thread with people posting the tiny list of managers who have sustained success with small clubs in the premiership.

And by the way, this intellectually superior pedestal you put yourself on is undermined somewhat by your obsession with flotation devices for avatars. Why don't you skip the fantasising and buy yourself a blow-up doll.