So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
-------
There's no expectation man. We can't judge Lampard until 2030 when he's had a good decade for his new signings to 'gel' (whatever the furrrk that means).
"You said it's completely incorrect that there are no reasons as to why Chelsea shouldn't be higher up the table by this point"
No, that's not what I meant.
I took your comment about being at the top of the table and assumed you meant at the end of the season, and am saying that there are reasons why Chelsea wouldn't be higher than third come the end of season.
If you're talking about this moment in time then that is absolutely ludicrous. They were top five weeks ago!
You could have said the same thing about United not so long ago, and now they're second, level on points with 1st.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 11 minutes ago
most people were in agreement before the season starts that the top 4 teams in the league were Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
__________
Really?! I'm not getting defensive as a United fan and if we finish fifth behind those four, so be it, but most people agreeing that was the likely top four isn't how I remember it.
For instance, not one of these pundits had Spurs finishing top four and only about two didn't have United in it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54081636
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry then, my mistake, maybe not Spurs that was probably more what I heard from people locally around me or something like that.
Point is regarding Chelsea, they are in there on most people's predictions and the overall ranking they were predicted to finish 3rd, that's more of my point rather than Spurs anyway.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You said it's completely incorrect that there are no reasons as to why Chelsea shouldn't be higher up the table by this point"
No, that's not what I meant.
I took your comment about being at the top of the table and assumed you meant at the end of the season, and am saying that there are reasons why Chelsea wouldn't be higher than third come the end of season.
If you're talking about this moment in time then that is absolutely ludicrous. They were top five weeks ago!
You could have said the same thing about United not so long ago, and now they're second, level on points with 1st.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, not top of the table but at the top end of the table, like I say in the top 4.
Well it's not ludicrous though is it, people should be expecting them to do better. You can't use the argument of where they were a few weeks ago as a basis for him to keep his job now because that isn't good enough, they are falling off the pace of the sides in the top 4, so of course it matters.
I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time? No, not in my opinion. Even the most optimistic of United fans wouldn't have expected them to be where they are now tbf. I know you may say that's reason enough for Lampard to keep his job at Chelsea, but it works differently for each club.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 11 minutes ago
most people were in agreement before the season starts that the top 4 teams in the league were Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
__________
Really?! I'm not getting defensive as a United fan and if we finish fifth behind those four, so be it, but most people agreeing that was the likely top four isn't how I remember it.
For instance, not one of these pundits had Spurs finishing top four and only about two didn't have United in it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54081636
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry then, my mistake, maybe not Spurs that was probably more what I heard from people locally around me or something like that.
Point is regarding Chelsea, they are in there on most people's predictions and the overall ranking they were predicted to finish 3rd, that's more of my point rather than Spurs anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I suppose I'm just trying to say that I think top four was always going to be hard to call this season so Chelsea not being in it at the start of January, even with the money spent on the side, isn't necessarily a disaster. I mention Spurs because their good start is a reminder as to why top four is difficult and has probably tricked a few people into thinking they were fancied by most for top four before the season started.
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
Of course it's ludicrous.
What happens if in 5 weeks time, Chelsea are 3rd and United are 6th?
Things change over the course of a season and poor form happens. To just make a snap judgement now is crazy.
What you're really saying is that Chelsea should be in the top four all season!
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
So you think the best course of action for a club to take is to stick with the manager who is underperforming with the players and resources he has available because it might improve further down the line? If that was the case no manager would ever lose their jobs.
I'm somewhat sure the expectation amongst the board members at Chelsea would be that they should be in the top 4 all season. I'm not saying they would be as cut throat as "once you drop outside you're sacked", but they have spent a considerable amount of time outside the top 4 and it's not exactly improving if current results are anything to go by.
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they unhelpful all of the time though? No, that's a ludicrous statement to say that not changing your manager and then hoping things will improve.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they unhelpful all of the time though? No, that's a ludicrous statement to say that not changing your manager and then hoping things will improve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time.
That doesn't mean that every manager will make a success of it - I never claimed it would.
But in both Ole and Lampard's situation, the idea of sacking them because of a dip in form is just plain stupid.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and quite possibly most others. Chelsea are 8th in the league table, is that not underperforming to you?
If you actually refer back to my original comment, I didn't actually say they need to sack Lampard. I said I'd give him a few more games with more favourable fixtures coming up to see if results and subsequently league positions improve.
However, he's under pressure because they're underperforming and I'm sure that's of concern to Chelsea.
"Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time."
So for all the times a Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce has saved a club from potential relegation, that was unhelpful because they sacked their previous manager?
As I said, I didn't actually say they should sack him, but they are underperforming and are slipping away from where they expect to be, so he's walking a tight rope imo.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and quite possibly most others. Chelsea are 8th in the league table, is that not underperforming to you?
If you actually refer back to my original comment, I didn't actually say they need to sack Lampard. I said I'd give him a few more games with more favourable fixtures coming up to see if results and subsequently league positions improve.
However, he's under pressure because they're underperforming and I'm sure that's of concern to Chelsea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm not aiming my comments at you.
I think the big issue is people forget what their measurement of success is... I see it a lot in my company.
His performance indicators are finishing league positions and progress in the cups.
Their current league position is not something that should be used - it doesn't matter where they are on 4th January, it matters where they are come the end of the season.
Given that they've gone from top to 8th in little more than a month, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they could go back up the other way by March, isn't it?
If they'd been mid table all season it would be a bit different, though I'd still be saying that his new squad needs time, not snap judgements.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time."
So for all the times a Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce has saved a club from potential relegation, that was unhelpful because they sacked their previous manager?
As I said, I didn't actually say they should sack him, but they are underperforming and are slipping away from where they expect to be, so he's walking a tight rope imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, that's a flawed comparison because in those cases it's not really a dip in form, is it?
Take Sheff Utd for example.
There's no ups and downs... just one long down.
Possibly, but that's previously, you have to make your judgements on the here and now. They are out of form and sliding down the table, if their performances and results don't improve in the next 3/4 games, what reason is there for the situation improving? Because they were good 2/3 months ago? As I say, if that was the case then most managers wouldn't lose their jobs.
Depends who they have taken over from and what their recent form has been. But if you don't really want that comparison, then maybe look at the likes of Moyes at West Ham as an example instead.
"you have to make your judgements on the here and now."
Well no, you don't.
You can understand that form is temporary and you can look at the bigger picture - as United did with Ole.
With a squad that has had that many changes and the league being so tight, it's likely that positions will fluctuate a great deal this season.
Of course you can judge each case on its merits but Chelsea were top on the 2nd December ffs!
Unfortunately, it's a cut throat business.
There's no indicator to suggest that United may have done better/worse if they sacked Ole, as it didn't happen. So you can't say with any true accuracy that United "did well" because they kept Ole at the club for as long as they have just because they are 2nd in the table now.
As I have acknowledged, I understand it's a tight league and, as I also said, a couple of good results and Chelsea could be right back in there, hence why I have said give Lampard another 3/4 games with more favourable fixtures. However, it's a concern that they struggle against the top sides in general and that performances and results are not up to scratch.
"So you can't say with any true accuracy that United "did well" because they kept Ole at the club for as long as they have just because they are 2nd in the table now."
That is some special logic right there.
So, we can sack the manager because of poor form but saying it was the right call to keep the manager because of good form is not acceptable. Amazing.
Taken that point with a completely blinkered view.
What if United sacked Ole 12 months ago and then won the league last season, for arguments sake? Or, more realistically, won a trophy and still finished 3rd? Which they may have done with a better manager, because let's face it, Ole isn't a top manager.
That's my point.
Blinkered?
No, just amused me. At this stage you simply have to say that the logic of giving a manager time to work through a period of bad form is the right one where United are concerned - to try and say that you can't draw that conclusion is just absurd.
But that is besides the point, because the reason I used Ole as an example is simply to show the absurdity of making a conclusive judgement mid-season when the league positions are changing so quickly.
None of this takes into account the dressing room.
If the players stop believing in his methods Roman will get rid.
You've misunderstood, I'm saying it's inconclusive because you can't say whether it was/wasn't the right one because somebody may have won the league by now with the time Ole has had in charge. Like I say, it's impossible to say.
But of course, United will be happy with how Ole is doing and how the club are performing, that much is obvious. What I'm saying is, there is no guarantee that somebody couldn't have done better, but you don't take that risk when you're currently 2nd in the table and playing well obviously.
But what about the other clubs, like Chelsea themselves, that have sacked a manager for underperforming and then subsequently succeeding the season after? Like when they used to flip flop between Champions, outside the top 4, Champions, underwhelming ever since Mourinho's second stint in charge really.
It's not inconclusive.
It is inconclusive to say whether that's the best United could have done, but I'm not saying that. I am simply using it as an example to show that sacking him because of the league position two months ago is now proven to have been the wrong thing.
If you think that another manager could be getting Chelsea to perform better than that's your prerogative. My only argument is that to sack him because of their league position at this stage is absurd, and I've explained why.
Having reached this point, I'd wager that avoiding getting tied up in pages-long circular debates on ja606 is not one of Winston's New Year's resolutions.
Sign in if you want to comment
Louis Van Gaal
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 4/1/21
So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
-------
There's no expectation man. We can't judge Lampard until 2030 when he's had a good decade for his new signings to 'gel' (whatever the furrrk that means).
posted on 4/1/21
"You said it's completely incorrect that there are no reasons as to why Chelsea shouldn't be higher up the table by this point"
No, that's not what I meant.
I took your comment about being at the top of the table and assumed you meant at the end of the season, and am saying that there are reasons why Chelsea wouldn't be higher than third come the end of season.
If you're talking about this moment in time then that is absolutely ludicrous. They were top five weeks ago!
You could have said the same thing about United not so long ago, and now they're second, level on points with 1st.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 11 minutes ago
most people were in agreement before the season starts that the top 4 teams in the league were Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
__________
Really?! I'm not getting defensive as a United fan and if we finish fifth behind those four, so be it, but most people agreeing that was the likely top four isn't how I remember it.
For instance, not one of these pundits had Spurs finishing top four and only about two didn't have United in it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54081636
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry then, my mistake, maybe not Spurs that was probably more what I heard from people locally around me or something like that.
Point is regarding Chelsea, they are in there on most people's predictions and the overall ranking they were predicted to finish 3rd, that's more of my point rather than Spurs anyway.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You said it's completely incorrect that there are no reasons as to why Chelsea shouldn't be higher up the table by this point"
No, that's not what I meant.
I took your comment about being at the top of the table and assumed you meant at the end of the season, and am saying that there are reasons why Chelsea wouldn't be higher than third come the end of season.
If you're talking about this moment in time then that is absolutely ludicrous. They were top five weeks ago!
You could have said the same thing about United not so long ago, and now they're second, level on points with 1st.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, not top of the table but at the top end of the table, like I say in the top 4.
Well it's not ludicrous though is it, people should be expecting them to do better. You can't use the argument of where they were a few weeks ago as a basis for him to keep his job now because that isn't good enough, they are falling off the pace of the sides in the top 4, so of course it matters.
I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time? No, not in my opinion. Even the most optimistic of United fans wouldn't have expected them to be where they are now tbf. I know you may say that's reason enough for Lampard to keep his job at Chelsea, but it works differently for each club.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 11 minutes ago
most people were in agreement before the season starts that the top 4 teams in the league were Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Spurs. So once you set your stall out, the expectation is there I suppose.
__________
Really?! I'm not getting defensive as a United fan and if we finish fifth behind those four, so be it, but most people agreeing that was the likely top four isn't how I remember it.
For instance, not one of these pundits had Spurs finishing top four and only about two didn't have United in it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54081636
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry then, my mistake, maybe not Spurs that was probably more what I heard from people locally around me or something like that.
Point is regarding Chelsea, they are in there on most people's predictions and the overall ranking they were predicted to finish 3rd, that's more of my point rather than Spurs anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I suppose I'm just trying to say that I think top four was always going to be hard to call this season so Chelsea not being in it at the start of January, even with the money spent on the side, isn't necessarily a disaster. I mention Spurs because their good start is a reminder as to why top four is difficult and has probably tricked a few people into thinking they were fancied by most for top four before the season started.
posted on 4/1/21
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
Of course it's ludicrous.
What happens if in 5 weeks time, Chelsea are 3rd and United are 6th?
Things change over the course of a season and poor form happens. To just make a snap judgement now is crazy.
What you're really saying is that Chelsea should be in the top four all season!
posted on 4/1/21
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
posted on 4/1/21
So you think the best course of action for a club to take is to stick with the manager who is underperforming with the players and resources he has available because it might improve further down the line? If that was the case no manager would ever lose their jobs.
I'm somewhat sure the expectation amongst the board members at Chelsea would be that they should be in the top 4 all season. I'm not saying they would be as cut throat as "once you drop outside you're sacked", but they have spent a considerable amount of time outside the top 4 and it's not exactly improving if current results are anything to go by.
posted on 4/1/21
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they unhelpful all of the time though? No, that's a ludicrous statement to say that not changing your manager and then hoping things will improve.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I take your point about United and quite a few people were saying the same about getting rid of Ole a few weeks ago, particularly after the CL exit, was that really a ludicrous statement at the time?"
Yes, it was ludicrous.
I said so at the time and results have proven that to be the correct view. Knee jerk reactions based on form are unhelpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they unhelpful all of the time though? No, that's a ludicrous statement to say that not changing your manager and then hoping things will improve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time.
That doesn't mean that every manager will make a success of it - I never claimed it would.
But in both Ole and Lampard's situation, the idea of sacking them because of a dip in form is just plain stupid.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and quite possibly most others. Chelsea are 8th in the league table, is that not underperforming to you?
If you actually refer back to my original comment, I didn't actually say they need to sack Lampard. I said I'd give him a few more games with more favourable fixtures coming up to see if results and subsequently league positions improve.
However, he's under pressure because they're underperforming and I'm sure that's of concern to Chelsea.
posted on 4/1/21
"Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time."
So for all the times a Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce has saved a club from potential relegation, that was unhelpful because they sacked their previous manager?
As I said, I didn't actually say they should sack him, but they are underperforming and are slipping away from where they expect to be, so he's walking a tight rope imo.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
Who says he's underperforming?
I'm saying that their league position now doesn't mean he won't perform as expected across the season, and that making judgements because of a dip in form is a ludicrous thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and quite possibly most others. Chelsea are 8th in the league table, is that not underperforming to you?
If you actually refer back to my original comment, I didn't actually say they need to sack Lampard. I said I'd give him a few more games with more favourable fixtures coming up to see if results and subsequently league positions improve.
However, he's under pressure because they're underperforming and I'm sure that's of concern to Chelsea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm not aiming my comments at you.
I think the big issue is people forget what their measurement of success is... I see it a lot in my company.
His performance indicators are finishing league positions and progress in the cups.
Their current league position is not something that should be used - it doesn't matter where they are on 4th January, it matters where they are come the end of the season.
Given that they've gone from top to 8th in little more than a month, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they could go back up the other way by March, isn't it?
If they'd been mid table all season it would be a bit different, though I'd still be saying that his new squad needs time, not snap judgements.
posted on 4/1/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes, they are unhelpful all of the time."
So for all the times a Tony Pulis or Sam Allardyce has saved a club from potential relegation, that was unhelpful because they sacked their previous manager?
As I said, I didn't actually say they should sack him, but they are underperforming and are slipping away from where they expect to be, so he's walking a tight rope imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, that's a flawed comparison because in those cases it's not really a dip in form, is it?
Take Sheff Utd for example.
There's no ups and downs... just one long down.
posted on 4/1/21
Possibly, but that's previously, you have to make your judgements on the here and now. They are out of form and sliding down the table, if their performances and results don't improve in the next 3/4 games, what reason is there for the situation improving? Because they were good 2/3 months ago? As I say, if that was the case then most managers wouldn't lose their jobs.
Depends who they have taken over from and what their recent form has been. But if you don't really want that comparison, then maybe look at the likes of Moyes at West Ham as an example instead.
posted on 4/1/21
"you have to make your judgements on the here and now."
Well no, you don't.
You can understand that form is temporary and you can look at the bigger picture - as United did with Ole.
With a squad that has had that many changes and the league being so tight, it's likely that positions will fluctuate a great deal this season.
Of course you can judge each case on its merits but Chelsea were top on the 2nd December ffs!
posted on 4/1/21
Unfortunately, it's a cut throat business.
There's no indicator to suggest that United may have done better/worse if they sacked Ole, as it didn't happen. So you can't say with any true accuracy that United "did well" because they kept Ole at the club for as long as they have just because they are 2nd in the table now.
As I have acknowledged, I understand it's a tight league and, as I also said, a couple of good results and Chelsea could be right back in there, hence why I have said give Lampard another 3/4 games with more favourable fixtures. However, it's a concern that they struggle against the top sides in general and that performances and results are not up to scratch.
posted on 4/1/21
"So you can't say with any true accuracy that United "did well" because they kept Ole at the club for as long as they have just because they are 2nd in the table now."
That is some special logic right there.
So, we can sack the manager because of poor form but saying it was the right call to keep the manager because of good form is not acceptable. Amazing.
posted on 4/1/21
Taken that point with a completely blinkered view.
What if United sacked Ole 12 months ago and then won the league last season, for arguments sake? Or, more realistically, won a trophy and still finished 3rd? Which they may have done with a better manager, because let's face it, Ole isn't a top manager.
That's my point.
posted on 4/1/21
Blinkered?
No, just amused me. At this stage you simply have to say that the logic of giving a manager time to work through a period of bad form is the right one where United are concerned - to try and say that you can't draw that conclusion is just absurd.
But that is besides the point, because the reason I used Ole as an example is simply to show the absurdity of making a conclusive judgement mid-season when the league positions are changing so quickly.
posted on 4/1/21
None of this takes into account the dressing room.
If the players stop believing in his methods Roman will get rid.
posted on 4/1/21
You've misunderstood, I'm saying it's inconclusive because you can't say whether it was/wasn't the right one because somebody may have won the league by now with the time Ole has had in charge. Like I say, it's impossible to say.
But of course, United will be happy with how Ole is doing and how the club are performing, that much is obvious. What I'm saying is, there is no guarantee that somebody couldn't have done better, but you don't take that risk when you're currently 2nd in the table and playing well obviously.
But what about the other clubs, like Chelsea themselves, that have sacked a manager for underperforming and then subsequently succeeding the season after? Like when they used to flip flop between Champions, outside the top 4, Champions, underwhelming ever since Mourinho's second stint in charge really.
posted on 4/1/21
It's not inconclusive.
It is inconclusive to say whether that's the best United could have done, but I'm not saying that. I am simply using it as an example to show that sacking him because of the league position two months ago is now proven to have been the wrong thing.
If you think that another manager could be getting Chelsea to perform better than that's your prerogative. My only argument is that to sack him because of their league position at this stage is absurd, and I've explained why.
posted on 4/1/21
Having reached this point, I'd wager that avoiding getting tied up in pages-long circular debates on ja606 is not one of Winston's New Year's resolutions.
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9