| On This Day in 2013 23:25 - Feb 24 with 2759 views | STID2017 |
Michael Laudrup's Swansea City won the only major trophy in our history to date by beating Bradford City 5-0 at Wembley and got us back into Europe.
He may not have been our most successful league manager to date but for the most part his teams were exciting and a delight to watch
Those who were lucky enough to see them will never forget the first game at QPR or the home game against WBA
Wonderful times and a great manager IMHO [Post edited 24 Feb 2022 23:50]
|  |
| |  |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:13 - Feb 25 with 547 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:08 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Think you are getting confused as neither of us have said Tosh wasnt a great manager.
What I did say was that Tosh, as great as he was, never won us a major trophy and at the other end of the spectrum, Tosh took us down ( we will never know if the same would have happened under Laudrup )
So comparing both in their respective top divisions both had a good first league season and a poor second league season |
But I am still unsure what point you are making.
Toshack achieved tangible things over long periods of time, i.e the league. He won 3 promotions.
The only achievement you have Laudrup making is a run of 6 rounds of a competition,. 4 of which against lower league opposition.
Nice achievement but doesn't make him a great manager as his subsequent career shows. |  |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:20 - Feb 25 with 529 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:04 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
More aligned with the lower it is the less ''great'' he is.
Very difficult to call a manager ''great'' when he has one of the worst league records in modern times with arguably the best squad we have ever had. |
Interesting. So those with the higher scores on your chart are deemed the better manager, is that correct ?
Just want to check as it is late and I am tired, so want to make sure I understand correctly ?
Thanks | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:24 - Feb 25 with 525 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:20 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Interesting. So those with the higher scores on your chart are deemed the better manager, is that correct ?
Just want to check as it is late and I am tired, so want to make sure I understand correctly ?
Thanks |
We are measuring greatness, not the sliding scale of what is better.
You can achieve good results and still not be great, but you can't achieve poorly and be great.
So the ones up the top aren't necessarily great, but the ones down the bottom certainly aren't. | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:30 - Feb 25 with 516 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:24 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
We are measuring greatness, not the sliding scale of what is better.
You can achieve good results and still not be great, but you can't achieve poorly and be great.
So the ones up the top aren't necessarily great, but the ones down the bottom certainly aren't. |
So say those in the middle then ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:32 - Feb 25 with 513 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:30 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
So say those in the middle then ? |
Say they are what? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:37 - Feb 25 with 505 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:32 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Say they are what? |
Sorry say those in Potter's position or next down, are they average, below average ,good ?
Not sure how you rate them and it has after all been a long day for us both ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:41 - Feb 25 with 504 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:37 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Sorry say those in Potter's position or next down, are they average, below average ,good ?
Not sure how you rate them and it has after all been a long day for us both ? |
As I said we are discussing greatness, not who was good.
As explained you can possibly be great if you perform well in your career, but you cant be great and perform poorly in your career.
So its a different debate all together if you want to discuss who was better than who. But right now we are discussing greatness, the points per game table is to demonstrate Laudrup was not great, it is not demonstration of anyone that I believe was. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 2:42]
| |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:47 - Feb 25 with 493 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:41 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
As I said we are discussing greatness, not who was good.
As explained you can possibly be great if you perform well in your career, but you cant be great and perform poorly in your career.
So its a different debate all together if you want to discuss who was better than who. But right now we are discussing greatness, the points per game table is to demonstrate Laudrup was not great, it is not demonstration of anyone that I believe was. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 2:42]
|
So for me to understand then, that table can be used to support any argument so if ( hypothetically ) you thought Potter was a better manager than Cooper, you would not use that table to evidence it.
However if you wanted to show Cooper is a better manager than Potter you would
Is that correct ? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:50 - Feb 25 with 491 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:47 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
So for me to understand then, that table can be used to support any argument so if ( hypothetically ) you thought Potter was a better manager than Cooper, you would not use that table to evidence it.
However if you wanted to show Cooper is a better manager than Potter you would
Is that correct ? |
It may form part of the evidence I would have thought.
But as I said there is a large difference between proving something exists and proving something doesn't. The measure is far less complex.
So if you want to go into who was better than who then we would have to have a completely different discussion and bring in larger metrics.
But you are discussing Laudrup being a great manager, for that, simply his performance is sufficient to show he was not. | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:52 - Feb 25 with 485 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:50 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
It may form part of the evidence I would have thought.
But as I said there is a large difference between proving something exists and proving something doesn't. The measure is far less complex.
So if you want to go into who was better than who then we would have to have a completely different discussion and bring in larger metrics.
But you are discussing Laudrup being a great manager, for that, simply his performance is sufficient to show he was not. |
Okay do please inform me what metrics are you bringing to the table to disprove the simple theory that this at the top are best and those at the bottom are worst ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:55 - Feb 25 with 479 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:52 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Okay do please inform me what metrics are you bringing to the table to disprove the simple theory that this at the top are best and those at the bottom are worst ? |
Level, squad quality, money spent - lots of different scenarios.
But again that isn't what this discussion is, this is a discussion of whether Laudrup is a ''great'' manager or not.
Not sure why you would like to now discuss a different topic? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:03 - Feb 25 with 476 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 02:55 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Level, squad quality, money spent - lots of different scenarios.
But again that isn't what this discussion is, this is a discussion of whether Laudrup is a ''great'' manager or not.
Not sure why you would like to now discuss a different topic? |
Just that earlier ( and in the previous discussion about Bobbly) you clearly cited that table as proof of managers being good, bad or middling.
I am just trying to understand if that is the measure we should use to judge Laudrup, Cooper, Bobbly, Monk, etc or not ?
Simple really.
If we cant use that now as the measurement then surely it wasnt valid for your earlier discussions either ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:08 - Feb 25 with 471 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:03 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Just that earlier ( and in the previous discussion about Bobbly) you clearly cited that table as proof of managers being good, bad or middling.
I am just trying to understand if that is the measure we should use to judge Laudrup, Cooper, Bobbly, Monk, etc or not ?
Simple really.
If we cant use that now as the measurement then surely it wasnt valid for your earlier discussions either ? |
Can you point to that? I don't remember saying this was proof of anything of the sort.
A large part of the evidence on whether a manager is good or not can certainly be stemmed from their results, but when you start comparing between two different reigns then other things come into play.
But here we are discussing if someone is great or not, unless you have changed it?
In which case that table is perfectly demonstrable to show Laudrup is not. | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:15 - Feb 25 with 470 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:08 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Can you point to that? I don't remember saying this was proof of anything of the sort.
A large part of the evidence on whether a manager is good or not can certainly be stemmed from their results, but when you start comparing between two different reigns then other things come into play.
But here we are discussing if someone is great or not, unless you have changed it?
In which case that table is perfectly demonstrable to show Laudrup is not. |
Okay so to confirm Laudrup is not great because of his low league win rate :
"But here we are discussing if someone is great or not, unless you have changed it?
In which case that table is perfectly demonstrable to show Laudrup is not"
Laudrup
Have I definitely understood that right, I am a simple soul ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:17 - Feb 25 with 468 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:15 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Okay so to confirm Laudrup is not great because of his low league win rate :
"But here we are discussing if someone is great or not, unless you have changed it?
In which case that table is perfectly demonstrable to show Laudrup is not"
Laudrup
Have I definitely understood that right, I am a simple soul ? |
Laudrup is not great because he has achieved so little in his managerial career, demonstrated by being one of the lowest performing league managers in our recent history.
If you want to have a different discussion on who is better than who, then we may (depending on the pairing) need to look at other things too.
But to understand your point, your point is that he is ''great'' right?
Can you confirm? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:23 - Feb 25 with 465 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:17 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Laudrup is not great because he has achieved so little in his managerial career, demonstrated by being one of the lowest performing league managers in our recent history.
If you want to have a different discussion on who is better than who, then we may (depending on the pairing) need to look at other things too.
But to understand your point, your point is that he is ''great'' right?
Can you confirm? |
Ah so the table is meaningless then ?
Cooper can be a greater manager than Martinez say, in spite of the table telling us different ?
Or Potter better than Souza for example?
Just finding that table confusing now,
Is it to be taken as read or not ?
Very confusing
Please try yes and no answers
It's getting late | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:26 - Feb 25 with 461 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:23 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Ah so the table is meaningless then ?
Cooper can be a greater manager than Martinez say, in spite of the table telling us different ?
Or Potter better than Souza for example?
Just finding that table confusing now,
Is it to be taken as read or not ?
Very confusing
Please try yes and no answers
It's getting late |
Meaningless? Where are you getting that conclusion from?
Why do you think league performance is meaningless when discussing whether a manager is ''great''?
You need to clarify what your discussion is before we continue as you have stated it was Laudrup being ''great'', which that table adequately represents the counter of.
But now you keep changing it to who is better than who. So is your discussion that Laudrup is ''great''...
....or have you since changed it? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:39 - Feb 25 with 450 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:26 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Meaningless? Where are you getting that conclusion from?
Why do you think league performance is meaningless when discussing whether a manager is ''great''?
You need to clarify what your discussion is before we continue as you have stated it was Laudrup being ''great'', which that table adequately represents the counter of.
But now you keep changing it to who is better than who. So is your discussion that Laudrup is ''great''...
....or have you since changed it? |
Just trying establish the validity of the table in general
For instance such stats have used to illustrate Bobbly was better than Martin, Martinez is better than Laudrup, so are we to use this simple formula to judge managers or are other factors to be introduced to a more complicated matrix.
For example Laudrup won a league cup, Hollins won a championship,
Burrows won the Autoglass, Jackett won a promotion and an Johnstone's Paint Trophy, etc
So do we stick to the simple guide when comparing managers, yes or no ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:44 - Feb 25 with 445 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 03:39 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
Just trying establish the validity of the table in general
For instance such stats have used to illustrate Bobbly was better than Martin, Martinez is better than Laudrup, so are we to use this simple formula to judge managers or are other factors to be introduced to a more complicated matrix.
For example Laudrup won a league cup, Hollins won a championship,
Burrows won the Autoglass, Jackett won a promotion and an Johnstone's Paint Trophy, etc
So do we stick to the simple guide when comparing managers, yes or no ? |
For what though? You are changing the discussion.
A bit like being in court and asking the prosecution to prove a man killed someone.
I bring the knife with the finger prints, the CCTV of him doing it and then the defence says ''But you didn't prove he stole a DVD last year so that evidence isn't valid''.
You cannot change what is being proven here and you cannot keep moving the goalposts, I am providing specific information to counter your claim, you can't keep changing the claim and holding the evidence against something completely different to its design.
So again, that table is perfectly valid to show a manager is not ''great''. You cannot be a great manager and have one of the worst league records in recent history with one of the best squads we have ever had.
So you now need to decide whether you want to stick with that ''great'' discussion, or if you want to now change it. The OP is perfectly clear, but I am open for you to altering the discussion if you don't think this one has anywhere to go for you.
Over to you to decide. [Post edited 25 Feb 2022 3:54]
| |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 08:37 - Feb 25 with 413 views | Boundy |
I see another thread ruined. Having one of the greatest world footballers was our manager brought a sense of pride to the Club and its environs . Even though his tenure as manager was short , our achievements under him will live long into the memory. I remember it was a bloody cold day, drinking outside Lidls finest before the walk up , (virtually to the same seats we had for the play off final ) a perfect end to the season . |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 09:11 - Feb 25 with 404 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 08:37 - Feb 25 by Boundy |
I see another thread ruined. Having one of the greatest world footballers was our manager brought a sense of pride to the Club and its environs . Even though his tenure as manager was short , our achievements under him will live long into the memory. I remember it was a bloody cold day, drinking outside Lidls finest before the walk up , (virtually to the same seats we had for the play off final ) a perfect end to the season . |
Indeed, not allowed to disagree apparently.
His tenure was short because we were sadly declining at an alarming rate and tactically looked horrendous. A lot of people look back with rose tinted specs at Laudrups tenure.
I remember Ashley Williams speaking out after the West Ham game saying how embarrassed he was how they tactically approached Andy Carroll.
Tactically he was atrocious.
But the first 6 months were wonderful. | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:23 - Feb 26 with 341 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 09:11 - Feb 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Indeed, not allowed to disagree apparently.
His tenure was short because we were sadly declining at an alarming rate and tactically looked horrendous. A lot of people look back with rose tinted specs at Laudrups tenure.
I remember Ashley Williams speaking out after the West Ham game saying how embarrassed he was how they tactically approached Andy Carroll.
Tactically he was atrocious.
But the first 6 months were wonderful. |
First 6 months were wonderful ?
Laughable.
First season under Laudrup we finished in 9th place in the EPL ( an achievement only bettered once and that was with Laudrup's squad) and won a major trophy.
The following season we did well including competing in Europe until the wheels came off after Christmas.
Hardly 6 months.
Think your research needs updating ? | |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:32 - Feb 26 with 336 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:23 - Feb 26 by STID2017 |
First 6 months were wonderful ?
Laughable.
First season under Laudrup we finished in 9th place in the EPL ( an achievement only bettered once and that was with Laudrup's squad) and won a major trophy.
The following season we did well including competing in Europe until the wheels came off after Christmas.
Hardly 6 months.
Think your research needs updating ? |
Yes first 6 months, until around Feb.
For the rest of that season we went at less than a point a game and got 8 points from a possible 33.
That run, from that point forward ended up being 33 points from 35 games resulting in his sacking.
Didn’t you know that?
[Post edited 26 Feb 2022 12:38]
| |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:46 - Feb 26 with 333 views | STID2017 |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:32 - Feb 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes first 6 months, until around Feb.
For the rest of that season we went at less than a point a game and got 8 points from a possible 33.
That run, from that point forward ended up being 33 points from 35 games resulting in his sacking.
Didn’t you know that?
[Post edited 26 Feb 2022 12:38]
|
You do know Laudrup spent two seasons at the club?
First season we finished 9 with 46 points and a major trophy ?
Think you have blocked that one out in your effort to show how poor he was ? [Post edited 26 Feb 2022 12:47]
| |
| |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:47 - Feb 26 with 327 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| On This Day in 2013 on 12:46 - Feb 26 by STID2017 |
You do know Laudrup spent two seasons at the club?
First season we finished 9 with 46 points and a major trophy ?
Think you have blocked that one out in your effort to show how poor he was ? [Post edited 26 Feb 2022 12:47]
|
He spent a season and a half at the club.
First 6 months was excellent, the remaining matches of his tenure yielded less than a point a game.
Do you disagree? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.