Rams v Barnsley.

[swaledale]

Point taken, Andy. Appreciate that threads are being ruined, but my point about aggressive rudeness stands. As you know I agree with much of Swales’ politics but despair of his attitude to others.
In the last couple of days we’ve seen Gunteryy called a ‘thick ****’, Luckless described as ‘reality isn’t your bag’, MA targeted (yet again) on the subject of formations and the totally harmless International Break thread and me called ‘******* clueless’ somewhere amongst his second 500 word epistle of the day.
Two other posters have referred recently to his ‘temper’ and him being ‘snide’ and although I can laugh at his repeated ageist slurs, which I’d estimate come from someone who is all of three years younger, other, less thick skinned posters, are not likely to be attracted by being continually shot down in flames by the forum wannabe.

Sorry a poster suggests the next manager could be Pochettino and I suggest reality isn't their bag is rude? As for Gunteryy he posts islamaphobic, racist, ignorant crap, thats a fact and frankly if you post nonsense or ignorant offensive crap, then expect to get called out for it!

As for posters not coming on here because they might get a firm response when they post absolute *******s, and that includes you rA when you post that "you don't have to go back to the 1960's to find a Derby manager who was given time to build a team"! The same Jim Smith who won promotion in his FIRST season and then kept Derby in the top division for 3 years !**** me, you expect me not to laugh at that as an example of a manager "being given time" calling you clueless was a toned down version of what I really think! But, that was only after you had not even accepted that fact!

I love it! You get slated for not providing a calm reasoned rebuttal to a posters opinions, then when one does and its ignored and the facts speak for themselves, one actually feels that a stronger response is required!

This forum is a model of decorum and politeness compared to the days when dear old rattea "ran" it and there were twice as many on then.

I do laugh when people refer to my so called temper! Ha, if you really think I give a **** enough to get angry then bloody hell you must lead dull boring lives. This forum is about as relevant and meaningful as a chat down the pub, I treat it with the same disdain. But as with a chat down the pub, if your being a pedant, talking *******s, using unverifiable or clearly incorrect information to justify an opinion I will gently advise you of the fact!

[ramAnag]

Sorry a poster suggests the next manager could be Pochettino and I suggest reality isn't their bag is rude? As for Gunteryy he posts islamaphobic, racist, ignorant crap, thats a fact and frankly if you post nonsense or ignorant offensive crap, then expect to get called out for it!

As for posters not coming on here because they might get a firm response when they post absolute *******s, and that includes you rA when you post that "you don't have to go back to the 1960's to find a Derby manager who was given time to build a team"! The same Jim Smith who won promotion in his FIRST season and then kept Derby in the top division for 3 years !**** me, you expect me not to laugh at that as an example of a manager "being given time" calling you clueless was a toned down version of what I really think! But, that was only after you had not even accepted that fact!

I love it! You get slated for not providing a calm reasoned rebuttal to a posters opinions, then when one does and its ignored and the facts speak for themselves, one actually feels that a stronger response is required!

This forum is a model of decorum and politeness compared to the days when dear old rattea "ran" it and there were twice as many on then.

I do laugh when people refer to my so called temper! Ha, if you really think I give a **** enough to get angry then bloody hell you must lead dull boring lives. This forum is about as relevant and meaningful as a chat down the pub, I treat it with the same disdain. But as with a chat down the pub, if your being a pedant, talking *******s, using unverifiable or clearly incorrect information to justify an opinion I will gently advise you of the fact!

1. You don’t change minds by abusing people, Swale...try a little reason.
2. Jim Smith did not inherit a side capable of promotion...he built one, bit by bit. He understood the need to acquire the correct pieces, starting with van de Laan, adding Stimac etc. The side that went up wouldn’t have survived but he then continued to build to meet the demands of the top flight as requirements changed. He saw beyond a collection of individuals and recognised the ‘jigsaw’ of team building. He got off to a dreadful start but he was given time and we didn’t get rid when things went a little pear shaped after promotion. That was my point along with my comment about Championship managers who have suffered failure but been supported and the likes of the ‘Premiership also ran’ managers I mentioned elsewhere today.
3. I doubt anyone objects to a firm response...but you don’t deal in ‘firm responses’...you deal, all too often and like most keyboard warriors, in snide unpleasantness.
4. Who cares what it was like when Rattea ran it? I remember those days and frankly...you have a lot in common.
5. Give Andy’s ‘sticky’ a read. It might make you think why people are leaving and what part you play in it.
6. You treat this forum and ‘chats down the pub’ with the same ‘disdain’ do you? Explains a lot! Has the breathtaking arrogance of that sentiment never occurred to you?

[Andy_Faber]

2. Jim Smith did not inherit a side capable of promotion...he built one, bit by bit. He understood the need to acquire the correct pieces, starting with van de Laan, adding Stimac etc. The side that went up wouldn’t have survived but he then continued to build to meet the demands of the top flight as requirements changed. He saw beyond a collection of individuals and recognised the ‘jigsaw’ of team building. He got off to a dreadful start but he was given time and we didn’t get rid when things went a little pear shaped after promotion. That was my point along with my comment about Championship managers who have suffered failure but been supported and the likes of the ‘Premiership also ran’ managers I mentioned elsewhere today.

You're right on that one rA and I didn't see Smith's plan at the time. I was all for getting rid, so glad no-one took any notice!

[ramAnag]

You're right on that one rA and I didn't see Smith's plan at the time. I was all for getting rid, so glad no-one took any notice!

Thanks...you’ll also be aware that JS managed us in the nineties and the very early noughties and that Arthur Cox, as mentioned earlier, also ‘built’ a number of sides to suit different divisions between the mid eighties and early nineties.
So to describe my post suggesting ‘you don’t have to go back to the 1960’s to find a Derby manager who was given time to build a team’ as ‘absolute ********’ from someone who is ‘******* clueless’ seems...well, whisper is quietly...like absolute ******** from someone who is............hmmm, not very open minded to the opinions of others.

Anyway, moving on...what it does illustrate, imo, is the comparative difficulties faced by managers nowadays who have all their dealings restricted to two windows.
Jim Smith’s opportunity to use his wisdom and knowledge in adding Stimac to a seriously struggling Derby side in late October(?) for instance was a privilege no longer available to current managers.
Not sure what to feel about that. Can see how it helps smaller clubs with their planning but I do miss those out of the blue season changing signings such as Saunders and Stimac and what I’d give for the energy, fight and example a van der Laan or a Darryl Powell would bring to the current side.

[macstheman]

What history tells us, with the likes of Stimac, van den Laan and Powell, is the significance of one, classy and well researched, signing!
Jim and Arthur's knowledge of the needs of the football league was the catalyst for those signings. Does Cocu have that knowledge? Can he create a style for the demands of this league and by definition the players needed? It's looking like the answer is no!

[swaledale]

Thanks...you’ll also be aware that JS managed us in the nineties and the very early noughties and that Arthur Cox, as mentioned earlier, also ‘built’ a number of sides to suit different divisions between the mid eighties and early nineties.
So to describe my post suggesting ‘you don’t have to go back to the 1960’s to find a Derby manager who was given time to build a team’ as ‘absolute ********’ from someone who is ‘******* clueless’ seems...well, whisper is quietly...like absolute ******** from someone who is............hmmm, not very open minded to the opinions of others.

Anyway, moving on...what it does illustrate, imo, is the comparative difficulties faced by managers nowadays who have all their dealings restricted to two windows.
Jim Smith’s opportunity to use his wisdom and knowledge in adding Stimac to a seriously struggling Derby side in late October(?) for instance was a privilege no longer available to current managers.
Not sure what to feel about that. Can see how it helps smaller clubs with their planning but I do miss those out of the blue season changing signings such as Saunders and Stimac and what I’d give for the energy, fight and example a van der Laan or a Darryl Powell would bring to the current side.

OK so you wriggle on the hook and start talking about changes in transfer windows and the like? Thats kind of your modus operandi, start with a vague proposition, then as it gets demolished, change the criteria (although I'll admit you didn't actually state the criteria on which your proposition was based)!

That Farke and Bielsa are examples of managers who were given time to build sides simply because they were not sacked after one year OK so your version of a manager building a side bit by bit as you put it is one who brings in players over ONE season and gets promoted? Then keeps them in the top tier?

Would you expect said managers to be sacked if they didn't achieve promotion in the first year but came close?


I can see that you actually didn't mean what you originally asserted, that stability and allowing a manager to build a team (this legacy as you falsely called it) would pay dividends in the long term. You know like you were saying about Cocu last season and how it would not be good to get promoted because that team he was building would mature and with a few additions be better this season?


The only flaw in your argument is that in none of the examples given, were the managers "given time to build a team" they were successful in the first season they were appointed, in meeting the Boards objectives, which clearly was either getting promoted or mounting a realistic challenge. Thats why they remained in charge and generally thats why managers retain their jobs unless there is some other factor.

IF Smith had failed with promotion in his first season and had finished mid table but remained in charge, your argument would have some merit. As it is your ascribing your view point on something that isn't factually correct.

Oh but as is often the case with you, the criteria on which you build an opinion is vague, so of course actually it doesn't matter if I point out where your incorrect, your reasons and examples are so fluid, that you seem to think any manager who lasts more than a year has been given time to build a team!

Preposterous!

Fair enough your not interested in serious debate, you like making sweeping assertions (not backed up by evidence) and giving your opinion, however flawed it might be.

I've taken note, once thought you had half a brain, but hey ho one lives and learns.

[AdiSalisbury]

What history tells us, with the likes of Stimac, van den Laan and Powell, is the significance of one, classy and well researched, signing!
Jim and Arthur's knowledge of the needs of the football league was the catalyst for those signings. Does Cocu have that knowledge? Can he create a style for the demands of this league and by definition the players needed? It's looking like the answer is no!

Yes exactly.

Cocu, I believe, is doing exactly what he was asked to do. Build a young side, with little to no cash, playing european style football. The results haven't matched expectations, but the performances, as MA has often pointed out, reflect the style that Cocu has always had. Difference is, we're not in one of the european leagues where other teams play the same way, and we don't have the talent in our team that teams like Man City do, where it would probably come off.

This is Mel's planning and decision making, again, and needs to take the blame.

[ramAnag]

OK so you wriggle on the hook and start talking about changes in transfer windows and the like? Thats kind of your modus operandi, start with a vague proposition, then as it gets demolished, change the criteria (although I'll admit you didn't actually state the criteria on which your proposition was based)!

That Farke and Bielsa are examples of managers who were given time to build sides simply because they were not sacked after one year OK so your version of a manager building a side bit by bit as you put it is one who brings in players over ONE season and gets promoted? Then keeps them in the top tier?

Would you expect said managers to be sacked if they didn't achieve promotion in the first year but came close?


I can see that you actually didn't mean what you originally asserted, that stability and allowing a manager to build a team (this legacy as you falsely called it) would pay dividends in the long term. You know like you were saying about Cocu last season and how it would not be good to get promoted because that team he was building would mature and with a few additions be better this season?


The only flaw in your argument is that in none of the examples given, were the managers "given time to build a team" they were successful in the first season they were appointed, in meeting the Boards objectives, which clearly was either getting promoted or mounting a realistic challenge. Thats why they remained in charge and generally thats why managers retain their jobs unless there is some other factor.

IF Smith had failed with promotion in his first season and had finished mid table but remained in charge, your argument would have some merit. As it is your ascribing your view point on something that isn't factually correct.

Oh but as is often the case with you, the criteria on which you build an opinion is vague, so of course actually it doesn't matter if I point out where your incorrect, your reasons and examples are so fluid, that you seem to think any manager who lasts more than a year has been given time to build a team!

Preposterous!

Fair enough your not interested in serious debate, you like making sweeping assertions (not backed up by evidence) and giving your opinion, however flawed it might be.

I've taken note, once thought you had half a brain, but hey ho one lives and learns.

Only one ‘wriggling’ is you Swale.

My proposition was that ‘you don’t have to go back to the sixties to find managers being given the opportunity to build sides’ and that is true as exemplified by Cox, Smith and, to an extent, Clough Jnr just at Derby. Far from being ‘preposterous’ that is just fact...they didn’t manage in the 1960’s and were all given time and opportunity to ‘build’ sides.
Your point that Smith won ‘success’ within a year is obviously true too but doesn’t change the concept of him ‘building’ sides and it is interesting that you have chosen to steer well clear of the Cox example.
Likewise Leeds must have been colossally disappointed at their collapse in 2019 and Norwich too have ridden a roller coaster with Farke and yet he and Bielsa are still in position...being given a chance to build further. That too is just fact.

You say ‘the only flaw in my argument’ is that all the managers I’ve chosen were ‘successful in the first season they were appointed’, but that’s not true. Smith was...but, if memory serves, Cox wasn’t, Farke wasn’t and Bielsa certainly wasn’t.

Serious debate? Who’s talking ‘serious debate’? We’re on a football forum discussing football management, but I always find that any argument is best based on facts not unpleasantness, another proposition you still seem unable to grasp.

P.S. The introduction of the ‘transfer window’ aspect was, as I said, to move things on away from our futile and boring exchange and discuss something more interesting.

[macstheman]

To Swale and rA.
May I respectfully suggest that, as you appear to have a personal disagreement, you give consideration to others on this forum and resolve your issues by PM.

Many thanks in anticipation.

[ramAnag]

To Swale and rA.
May I respectfully suggest that, as you appear to have a personal disagreement, you give consideration to others on this forum and resolve your issues by PM.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Sorry mac, point taken again. God knows I’m trying to end it but tbh...the last thing I need is Swale invading my message box so...out of ‘consideration to others’, and in an attempt to comply with Andy’s ‘sticky’, I shall not respond further to any more of Swales’ ‘thoughts’ on this subject again.