[Archived] David Dunn a Blackburn Legend

[Salgado Is A Hero]

None of that matter Gumboots I'm afraid, if one team loses to another, the other team must have had better players, that's all there is too it.....apparently.

Even MK Dons.

Motivation, confidence, fitness, tactics/gameplan etc...this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff that the Playstation Generation has invented....or something.

[Stuart]

Quite right, gb. The wages are often pointed to when it comes the the players but its all relative. They can get similar elsewhere.

...well apart from Murphy!

[den]

Who would perform well under the regime we have and have had for the last 2-3 years?

Samba, Nelsen, Emerton, El Hadj Diouf, Jones and Jones, Nzonzi, Givet, Dunn, Robinson etc, etc.

Some would have you believe it's all down to the manager and tactics - and that we have the best squad in the league GB.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

If it were simply down to how good you are, Notts Forest never would have won the European Cup, United wouldn't have won two-thirds of PL titles, Rovers wouldn't have been in the PL for 11 straight years, Chelsea wouldn't have gone from from 79 points in 03/04 to 95 points in 04/05, etc etc. The manager is the most important ingredient in how good a team is. And we've had 3 utterly garbage ones in a row. The players might be the reason why we're not in the PL, but the managers are the reason why we're fighting relegation in the Championship.

[den]

Pardon? All those teams you mentioned were successful [in the main] due to the players they brought in.

[Mike E]

Surely SKHT, you're not suggesting that QPR are better than West Brom (going ofc their respective managers' reputations)?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Pardon? All those teams you mentioned were successful [in the main] due to the players they brought in.

Well I disagree. Some had excellent players, some didn't. All had excellent managers. And doesn't the manager decide on the players?

Surely Rovers have to be the best example. Nosediving out of the PL quicker than Kes on speed under Kidd, Ince and Kean. Steadily heading upwards under Souness, Hughes and Allardyce. Not much difference in players.

And regarding all the players you mentioned in your earlier post, even with a headstart all those guys barely managed to salvage the damage caused by one bad manager. If Kean had been in charge over the whole of that season, those players would have relegated us. Or more accurately, that manager would have.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

I agree. And we wouldn't have been relegated last season if Allardyce was still the manager, with that same team.

So by that logic, Kean/Venky's relegated us.

[gumboots]

I'm not absolving players of blame - just saying that even overpaid and underperfoming primadonnas need a helping hand to keep performances consistently at a level that will keep us up. The blame for poor performances lies with the management and ownership of the club, the petty infighters who inhabit the corridors of Ewood, the poor managers we have had over the last 3 years, the agents who wanted a piece of the naivety or stupidity of our owners depending on how charitable you feel and the players themselves. However, with better club and team management the good players would still be here and the replacements for those who weren't would be adequate. The players would be more motivated and more consistently decent in their performances. I work in a place where we've gone from management that appeared at least to care about its staff to management that shows that it doesn't care at all and it's very hard to keep on performing when your every effort seems inadequate.

[den]

Well I disagree. Some had excellent players, some didn't. All had excellent managers. And doesn't the manager decide on the players?

Some of the sides you mentioned didn't have good players - which ones? Your second sentence agrees with everything I've ever said, managers improve their teams by bringing in better players. They can't "significantly" improve them any other way.

There's no way around this. The best teams have the best players. It's always been that way at Ewood.

[Mike E]

Some of the sides you mentioned didn't have good players - which ones? Your second sentence agrees with everything I've ever said, managers improve their teams by bringing in better players. They can't "significantly" improve them any other way.

There's no way around this. The best teams have the best players. It's always been that way at Ewood.

I would say Nottingham Forest and us, tbh. We didn't have a team full of good players. We had a squad full of average players that played specific roles complimented with the occasional star. The same goes for Forest (and earlier, Derby) under Clough.

Although in general terms I agree with you. But success from the likes of us and Forest are the exceptions, rather than the rule imo (SKHT).

[47er]

The best players kept us in the Premier League under Sam and would have continued to do so.

Once Sam left and we had a useless manager we went down with much the same squad.

However this is complicated by the fact that Kean omitted some of those players and bought rubbish to replace them. And couldn't organise a team to save his life.

So, really, you need a good match. A good manager buys good players and gets the best out of the one he inherited.

Long time since we had one of those!

Where I 100% agree with you Den is when you say that no club ever prospered by selling its best players. When Phil Jones was sold we had people saying that we could make the team stronger by using the money to strengthen other areas!

I've had decades of unhappy memories of us selling our best players and it never worked once.

[Majiball]

David Speedie???

[bellamy11]

I would say Nottingham Forest and us, tbh. We didn't have a team full of good players. We had a squad full of average players that played specific roles complimented with the occasional star. The same goes for Forest (and earlier, Derby) under Clough.

Although in general terms I agree with you. But success from the likes of us and Forest are the exceptions, rather than the rule imo (SKHT).

Aren't you in your early 20s? You may have read Clough's autobiography, chatted to your dad, or watched The Damned United, but I find it difficult to believe you're in a position equal to or better than Den to assess the relative merits of that Nottingham Forest team. I wasn't there, but I bet they were bloody good.

[jim mk2]

Some of the sides you mentioned didn't have good players - which ones? Your second sentence agrees with everything I've ever said, managers improve their teams by bringing in better players. They can't "significantly" improve them any other way.

Complete and utter nonsense. A good manager can "significantly" improve any side - there are numerous examples this season in our division and going back over the years of good managers coming in and having an instant effect on underperforming teams.

[47er]

David Speedie???

That's an interesting point! As I understand it we didn't want to sell Speedie but Southampton made it a condition of the sale of Shearer.

So yes! We did strengthen in that example. However, at that point of the Walker Revolution, every signing was a strengthening and some had to go. This was an exceptional time (sob).

[47er]

Aren't you in your early 20s? You may have read Clough's autobiography, chatted to your dad, or watched The Damned United, but I find it difficult to believe you're in a position equal to or better than Den to assess the relative merits of that Nottingham Forest team. I wasn't there, but I bet they were bloody good.

I was there and Clough was a genius. He made Forest into European Champions and they were not "stars" individually.

Birtles was absolutely fantastic up front on his own in one of those finals but flopped at Old Trafford. Similarly Martin O' Neill ran his midfield but was ordinary when he went to City(?).

To be fair though Clough was out on his own, never known a manager like him in his prime.

[Mike E]

Aren't you in your early 20s? You may have read Clough's autobiography, chatted to your dad, or watched The Damned United, but I find it difficult to believe you're in a position equal to or better than Den to assess the relative merits of that Nottingham Forest team. I wasn't there, but I bet they were bloody good.

I know 3 Nottingham Forest fans (2 of my dad's generation: when they were my age, England won the World Cup) so I also have their knowledge to go off. They told me that Clough took a team of average players, brought in the guys he knew could do a job in key areas and won the European Cup with it. Twice.

No disrespect at all to Den (esp as I agree with his general point) but re: Forest, I'd rather trust the fans of that club that I know. They continue to rib me about Billy Davies too :/

[den]

I was there and Clough was a genius. He made Forest into European Champions and they were not "stars" individually.

Birtles was absolutely fantastic up front on his own in one of those finals but flopped at Old Trafford. Similarly Martin O' Neill ran his midfield but was ordinary when he went to City(?).

To be fair though Clough was out on his own, never known a manager like him in his prime.

Not stars individually 47er? How about the likes of Shilton, Viv Anderson, Frank Clarke, Larry Lloyd, Kenny Burns, John McGovern, Trevor Francis, Ian Bowyer, Gary Birtles, Tony Woodcock and John Robertson the European cup winning side?

Forest were a fabulous, individually talented side, inspired by a great man manager. It needs both players and manager to bring success to a side. But - and this is the thrust of my point - Forest weren't transformed simply by Cloughs input as a man manager and his tactics, but majorly by the players he brought into the club. Without those players there's no way Forest would have got anywhere near to achieving what they did.

For Darrenmiker to suggest that Forest team didn't have great, never mind good players, is well wide of the mark.

[Mike E]

To be fair den, I can only go off the best sources available to me. By no means am I in a position to say you are wrong, I must admit. It just strikes me that fans of the top sides tend to overstate the ability of that side, so for those to understate the Forest side's ability I assumed they were indeed an average side that overachieved. Although it could be that Forest's recent existence has made them a little more miserable.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Not stars individually 47er? How about the likes of Shilton, Viv Anderson, Frank Clarke, Larry Lloyd, Kenny Burns, John McGovern, Trevor Francis, Ian Bowyer, Gary Birtles, Tony Woodcock and John Robertson the European cup winning side?

Forest were a fabulous, individually talented side, inspired by a great man manager. It needs both players and manager to bring success to a side. But - and this is the thrust of my point - Forest weren't transformed simply by Cloughs input as a man manager and his tactics, but majorly by the players he brought into the club. Without those players there's no way Forest would have got anywhere near to achieving what they did.

For Darrenmiker to suggest that Forest team didn't have great, never mind good players, is well wide of the mark.

Shilton and Francis were great players he bought in. Anderson came through the ranks, Clarke was unheard of. Lloyd was washed up as was Robertson, Burns was a troublemaker - no-one else would touch those three, Leeds couldn't wait to move McGovern on, Birtles flopped at United. The fact is only 2 of those players were great under anyone else than Clough

[den]

Complete and utter nonsense. A good manager can "significantly" improve any side - there are numerous examples this season in our division and going back over the years of good managers coming in and having an instant effect on underperforming teams.

Come on Jim, you know very well that all the successful rovers teams have had top players in them. The majority of our relegated sides have had inferior squads - apart from the side that was relegated during the polio outbreak. Manager/tactics always came a very poor second to the quality of the players. Can't believe I need to argue this point.

[Mike E]

Come on Jim, you know very well that all the successful rovers teams have had top players in them. The majority of our relegated sides have had inferior squads - apart from the side that was relegated during the polio outbreak. Manager/tactics always came a very poor second to the quality of the players. Can't believe I need to argue this point.

A good point in your favour: DiMatteo at Chelsea.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

But a poor team managed by Kenny or Hughes would have finished higher than a better standard one managed by Ince or Kean. I'm not sure you believe that to be the case.

Yes the top sides throughout history have had top quality teams in them. But very good managers can make average teams look very good. Equally poor managers can make very good teams look average.

[den]

Shilton and Francis were great players he bought in. Anderson came through the ranks, Clarke was unheard of. Lloyd was washed up as was Robertson, Burns was a troublemaker - no-one else would touch those three, Leeds couldn't wait to move McGovern on, Birtles flopped at United. The fact is only 2 of those players were great under anyone else than Clough

Yeah, you make good points EIT. Coming through the ranks, being unheard of, being a troublemaker doesn't mean they weren't very good players though. You don't win the European cup twice in succession by man management and tactics. You simply must have top players.