| One for Keith and Mods 17:53 - Sep 11 with 5440 views | onehunglow |
Is this site about debate or what
Does it mean debate only if opinions seen to be negative are allowed or not.
We are seeing hate posts my way because I do not like the way things are right now.
Winston is in full hate mode and getting away with stuff you said wasn’t allowed.
Why do I have to tolerate this garbage
Do we really have to sing from the same hymn sheet or not.
Is it really this bad.
Debate means two sides and without it ,life is nothing.
Right now,nobody can guarantee anything lathered is hope,no more. no less too.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 17:54]
|  |
| |  |
| One for Keith and Mods on 13:55 - Sep 13 with 983 views | onehunglow |
| One for Keith and Mods on 09:18 - Sep 13 by jackrmee |
SO just because the majority of managers (in different circumstances) didn't need much time, that means we should base all future managers on this and not offer them any time?
Each circumstance is different and should be treated as such.
All managers should be given time. If they don't need it because they start off well, then great.
We should not decide our next manager's fate by judging how the last manager did or what he needed. |
No.Not all matters should be given time.
That is suicide
That said,it shows the nativity of our fans | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:15 - Sep 13 with 953 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 13:55 - Sep 13 by onehunglow |
No.Not all matters should be given time.
That is suicide
That said,it shows the nativity of our fans |
The point being of course, that this isn’t the big change people are insisting on saying it is.
It may be a big change for the supporter, but not for the players involved, and that’s the key point.
We are at a point now where most of the starting 11 didn’t play under Cooper. So not really much of a different scenario to any other season with a new manager. He has signed players from clubs that play passing football anyway, this is now his team, including Laird who he had last year.
We have two games coming up against two very average teams. We should be looking for 4 points from the next 6 games minimum, there really isn’t any justifiable excuse anymore. It will be his 9th and 10th game in charge.
A lot of myth peddling at the moment. |  |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:17 - Sep 13 with 950 views | WalterBoyd |
| One for Keith and Mods on 10:19 - Sep 13 by Evs |
Ugh. Ok, so fair enough. You've extrapolated our results to date to reach a final points total of 38 to suggest that our form is totally linear and then conclude that looking at last season's table, that would put us "bottom of the table by 7 points". (I'm not sure where the 7 pts comes from, but whatever).
Doing that with Reading, Peterborough and Forest's current form using your method gives them final points totals of 30, 30 and 7. Compared with our 38. So, no, we wouldn't be bottom at all.
I get that you're not happy right now. I am content. We have differing opinions and that's fine. We don't need to keep revisiting this. I might be hysterical by January, of course. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime, there's absolutely no need to throw flimsy stats and inconsistent reasoning at me. |
Evs, you make complete sense and majority of posters
will understand the point you have raised. | | | |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:22 - Sep 13 with 938 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:17 - Sep 13 by WalterBoyd |
Evs, you make complete sense and majority of posters
will understand the point you have raised. |
Then they will also not understand the point being made.
Thankfully I disagree and don’t think anyone else will have an issue understanding what is a pretty simple point. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:24 - Sep 13 with 935 views | onehunglow |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:17 - Sep 13 by WalterBoyd |
Evs, you make complete sense and majority of posters
will understand the point you have raised. |
Wrong.
What is happening is YOU Walt agreeing with him.
I d say majority of fans are very concerned and in no way as gullible as you to trust a virtual kid in charge of our club.
He could really cause damage..
How would you feel if you were young Morgan W ? | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:49 - Sep 13 with 843 views | YrAlarch |
| One for Keith and Mods on 13:55 - Sep 13 by onehunglow |
No.Not all matters should be given time.
That is suicide
That said,it shows the nativity of our fans |
So we should give him until Christmas then? | | | |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:53 - Sep 13 with 830 views | Dr_Winston |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:49 - Sep 13 by YrAlarch |
So we should give him until Christmas then? |
 |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:58 - Sep 13 with 828 views | raynor94 |
| One for Keith and Mods on 10:19 - Sep 13 by Evs |
Ugh. Ok, so fair enough. You've extrapolated our results to date to reach a final points total of 38 to suggest that our form is totally linear and then conclude that looking at last season's table, that would put us "bottom of the table by 7 points". (I'm not sure where the 7 pts comes from, but whatever).
Doing that with Reading, Peterborough and Forest's current form using your method gives them final points totals of 30, 30 and 7. Compared with our 38. So, no, we wouldn't be bottom at all.
I get that you're not happy right now. I am content. We have differing opinions and that's fine. We don't need to keep revisiting this. I might be hysterical by January, of course. Let's wait and see.
In the meantime, there's absolutely no need to throw flimsy stats and inconsistent reasoning at me. |
Great post! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| One for Keith and Mods on 19:00 - Sep 13 with 825 views | WalterBoyd |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:49 - Sep 13 by YrAlarch |
So we should give him until Christmas then? |
Would be crackers not to. | | | |
| One for Keith and Mods on 19:47 - Sep 13 with 789 views | onehunglow |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:49 - Sep 13 by YrAlarch |
So we should give him until Christmas then? |
Not up to me champ
You?
What ya think of possibly Robbie Brady coming to us-IF he can get fit. Mate of Russy in whom we must trust. Seems he trusts a has been who is unfit more than the likes of Whittaker who is yo8ng ,fit and keen.
It is actually getting worse. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 20:07 - Sep 13 with 770 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 18:58 - Sep 13 by raynor94 |
Great post! |
It would be if it was right, sadly he completely missed the point I made and replied appropriately.
As did you it seems. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:16 - Sep 13 with 746 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 09:24 - Sep 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
I am not talking about the last manager, I am talking about this history of Swansea management.
Why is Martin so special that he gets months and even years before we can expect even acceptable results.
We should base all decisions on common sense, not madness. |
All managers should get months mun.
How long do you think we should give them then ffs? |  |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:23 - Sep 13 with 731 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 14:24 - Sep 13 by onehunglow |
Wrong.
What is happening is YOU Walt agreeing with him.
I d say majority of fans are very concerned and in no way as gullible as you to trust a virtual kid in charge of our club.
He could really cause damage..
How would you feel if you were young Morgan W ? |
So Whittaker should be in the team instead of who? | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:30 - Sep 13 with 711 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:16 - Sep 13 by jackrmee |
All managers should get months mun.
How long do you think we should give them then ffs? |
Not sure what you mean by “give them”. Before what? I am referring to being able to critique performances and expect acceptable results.
So, assuming you understand what I have typed and are therefor stating your opinion that… every manager should be given months on end to be able to produce acceptable results? Absolutely disagree.
Managers should be given months to optimise their style of play, yes. Which I will, I won’t be lobbying for his sacking. But not months on end to get acceptable results, that should happen fairly quickly. The next two matches represent his 9th and 10th in charge…. Bob Bradley was here for 11.
In fact the “new manager bounce”, and “honeymoon period” was coined as a direct result of the perceived upturn in results once a new manager is in place.
It may then take him time to get players he wants in, iron out a few details etc, but with a superior squad there really is not any reason the team shouldn’t be winning games along the way. [Post edited 13 Sep 2021 21:35]
| |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:36 - Sep 13 with 699 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:30 - Sep 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
Not sure what you mean by “give them”. Before what? I am referring to being able to critique performances and expect acceptable results.
So, assuming you understand what I have typed and are therefor stating your opinion that… every manager should be given months on end to be able to produce acceptable results? Absolutely disagree.
Managers should be given months to optimise their style of play, yes. Which I will, I won’t be lobbying for his sacking. But not months on end to get acceptable results, that should happen fairly quickly. The next two matches represent his 9th and 10th in charge…. Bob Bradley was here for 11.
In fact the “new manager bounce”, and “honeymoon period” was coined as a direct result of the perceived upturn in results once a new manager is in place.
It may then take him time to get players he wants in, iron out a few details etc, but with a superior squad there really is not any reason the team shouldn’t be winning games along the way. [Post edited 13 Sep 2021 21:35]
|
Results are not the be all and end all at the beginning.
The performance on Saturday was good. That’s the most important thing.
Result not so good. Not so important.
Simple. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:43 - Sep 13 with 684 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:36 - Sep 13 by jackrmee |
Results are not the be all and end all at the beginning.
The performance on Saturday was good. That’s the most important thing.
Result not so good. Not so important.
Simple. |
In your view of course.
I disagree, as do many owners of football clubs for good reason.
It would also depend what you constitute a good performance.
I think an inability to create any real chances aside from set pieces, when you have 70% of the ball at home to one of the worst teams in the league after spending the most you have in a single season in your football league history (aside from the one after relegation)… is not a good performance.
An improvement? Yes. But the bar was not set very high. Good? I can’t agree. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 01:06 - Sep 14 with 602 views | WalterBoyd |
| One for Keith and Mods on 19:47 - Sep 13 by onehunglow |
Not up to me champ
You?
What ya think of possibly Robbie Brady coming to us-IF he can get fit. Mate of Russy in whom we must trust. Seems he trusts a has been who is unfit more than the likes of Whittaker who is yo8ng ,fit and keen.
It is actually getting worse. |
You totally missed the joke , at 13:55 you posted
"That said,it shows the nativity of our fans"
Tis the season to be jolly.... | | | |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:17 - Sep 14 with 553 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 21:43 - Sep 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
In your view of course.
I disagree, as do many owners of football clubs for good reason.
It would also depend what you constitute a good performance.
I think an inability to create any real chances aside from set pieces, when you have 70% of the ball at home to one of the worst teams in the league after spending the most you have in a single season in your football league history (aside from the one after relegation)… is not a good performance.
An improvement? Yes. But the bar was not set very high. Good? I can’t agree. |
The manager agrees.
So you say we shouldn't be giving the manager so much time.
What should we be doing then?
How much more time would you give him? Any?
Would you sack him?
Would you try and force him to change his tactics?
What would you do, if it's not give him more time? | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:24 - Sep 14 with 544 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:17 - Sep 14 by jackrmee |
The manager agrees.
So you say we shouldn't be giving the manager so much time.
What should we be doing then?
How much more time would you give him? Any?
Would you sack him?
Would you try and force him to change his tactics?
What would you do, if it's not give him more time? |
The manager agrees he should be given all the time in the word before being scrutinised?
Aye, I'm sure he would agree, as would most managers. 
I didn't say that at all, you are making up quotes again. I haven't once advocated for his sacking, I am hoping he can turn around what has been one of the worst starts to a season in decades.
You keep insisting ''time'' means sacking. ''Time'', as far as I am concerned, is in relation to scrutiny. Once we can scrutinise performances and results without the excuses, then there is a marker in the sand for significant improvements in both areas.
If those improvements still don't come then we move onto what may be a change of personnel at management level, but we aren't near that stage yet. I just would like a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:35 - Sep 14 with 531 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:24 - Sep 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
The manager agrees he should be given all the time in the word before being scrutinised?
Aye, I'm sure he would agree, as would most managers.
I didn't say that at all, you are making up quotes again. I haven't once advocated for his sacking, I am hoping he can turn around what has been one of the worst starts to a season in decades.
You keep insisting ''time'' means sacking. ''Time'', as far as I am concerned, is in relation to scrutiny. Once we can scrutinise performances and results without the excuses, then there is a marker in the sand for significant improvements in both areas.
If those improvements still don't come then we move onto what may be a change of personnel at management level, but we aren't near that stage yet. I just would like a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing. |
No, he agrees that it was a good performance.
I'm asking you a question, not misquoting you.
You disagree with me that we should be giving him time.
So what should we do? | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:37 - Sep 14 with 530 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:35 - Sep 14 by jackrmee |
No, he agrees that it was a good performance.
I'm asking you a question, not misquoting you.
You disagree with me that we should be giving him time.
So what should we do? |
Yeah, he is the manager of course he will say it is. He said the Stoke one was good too didn't he?
As for the rest of it, I answered that perfectly above. I would just be repeating. | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:44 - Sep 14 with 522 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:37 - Sep 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yeah, he is the manager of course he will say it is. He said the Stoke one was good too didn't he?
As for the rest of it, I answered that perfectly above. I would just be repeating. |
SO managers always say that the performance is good, even when it isn't? OKay then.
I don't think anyone disagrees that results are poor.
What people don't agree with, are that the poor results mean that we should not take this any more.
Most think we should give the manager time.
You think he's had enough time.
But you won't say what you think we should do now that he's had enough time.
You say you don't think we should sack him.
So what should we do??
Just scrutinise is it? OK, where does that get us?
You've scrutinised and said that it's not good. What do you want to do about it?
Just scrutinise and moan? That will help haha.
You don't want him sacked, so what do you want done with him?
Reprimanded? For the fans to boo him?
He's out of time in your book. SO what should we do? | |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:51 - Sep 14 with 517 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:44 - Sep 14 by jackrmee |
SO managers always say that the performance is good, even when it isn't? OKay then.
I don't think anyone disagrees that results are poor.
What people don't agree with, are that the poor results mean that we should not take this any more.
Most think we should give the manager time.
You think he's had enough time.
But you won't say what you think we should do now that he's had enough time.
You say you don't think we should sack him.
So what should we do??
Just scrutinise is it? OK, where does that get us?
You've scrutinised and said that it's not good. What do you want to do about it?
Just scrutinise and moan? That will help haha.
You don't want him sacked, so what do you want done with him?
Reprimanded? For the fans to boo him?
He's out of time in your book. SO what should we do? |
Quite often yes. Surely this isn't new information to you?
Incorrect, people don't all agree that results are poor, that's the point.
You are asking me the same questions, expecting different answers. This is a copy and paste from the first time you asked me what we should do:-
......
''You keep insisting ''time'' means sacking. ''Time'', as far as I am concerned, is in relation to scrutiny. Once we can scrutinise performances and results without the excuses, then there is a marker in the sand for significant improvements in both areas.
If those improvements still don't come then we move onto what may be a change of personnel at management level, but we aren't near that stage yet. I just would like a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing.''
......
There is nothing I can do about it, it is a strange question to ask me what I want to do about it. It is not up to me, I have no say or any power at the club.
The club should be scrutinising performances now, putting in targets and KPI's. If they are not met or satisfied then its the same as any other job you are underperforming in I would imagine.
It is what happened with Bob Bradley was it not. He was scrutinised after about 4 games, clearly given some goals to hit performance and results wise. Didn't manage to achieve them and was replaced by game 12.
Should we have given him more time to turn it around in your view?
Not sure what you mean by ''out of time in your book''. Out of time for what? I don't think I have ever said ''he is out of time'' have I? [Post edited 14 Sep 2021 7:57]
| |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 08:11 - Sep 14 with 491 views | jackrmee |
| One for Keith and Mods on 07:51 - Sep 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
Quite often yes. Surely this isn't new information to you?
Incorrect, people don't all agree that results are poor, that's the point.
You are asking me the same questions, expecting different answers. This is a copy and paste from the first time you asked me what we should do:-
......
''You keep insisting ''time'' means sacking. ''Time'', as far as I am concerned, is in relation to scrutiny. Once we can scrutinise performances and results without the excuses, then there is a marker in the sand for significant improvements in both areas.
If those improvements still don't come then we move onto what may be a change of personnel at management level, but we aren't near that stage yet. I just would like a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing.''
......
There is nothing I can do about it, it is a strange question to ask me what I want to do about it. It is not up to me, I have no say or any power at the club.
The club should be scrutinising performances now, putting in targets and KPI's. If they are not met or satisfied then its the same as any other job you are underperforming in I would imagine.
It is what happened with Bob Bradley was it not. He was scrutinised after about 4 games, clearly given some goals to hit performance and results wise. Didn't manage to achieve them and was replaced by game 12.
Should we have given him more time to turn it around in your view?
Not sure what you mean by ''out of time in your book''. Out of time for what? I don't think I have ever said ''he is out of time'' have I? [Post edited 14 Sep 2021 7:57]
|
Yes it is new information that most managers pretend their teams have played really well when they have clearly not haha. That's ridiculous.
SO can you please point out any posts on here where people think our results of one win this season are good?
I'm talking about results now, not performance.
0-0 at home to Hull is poor. The performance was not poor. There's a difference.
I haven't mentioned sacking. I'm asking you the question.
You seem to change words and expect them to mean something else.
"a change of personnel at management level" = sacking.
"but we aren't near that stage yet" = giving more time.
You act all clever, but really aren't very bright at all.
So for all your moaning and negativity towards the club and other posters, all you really want out of it is "a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing".
Well, yes, most people have said that results are poor. There we go :) maybe you can shut up now.
What most people recognise though, is that PERFORMANCES are improving. Very much so, if you go from Preston last match, to Hull this match.
Results have not improved greatly, but have slightly, with a clean sheet and a point. Most would still argue that it's not a good result, including me.
I know you have no power. Thank God.
But use a bit of imagination man. Is your mind that weak?
IF, IF IF it was up you...what would you do?
Imagine you have at least a little bit of power.
Would you give Russell Martin more time? No, you've said you wouldn't. So I'm just interested in what you would actually do.
You think the club aren't scrutinising performances?
You think the club haven't seen an improvement in the last performance?
Shouldn't you be aiming your vitriol at the club's hierarchy then and not the manager?
It's not his fault that he's not been set these targets and shown these KPIs. He must think his job is the easiest in the world, seen as no-one scrutinises at Swansea City. Christ, I hope this doesn't get out to other managers, they'll all want to come here for the easy ride. [Post edited 14 Sep 2021 8:24]
| |
| |
| One for Keith and Mods on 08:30 - Sep 14 with 469 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| One for Keith and Mods on 08:11 - Sep 14 by jackrmee |
Yes it is new information that most managers pretend their teams have played really well when they have clearly not haha. That's ridiculous.
SO can you please point out any posts on here where people think our results of one win this season are good?
I'm talking about results now, not performance.
0-0 at home to Hull is poor. The performance was not poor. There's a difference.
I haven't mentioned sacking. I'm asking you the question.
You seem to change words and expect them to mean something else.
"a change of personnel at management level" = sacking.
"but we aren't near that stage yet" = giving more time.
You act all clever, but really aren't very bright at all.
So for all your moaning and negativity towards the club and other posters, all you really want out of it is "a bit of accountability and recognition that these results are indeed poor and we should be having far better results than what we are showing".
Well, yes, most people have said that results are poor. There we go :) maybe you can shut up now.
What most people recognise though, is that PERFORMANCES are improving. Very much so, if you go from Preston last match, to Hull this match.
Results have not improved greatly, but have slightly, with a clean sheet and a point. Most would still argue that it's not a good result, including me.
I know you have no power. Thank God.
But use a bit of imagination man. Is your mind that weak?
IF, IF IF it was up you...what would you do?
Imagine you have at least a little bit of power.
Would you give Russell Martin more time? No, you've said you wouldn't. So I'm just interested in what you would actually do.
You think the club aren't scrutinising performances?
You think the club haven't seen an improvement in the last performance?
Shouldn't you be aiming your vitriol at the club's hierarchy then and not the manager?
It's not his fault that he's not been set these targets and shown these KPIs. He must think his job is the easiest in the world, seen as no-one scrutinises at Swansea City. Christ, I hope this doesn't get out to other managers, they'll all want to come here for the easy ride. [Post edited 14 Sep 2021 8:24]
|
My God, am I expected to really reply to every point of this incessant rambling?
Ok... deep breath...
It is ridiculous yes, I am amazed that is a new concept for you. I think it used to be a regular weekly thing slating the managers comments about the match which was the opposite to what everyone else saw.
You have changed that. What you said is ''we all agree results are poor''. Now you are asking me for a quote for someone who says results were ''good''. There is a very large jump between the two.
This week I was posting on here discussing our results with someone saying that he believed the results so far are acceptable. ''Evo'' the username or something like that. He clearly didn't think they were poor.
The performance vs Hull was not poor in your opinion, of course. It depends what you constitute a good performance, I didn't think it was good. It was a slight improvement on the rubbish we have seen so far, but the main issues were still there.
I am not changing any words, I am asking you for what context you are asking. You keep pretending I have said ''he's out of time'', but said nothing of the sort. So what ''time'' are you referencing? I have not once suggested he should be sacked, the ''time'' to which I refer to is regarding accountability of performances.
I don't act clever at all, I post how I post. If you perceive me as clever then excellent, must be putting my point across sufficiently well then.
No, me giving my view on how awful we have been is not for the benefit of posters on here to agree with. Most agree that he needs to be given time for results... can you shut up about that now too? Doesn't work like that does it champ, these forums are to exchange views. These are mine, you will just have to deal with it.
I have no idea what I would do if it was up to me, probably introduce some targets and KPI's like I have already told you. I would imagine that is what they did with Bob Bradley at a similar stage. If he can turn it around then great, if not then we would have very little choice than to look for someone who can deliver what we want.
I have no idea what the club are doing, they may well be in complete dreamland like some of our fans, away with the fairies pretending all will be fine because we have the MK Dons manager at the helm. I don't know them, so can't say.
There may have been some I have missed in your barrage of verbiage, but as you ignore most of my answers anyway I am sure it wont be too much of a miss.
Edit - just read this one.... What vitriol have I aimed at the manager? Can you point any out? Specifics please as it sounds like another thing you made up...
Cheers [Post edited 14 Sep 2021 8:37]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.