Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
It's just occurred to me that smiley bears an uncanny resemblance to:
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
In a way I want him back in the Premiership so we can laugh at his haplessness.
That's the perfect word for him.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
There were plenty of other managers who failed in the England job and who went out to make great careers. Does that not count as a scientific evidence that your assumption is flawed ?
This is the easy analysis but hardly complex enough to offer any conclusive evidence.
Stop being argumentative. McClaren was abysmal as England manager - totally out of his depth. I defy anyone to argue the opposite coherently.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
I don't think anyone could argue that McLaren was anything other than badly found out as England manager. However as a mid table manager he proved himself reasonably adept and as an assistant to Fergie he seemed to be very good. I would say that he strengths seem to be in the everyday preparation of players and defensive organisation which would make him a sound choice as Blackburn manager.
In retrospect a huge error in the England job was to get Venables in as his assistant. Both men are prone to some very odd tactical decisions at times and combined they just resulted in a muddle (which contracts with Venables time as manager where despite occasional odd choices in the end he adopted a settled side and formation that suited the players).
I have to say I wasn't as anti-second choice Steve as many where when he was appointed as I thought his coaching skill would mean he would do okay and his willingness to try new tactics might help the team to progress in the long run even if he was not a success of himself. Again in hindisight the obvious evidence of the Middlesborough UEFA cup run should have shown that he often tinkered almost at random and only throwing on 4 forwards in the final minutes of later matches saved him and that was never going to work at international level.
Still the only manager who I think would do significantly better than him that would be likely to go to Blackburn is Alladyce and once again the supporters would be against him and that tends to end badly.
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
-- William Blake
This is the easy analysis but hardly complex enough to offer any conclusive evidence.
Well the best evidence is hi previous performance as a manager, which was England. He obviously was below the required standard as the results have shown. Now stop being a tit.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Comment