Pack your bags Roy

[marcus50bucks]

FUCKOF F RO Y

:laugh:

[ronanm]

Grobbelaar was not **** in the air

He was sh1t on crosses

[Lecter]

He was sh1t on crosses

Very much disagree on this as do many players who played in front of him (read their relevant biographies)

Brucie came for stuff that most other keepers had no right to come for

It was a high risk strategy but it took a huge amount of pressure away from the back four

Sometimes he dropped them but it wasnt as frequent as is made out

My family use to have contact with Brian Clough and I will always remember him correcting my dad (when he called Brucie a clown) he said Bruce was no mug and although it was a high risk strategy coming so far for the ball he more often than not got it and quickly released a counter-attack and secondly in the event he did miss it there was normally tons of bodies in the box

Brucies biggest failing was his over exuberance in terms of sweeping behind the back four and he comes in way behind Pepe in this regard

[Lecter]

Nicked off RAWK

The Footy section of this week's Sunday Times featured this little graphic:



Ah, so things are not as bad as they seem you think. Roy's record is not that spectacularly bad as compared to Rafa's. Liverpool it seems are just notoriously slow starters. Look at 2006. Take inspiration. Third place is still within our grasp.

Except there is one small problem those figures are utter nonsense. A check of the actual results in those seasons gives this:

04-05 13 pts
05-06 10 pts
06-07 11 pts
07-08 16 pts
08-09 20 pts
09-10 15 pts
10-11 6 pts

The only total The Sunday Times managed to get right was this years, although in fairness Roy did make the adding up very easy for them

So what do we think? Is The Sunday Times researched, written and edited by morons who cannot do fiver year old level sums? Do the staff at the Sunday Times hold footy fans in such low esteem that they thought "ah **** it bung any old numbers down, nobody will ever know the difference"? Or is someone at The Sunday Times trying to deliberately twist things so that the doyen of English football management doesn't seem to have ****ed things up quite as much as he has?

You decide.

[Lecter]

word of relief from Sunday Times, apparently (click the twitpic link):

RushianLFC Rushian
by paul_tomkins
Lies, damn lies and statistics - the Sunday Times yesterday on Liverpool's start to the season: http://www.twitpic.com/30tkia

Then, as they should have been:

Rushian
RushianLFC Rushian
by paul_tomkins
The correct stats:
04-05 13 pts,
05-06 10 pts,
06-07 11 pts,
07-08 16 pts,
08-09 20 pts,
09-10 15 pts ,
10-11 6pts

Lies, Damn lies and Statistics? Unfortunately, just the level of editing one would expect from our sports experts, IMHO...

[Paul12]

I see little wrong with what roy has said there - i saw the interview on LFCtv and he came across quite well to be fair

[Shaggy]

Nicked off RAWK

The Footy section of this week's Sunday Times featured this little graphic:



Ah, so things are not as bad as they seem you think. Roy's record is not that spectacularly bad as compared to Rafa's. Liverpool it seems are just notoriously slow starters. Look at 2006. Take inspiration. Third place is still within our grasp.

Except there is one small problem those figures are utter nonsense. A check of the actual results in those seasons gives this:

04-05 13 pts
05-06 10 pts
06-07 11 pts
07-08 16 pts
08-09 20 pts
09-10 15 pts
10-11 6 pts

The only total The Sunday Times managed to get right was this years, although in fairness Roy did make the adding up very easy for them

So what do we think? Is The Sunday Times researched, written and edited by morons who cannot do fiver year old level sums? Do the staff at the Sunday Times hold footy fans in such low esteem that they thought "ah **** it bung any old numbers down, nobody will ever know the difference"? Or is someone at The Sunday Times trying to deliberately twist things so that the doyen of English football management doesn't seem to have ****ed things up quite as much as he has?

You decide.

Every day I think I can't hate the media any more and every day I'm surprised.

[Buzzo]

Every day I think I can't hate the media any more and every day I'm surprised.

The thing is even with the wrong points totals in the original article 6 points after 8 games looks ****. Why do the media love him so much?

[Big-Red-Ed]

[QUOTE=Lecter;1763455]Very much disagree on this as do many players who played in front of him (read their relevant biographies)

Brucie came for stuff that most other keepers had no right to come for

It was a high risk strategy but it took a huge amount of pressure away from the back four

Sometimes he dropped them but it wasnt as frequent as is made out

I totally agree. Untill Pepe came along I would put Bruce even in front of Clem. He was definitely way ahead of his time with regards as playing a sweeping type of keeper and he came for absolutely everything. The fact that he did drop a few was understandable.

All keepers are nutters by nature but Bruce was insane. I remember him walking about on his hands and hanging off the crossbar and stuff to entertain the crowd.

[Fivex]

Every day I think I can't hate the media any more and every day I'm surprised.

Think they'll print a correction at all?

They can only have made them up they're that far wrong. Thought only the red tops tried to pull that ****.

[Shaggy]

Think they'll print a correction at all?

They should do, and hopefully the loons on RAWK will bombard them about it, but even if they do it'll be a tiny paragraph tucked away in a corner.

[Fivex]

True.

At least it's there in black & white, when people say there isn't an agenda we can just show them this. Do you know who wrote the article?

[Vermilion]

******s!

[Kenneth]

True.

At least it's there in black & white, when people say there isn't an agenda we can just show them this. Do you know who wrote the article?

Well I assume it was a mistake by some junior researcher or something. To think it was a deliberate lie to support an agenda would be a bit, well, barmy.

[Craig_H]

Well I assume it was a mistake by some junior researcher or something. To think it was a deliberate lie to support an agenda would be a bit, well, barmy.

A mistake would be if they'd got the figures wrong for one season - not all of them.