Everyone calling for MON's head


Status
Not open for further replies.
If his first year had been as bad as this he wouldnt though, and in fact he went as soon as his form was as bad. He also inherited a worse squad than Mon and finished 13th. Mon also had a summer and funds to make changes, he's also given contracts to a good group of those he Inherited, it's not like he's standing on the fence as far as building a team goes, the process is in motion.




My basic contention is that a manager who has managed poorly for nearly thirty games and done little to arrest that deserves less time than a manager treading water or progressing. Also, that a manager who presides over such poor form is maybe just not very good at managing in that context, and so won't suddenly see a turn in fortune because the poor results and his management are linked.

Why do you think things will improve? It's pretty clear as to why were doing so badly, yet none of those things are really changing for the better, so beyond simply just hoping that things will improve because that would be nice, what are you holding on to?

Brian Clough tread water at Derby and Forest for a year. Don Revie tread water at Leeds for a year. Bill Shankly tread water at Liverpool for a year. Bobby Robson tread water at Ipswich for about three years.

I dread to think of the trophies you would have robbed those clubs of if you were deciding their boardroom policy.
 
We are only 3 points behind Liverpool (12th) with a game in hand.

Our form has been terrible, but I can't believe that people have been so critical of a man of O'Neill's stature after such a short period of time at the club.

We're also three points away from relegation. We haven't won three points off a team with equal numbers.
 
Brian Clough tread water at Derby and Forest for a year. Don Revie tread water at Leeds for a year. Bill Shankly tread water at Liverpool for a year. Bobby Robson tread water at Ipswich for about three years.

I dread to think of the trophies you would have robbed those clubs of if you were deciding their boardroom policy.

None, because I stated that managers treading water deserved more time? Something which Mon isnt doing btw. Nice way to try and muddy the waters though, while also bringing up stats from fifty years ago as if they bore any revelance to how the PL functions, and avoiding any of the questions I asked.

Also- I'm not deciding any boardroom policy. I just have an opinion. It differs from yours. Respect that rather than having to invoke cheap emotive devices such as boarD room role playing to try and discredit that. Use logic, not snark.
 
None, because I stated that managers treading water deserved more time? Something which Mon isnt doing btw. Nice way to try and muddy the waters though, while also bringing up stats from fifty years ago as if they bore any revelance to how the PL functions, and avoiding any of the questions I asked.

Also- I'm not deciding any boardroom policy. I just have an opinion. It differs from yours. Respect that rather than having to invoke cheap emotive devices such as boarD room role playing to try and discredit that. Use logic, not snark.

But MON is treading water. We are pretty much in the same position now as he was when he took over. So by your own ideals, he deserves more time.
 
Our high defensive line must run across the edge of our box. We were regularly surrendering almost the entire pitch to a side without a win this season. His fault or the players it matters not, it's inexcusable.

Spot on.

I'm sure some one has caked his account.
 
But MON is treading water. We are pretty much in the same position now as he was when he took over. So by your own ideals, he deserves more time.

In the table only. Anyone with a hint of critical objectivity can see the team have slid terribly though and results are getting worse. The stats suggest he has as nearly as poor a tally as Bruce did when he left over the same number of games, there's four points in it in Mons favour. The stats and reality suggest we have been second in more or less every important quality whatever the opposition. We can't even beat a team without their having a numerical handicap. Mon looks powerless to stop this. If we continue to play like this then we will be relying on three worse teams to stop up.

So yes, position wise were the same, but were nit going to continue to play a full quater of our fixtures predominately against ten men and generally pick up points by playing in this fashion, so that position will change before long to represent our actual form thus far.
 
Last edited:
In the table only. Anyone with a hint of critical objectivity can see the team have slid terribly though and results are getting worse. The stats suggest he has as nearly as poor a tally as Bruce did when he left over the same number of games, there's four points in it in Mons favour. The stats and reality suggest we have been second in more or less every important quality whatever the opposition. We can't even beat a team without their having a numerical handicap. Mon looks powerless to stop this. If we continue to play like this then we will be relying on three worse teams to stop up.

So yes, position wise were the same, but were nit going to continue to play a full quater of our fixtures predominately against ten men and generally pick up points by playing in this fashion, so that position will change before long to represent our actual form thus far.

That;s not 'critical objectivity'. It is agenda-driven conjecture.

By your own admission he is doing slightly better than Bruce, so by your own admission he is achieving the tread water standard to justify he is given more time. Yet you then go on to attach a set of caveats to that which essentially disqualifies you from applying your own ideals to this situation.

Not that any of this really matters anyway. It doesn't matter what either of us think really. Ellis Short is 100% behind MON and not even thinking about making a change and he is the only one that really matters.
 
That;s not 'critical objectivity'. It is agenda-driven conjecture.

By your own admission he is doing slightly better than Bruce, so by your own admission he is achieving the tread water standard to justify he is given more time. Yet you then go on to attach a set of caveats to that which essentially disqualifies you from applying your own ideals to this situation.

Not that any of this really matters anyway. It doesn't matter what either of us think really. Ellis Short is 100% behind MON and not even thinking about making a change and he is the only one that really matters.


They aren't caveats they're facts, they're details.

They're explanations behind why despite being "equal" in your eyes to Bruce he is in fact worse when you look more closely.

They're are some basic errors that nearly everyone here can see, for example, playing midfielders in RB/LB positions despite having fit defenders at the club. Playing so deep as to invite the opposition onto you, compounded by having the least amount of attacking desire in all four divisions.

I think it is you who is blinded ... by MON love.

I'd love nothing more than for "something" to click and for this to be a blip but there is no evidence to support the blip theory but there is actual evidence to support the fact that MON has lost whatever it was he had when he first arrived, a wave of optimism and that wave crashed at the Everton cup game last season.
 
They aren't caveats they're facts, they're details.

They're explanations behind why despite being "equal" in your eyes to Bruce he is in fact worse when you look more closely.

They're are some basic errors that nearly everyone here can see, for example, playing midfielders in RB/LB positions despite having fit defenders at the club. Playing so deep as to invite the opposition onto you, compounded by having the least amount of attacking desire in all four divisions.

I think it is you who is blinded ... by MON love.

I'd love nothing more than for "something" to click and for this to be a blip but there is no evidence to support the blip theory but there is actual evidence to support the fact that MON has lost whatever it was he had when he first arrived, a wave of optimism and that wave crashed at the Everton cup game last season.

If you are advocating playing anything other than a deep defensive line with the players we have available then I don't think you have any business passing judgement on the tactical nous of others.
 
Hang on a minute... HAS he persisted with it?

People on here asked for 4-4-2. They got it. Nowt changed.

People on here asked for McClean to be dropped. They got it. Nowt changed.

People on here asked for Johnson to be moved to the left. They got it. Nowt changed.

People on here asked for Gardner to be moved into midfield. They got. Nowt changed.

Seems to me that everyone has all the answers, until they proved to be phantoms at which point they pretend they never happened.

I'm sorry mate, but the above examples are just one offs and slight tweaks in personnel. He's not tried any wholesale different approaches and stuck with them.

He must believe that what we're doing right now is going to work eventually and start paying off. I'm not saying he's wrong yet, but he's certainly not altered anything drastically.
 
That;s not 'critical objectivity'. It is agenda-driven conjecture.

By your own admission he is doing slightly better than Bruce, so by your own admission he is achieving the tread water standard to justify he is given more time. Yet you then go on to attach a set of caveats to that which essentially disqualifies you from applying your own ideals to this situation.

Not that any of this really matters anyway. It doesn't matter what either of us think really. Ellis Short is 100% behind MON and not even thinking about making a change and he is the only one that really matters.

He is doing four points better than Bruce was, at his worse. That isn't, by my wn definition, treading water, when I've said that Bruce deserved to go for those returns. It is, by my own defintion, saying that he is doing as badly as Bruce did more or less without having earned any of the slack that Bruce did at this juncture for two decent seasons beforehand.

If you are advocating playing anything other than a deep defensive line with the players we have available then I don't think you have any business passing judgement on the tactical nous of others.

That's a total opinion mate, nothing more, it's what you believe but it's not something you can rationally prove. Even if Mon can't manage to get them to play that way it dosen't mean a better manager couldn't. There are several other teams I'd say have as slow and undynamic a defence as us, they don't play anywhere near as deep.
 
That's a total opinion mate, nothing more, it's what you believe but it's not something you can rationally prove. Even if Mon can't manage to get them to play that way it dosen't mean a better manager couldn't. There are several other teams I'd say have as slow and undynamic a defence as us, they don't play anywhere near as deep.

QPR didn't look as though they had a particularly quick back four yet, even as the away side, they pressed us far more aggressively than we managed on the night.
 
What grates me is the fact that some of us think that we know more about Mon's job than him. Citing formations and tactics is one example. Don't these people know that MON is aware of our deficiencies and is trying to rectify them.

Some things are just out of control and we just have to deal with them. Some things however are not. Like how we behave as fans and get behind the team in the hour of need. The groans yesterday when we passed the ball back to retain possession were cringe worthy. Esp the one's aimed at AJ. FFS we made him shit himself every time he got the ball.

good post, when your every move is being harshly criticised it becomes parylising, we found that under keane
 
Brian Clough tread water at Derby and Forest for a year. Don Revie tread water at Leeds for a year. Bill Shankly tread water at Liverpool for a year. Bobby Robson tread water at Ipswich for about three years.

I dread to think of the trophies you would have robbed those clubs of if you were deciding their boardroom policy.

Whereas hundreds of other managers tread water and went on to be failures. There are always exceptions, it's not a reason for sticking with a manager.
 
QPR didn't look as though they had a particularly quick back four yet, even as the away side, they pressed us far more aggressively than we managed on the night.

Quite. Stoke, Norwich, QPR, Villa, Newcastle, to be honest most teams outside the top 8 have a pretty stable but static defence. We're hardly excpetionally pedestrian at the back and it highlights another of MON's weaknesses-it's all about damage limitation rather than managing and getting the best out of your assets. Better to protect the back four at the expense of the top three rather than play to the stengths of the top three at the expense of the back four. It's all about not conceding, rather than scoring. I'd have no complaints if it was working, but it isn't and hasn't since about April, to the extet that we haven't beaten a team in the PL with equal numbers for nine months.

But I'm just on a mission, none of these things matter accoridng to fishpaste, it's just my agenda unlike his untarnished and unblemished objectivty, so pay me no mind. I'm sure everything will just got better, cos that's how football works. If you play shit for long enough you break the system and do a full revolution to playing well again. It's not like the manager can do anything is it? he's tried a few things once, what more can he do? Poor lamb.

Whereas hundreds of other managers tread water and went on to be failures. There are always exceptions, it's not a reason for sticking with a manager.

add to that the fact that MON isn't treading water, we're demonstrably going backwards under him. Plot a graph and see where the line goes. Mon is four points to the good of the form that got Bruce sacked, precisley becuase he was going backwards and we were regressing.

Again though, don't worry about these facts, I'm sure they're biassed and propagandist. Everything will be fine :)
 
I'm sorry mate, but the above examples are just one offs and slight tweaks in personnel. He's not tried any wholesale different approaches and stuck with them.

He must believe that what we're doing right now is going to work eventually and start paying off. I'm not saying he's wrong yet, but he's certainly not altered anything drastically.

So what wholesale changes would you make?

QPR didn't look as though they had a particularly quick back four yet, even as the away side, they pressed us far more aggressively than we managed on the night.

True, but they had a couple of very big and mobile units sat in front of their back four in Diakite and Mbia. Something we certainly lack.
 
So what wholesale changes would you make?



True, but they had a couple of very big and mobile units sat in front of their back four in Diakite and Mbia. Something we certainly lack.

It’s not like MON could have addressed this patent weakness in the summer or anything with the considerable sum he had, not like it had been obvious since MON took over that our CM was the point needed most adressing after a striker or anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top