Nice to see not everybody buys into the Martinez guff.

I think he will take Everton backwards and then a certain section of their fans might think twice about criticising the job Moyes did there.

Why does anyone assume Martinez will take Everton backwards?

Having one of their best seasons in years.

Is he all that, we shall see, where will Everton draw that line?
Moyes went from 7th to 17th to 4th to 11th in his first 4 years I think, will Everton pull the trigger if Martinez takes them to 12th? Doubtful.

They've got some tough fixtures coming up, best they'll finish is 7th I reckon. Also factoring the squad size.

The only thing that's been improved is the style of football. Apart from that it will be a very Moyes-like season in terms of results and league standing.

The second season will be very interesting.

I think if the premier league was calculated on some alignment of points won against transfer fees and salaries paid then Everton would go close to being top thus season and the last few seasons

“but he failed to improve the side, no argument with that either.”

Just for clarity, that comment was regarding Mick not Martinez.

As for Martinez, i would not be surprised to see him move to a bigger club than Everton in the not too distant future.

Keep trying to knock McCarthy Cinci. A week on 606 would not be the same if you didn't. Maybe if he had took us to the top of league one rather than to the premier league he would have been your hero.

Not knocking him DJ, but nowt wrong with the truth, even if it is inconvenient.

And maybe if he had just maintained a fresh squad then his transfer efforts wouldn't even come into question.

Do you want the club to be run with a high labour turnover and ever revolving squad then, Cinci? Incidentally, I noticed that Southampton only had Dejan Lovren, Jay Rodriguez and Dejan Lovren who were signed post promotion in their starting line up at the weekend. Swansea started 7 players from their Championship days. These are both club models you have stated you would like us to follow. As they have both spent more than we did in the Premier League, do you deem both clubs failures in the transfer market?

Norwich have had a high turnover of players since their promotion and they are no better.

I also took the liberty of looking up the transfer spends of premier league clubs for our relegation season.
http://footballspeak.com/post/2012/02/03/Premier-League-Transfer-Spend-201112.aspx

As you can see, the transfer spend of all the bottom clubs were at a similar level to ourselves, with the exception of QPR. As we also had one of the lowest wage bills in the league at the time it is hardly surprising we were in a relegation fight. I'm not sure how you expected the squad to be 'refreshed' with £12 million to be honest.

It's the clubs transfer policy that should be lambasted if anything if you think the club failed in the transfer market.

We also had one of the highest in our first season in the prem, 15 million
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/english-premier-league-transfer-spending-club-200910

Saints have signed several players who have had an impact, Wanyama off the top of my head added to the young players brought through and Swansea have also added players to make an impact.

Paint it any way you want, if you sign over 20 players and only 3 have made a genuine impact you have not done that part of your job well.

3 seasons and just about no progress within the squad, that is the primary reason we got relegated, we did not upgrade our championship players, you may have noticed that just about none of them have been snapped up by prem clubs since.

I am so tired of this shíte, it is not even worth discussing Mick because if you dare criticise anything he did you are deemed a fool and classed as wrong, it is completely ridiculous.
The guy made numerous errors and fell on his sword, deal with it and move on.

We still had one of the lowest wage bills though. If you are paying the lowest wages there is a limit to the standard of player you can attract. It is therefore always a gamble as to whether a signing will be good enough as it will be tough to sign proven players. That is something you fail to acknowledge as it does not fit in with your argument.

I have no problems with people criticising Mick as long as whatever they say is balanced. Unfortunately, you jump on any chance you get to criticise and fail to look at things relatively. You have almost become as bad as Perton with your disdain for the man. It speaks volumes that the majority of people on the forum have noticed this.

Cinci's attitude towards McCarthy is identical to pertons but he is just more sly in the way he puts it across. Says he likes McCarthy but constantly criticises him. Says solbakken was a failure and defends him to the hilt.

Going back to Lallana, wasn't he of the same ability as Andrew Surman who MM & TC managed to coach all abilities out of, same would have happened I reckon

Surman never really proved himself outside of the Championship. He was only at Wolves for a year so I can't imagine we stalled his career that much.

He did ok at Norwich without pulling up any trees and now finds himself on loan at Bournemouth. He is probably just one of those players who can't quite make the step up.

Lallana looks a completely different prospect, however I can't imagine he would have fitted in with the style of play at Wolves under McCarthy.

First off I acknowledge the good and bad of mick McCarthy, I don't wrap it in bulls&%t, something the band of brothers cannot manage.

I criticise solbakken plenty as well, my only view was we shouldn't have sacked him when we did as things got worse.
5 points less than McCarthy had at the same stage this season don't you know. 5 points is the difference between abject failure and sheer brilliance apparently.

No one has ever said McCarthy was brilliant Cinci. Just that he is our most successful manager in a generation, which is a fact.

What McCarthy has done this season is completely irrelevant to Wolves and I fail to see why you have brought that up.

comment by Cinciwolf (U11551)

(Solbakken) - 5 points less than McCarthy had at the same stage this season don't you know. 5 points is the difference between abject failure and sheer brilliance apparently.
____________________________

Makes you wonder how huge the gap would be if Mick was managing Stale's side, and Stale was manager of Ipswich!

First off I acknowledge the good and bad of mick McCarthy, I don't wrap it in bulls&%t, something the band of brothers cannot manage.

Seems a bit unfair Cinci - what constitutes bulls&%t in your book? Heavily manipulating statistics or outright lying about them? Using as evidence the voices of a thousand made up fans on "other forums"?

Don't you think it's funny how you're ALWAYS realistic? You're always the one who just calls it how it is? Despite wild inconsistency in your treatment of players and managers, you still manage to be the realistic one while everybody else is totally unreasonable?

Find it even funnier that Mick was unlucky to get sacked although he picked up 0.65 points a game over 23 games, totally capitulated in the two biggest games he managed at wolves and made a hash of our transfer dealings in the prem........but yet I have never heard any of you knock any of that, always ready with some excuse as to why instead.

I was wondering how long i would take you to bring out that statistic Cinci. It seems to be your 'go to point' in every discussion.

Why should everyone want to knock Mick? Are people not allowed to be appreciative of what he acheived in his time at Wolves? Do we gain anything by constantly knocking everything he did?

Has it ever occurred to you that someone else doesn't have to be absolutely wrong for you to be right?

There's absolutely never any acknowledgement from you that external factors even exist let alone are important.

Can't you see it's just two sides of the same coin? A lot of Mick's signings didn't work out. BECAUSE we were fighting being one of the lowest wage payers.

Mick's team lost two big games. But somebody needing wins won their two games. And Mick could only pick players and tell them how to play...that doesn't mean he told them to capitulate.

Explain this to me if you can...according to you, Mick F'd up our last season in the Premiership and capitulated in our two biggest games. Yet Stale was unlucky because the players couldn't or wouldn't follow his instructions?

Why does one get a free ride and the other takes full responsibility? Mick signed more of the players in his team than did Stale but still within a limited budget and on relegation wages. Why is that not a factor?

Yeah, Cinci's beloved nonsense statistic makes another appearance but everybody else's arguments are bulls&%t

You know what I find saddest and most frustrating about all this?

In two or three or four year's time, if he carries on as solidly as he's started, there's a reasonable chance Jackett will get us into the Premiership.

And when he does we're going to spend the same money as last time, and that same money is going to buy the same relative quality of player, and eventually we're going to struggle and we'll lose games we would hope to win and we'll lose more than we win and we'll continue to flirt with relegation.

And people like you are going to claim that Jackett has failed with all his transfers, failed to successully refresh the squad, has reached his limit blah blah blah.

And we'll sack him and go down, if not that year then the next year, or even the year after.

And instead of recognising the work those managers do to get us up and keep us there, you're going to spout your endless rubbish about how they are managerial failures because you're too stupid to notice or too stubborn to acknowledge the pattern between spending relegation wages and fighting relegation.

And the sad and frustrating part is that I'll have to do the whole damn thing again, spending hours defending managers who can only ever have a limited bearing on a team because your long term position is overwhelmingly decided by what you're able and willing to spend.

And so it goes on. Cinci saying he gives mick credit and then spurts out every single criticism he can possibly think of. And knocks Solbakken but considers him close to being a hero. We all laugh at his opinions but nobody can compete with Cinci for hypocrisy

First off, that statistic, the one you try and trivialise is the reason mick got sacked, it is massively relevant to any discussion regarding his dismissal, however inconvenient you find it.

Secondly Ulf , has it never occurred to you that the disagreements stem from the fact that a handful of you will never acknowledge a single failing on micks part, bute even suggesting mick had no involvement in our relegation, which is ridiculous given that in micks 25 games he had us in the RELEGATION ZONE.

And DJ, I know you love to bend the truth at will and belittle other posters who dare to disagree with you, but isn't it strange you will pick up on the negative comments but never mention all the positive ones which i make often regarding mick, weird that also you ignore the fact that I was fully behind mick until the Wigan game in that 3rd season.