Rams v Barnsley.

[swaledale]

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.

So debates where a poster disagrees with another poster for more than say 2 posts? 3 posts? Are forbidden? Blimey it seems its just a forum for posting ill informed and unsubstantiated opining for which there can be no rebuttal!

Don't worry rA I ahve no intention of bothering to debate with you, you fail to answer a point, come back with a spurious comment and generally have a tantrum should your precious opinion be proven to be inaccurate!

So there we ahve it, a manager who gets promotion in his first or second season and isn't sacked is a a manager who has been "given time" to build a team, which basically applies to all managers then! **** knows what rA would describe a manager who like Clough built a team over 6 or 7 years!

[swaledale]

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.

How hard is it to ignore posts that don't interest you? I mean its not like you HAVE to read whats been posted, just pass over and read what interests you! Jeez a forum on which there is some debate, that can't be good, lets just have threads full of anodyne and spurious comments and opinions then!

[AdiSalisbury]

Swale, open a private window and have a ****, it'll do you good. Don't be too hard on the old chap though.

[macstheman]

Your responses are much appreciated rA and Swale.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So debates where a poster disagrees with another poster for more than say 2 posts? 3 posts? Are forbidden? Blimey it seems its just a forum for posting ill informed and unsubstantiated opining for which there can be no rebuttal!

Don't worry rA I ahve no intention of bothering to debate with you, you fail to answer a point, come back with a spurious comment and generally have a tantrum should your precious opinion be proven to be inaccurate!

So there we ahve it, a manager who gets promotion in his first or second season and isn't sacked is a a manager who has been "given time" to build a team, which basically applies to all managers then! **** knows what rA would describe a manager who like Clough built a team over 6 or 7 years!

Let's close the episode by concluding that, in the Red Baronial sense, Muttley has shot Dick in the back: Dick has retaliated by putting the crimson haybaler into the steep descent and Muttley has fallen out. The vulture squad is down 2 men.

Apologies for mixed HB metaphors

[Geoff Parkstone]

And the difference with Clough is that he spent 6 or 7 years not leaving a legacy having not built a team

[swaledale]

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.

Hardly true is it - and another post from the self same poster who in his last post said he wouldn't do another response!

Of course it affects your argument, unless as is your style, to change the criteria each time you respond! Its based on facts, my exasperation is that you say one thing and then when thats shown not to be the case, you come up with a different set of criteria which supposedly supports what you have said.

So you do expect a club to sack a manager who has got them in the top 6 of the championship in his first season? I'm astounded! Perhaps like you they look at development of the team, the reasons for not quite making it and unlike you ahve a realistic assessment of what they wanted from the manager? Maybe his target was promotion within two seasons? Disappointed they may be, but IF they had any football knowledge they would recognise a manager who would get them to where they wanted to be surely?

You did it with the Lampard argument, which after you had accepted that you'd blamed him for the delay in leaving and then admitted you hadn't any knowledge as to whether it was his fault!

Now you've change your definition of a manager being given time to "build" a team as one who successfully meets the targets set by the clubs board within his first season and subsequent seasons.

OK your entitled to your definition, I mean you can ascribe any set of criteria to an opinion, i.e. make facts suit your case, hey ho its a free country.

But that wasn't what you were originally saying when you talked about a club giving a manager time to build a team - otherwise as I said, any manager who has been a success has been given time to build a team, so its a non sense argument. Few clubs sack a manager who has been a success, and the more successful they are the more they are given time.

Fergie at Manure was clearly given time to build a team as he was not successful in meeting the boards objectives in his early days.

That definitely is my last word debating the issue with a shapeshifter!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Of course it affects your argument, unless as is your style, to change the criteria each time you respond! Its based on facts, my exasperation is that you say one thing and then when thats shown not to be the case, you come up with a different set of criteria which supposedly supports what you have said.

Another characteristic shared with my missus. When you see you are losing, change the basis of the argument and claim never to have meant what you first said, indeed maybe never to have even said it!

[ramAnag]

Hardly true is it - and another post from the self same poster who in his last post said he wouldn't do another response!

Of course it affects your argument, unless as is your style, to change the criteria each time you respond! Its based on facts, my exasperation is that you say one thing and then when thats shown not to be the case, you come up with a different set of criteria which supposedly supports what you have said.

So you do expect a club to sack a manager who has got them in the top 6 of the championship in his first season? I'm astounded! Perhaps like you they look at development of the team, the reasons for not quite making it and unlike you ahve a realistic assessment of what they wanted from the manager? Maybe his target was promotion within two seasons? Disappointed they may be, but IF they had any football knowledge they would recognise a manager who would get them to where they wanted to be surely?

You did it with the Lampard argument, which after you had accepted that you'd blamed him for the delay in leaving and then admitted you hadn't any knowledge as to whether it was his fault!

Now you've change your definition of a manager being given time to "build" a team as one who successfully meets the targets set by the clubs board within his first season and subsequent seasons.

OK your entitled to your definition, I mean you can ascribe any set of criteria to an opinion, i.e. make facts suit your case, hey ho its a free country.

But that wasn't what you were originally saying when you talked about a club giving a manager time to build a team - otherwise as I said, any manager who has been a success has been given time to build a team, so its a non sense argument. Few clubs sack a manager who has been a success, and the more successful they are the more they are given time.

Fergie at Manure was clearly given time to build a team as he was not successful in meeting the boards objectives in his early days.

That definitely is my last word debating the issue with a shapeshifter!

Oh for crying out loud...have you completely lost the plot or do you just struggle telling the time as much as you appear to with being civil?

The post you have quoted was made at 12.02 today and edited at 12.16. The post where I responded to mac asking us to desist and saying I would not post in reply to you again was made at 1.37 this afternoon.

How the hell can I possibly be criticised, even by you, for a response I made over an hour and twenty minutes before I agreed to refrain from arguing with you? Talk about ‘shapeshifters’ and changing the ‘criteria’!

Now...let’s take this really slowly.
Two simple Y/N questions for you.
1. Regardless of their ultimate success...were Arthur Cox, Jim Smith and Nigel Clough given the time and opportunity to build teams at Derby County?
2. Were Arthur Cox, Jim Smith and Nigel Clough managing Derby County in the 1960’s?

I’ll give you a clue if you like, but I’d suggest that most people would agree that the answers to those two questions are 1. Yes and 2. No.

If you too agree then you are also agreeing with my suggestion that you don’t have to go back to the 1960’s to find examples of managers being given opportunities to build a side.

I can’t say it any other way and I can’t believe that such a simple suggestion coupled with your arrogant ‘disdain’ and desire for a fight has led to such rancour, but I guess that’s the role of the keyboard warrior.

I apologise mac, I know what I said and I really will try harder. There is however, imo, nothing I have said that the forum’s answer to Donald Trump has proved not to be the case. At the risk of boring everyone maybe he or his mischief making temporary sidekick could provide examples.

[macstheman]

Now then girls, having failed with diplomacy, let's switch to a good old fashioned duel!
May I suggest pistols at ten paces. Mmmmm that's no good, you'd both miss.
On second thoughts the ducking stool, ten minutes submerged in the Derwent should shut you both up!