-
.
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.
May the Lord bless this post. -
Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
I'm glad you're glad I'm glad.
I was trying to imply that signing none of them on the basis of their stats would have not been the ideal scenario.
I'm glad you implied that
Comment
-
Depends if we had brought in better playersOriginally posted by Neil Young View Post I'm glad you're glad I'm glad.
I was trying to imply that signing none of them on the basis of their stats would have not been the ideal scenario.
Hmm, great quebd. Let's have a poll. Which we probably could have 
And yes Henderson has improved a great deal.Comment
-
.
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.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Cycle lanes, should it be compulsory to use them when available. What are your thoughts?Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
I'm disappointed you're glad.
I'm not really but let's get out of that loop while we still can.Comment
-
-
-
No, it shouldn't. Just like it shouldn't be compulsory for motorists to use motorways when they're available.Originally posted by Assassin View Post.
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.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Depends on a lot of things.Originally posted by rcasemore View Post
If the manager got backed in the transfer market or not.
His record with us.
His CV and if he proved before that he can turn things around.
If he showed that he can improve young talents.
If the players believe he is the right man or not.
So no yes or no answer.Stop the cyberhate
from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a 
Susan Black
Comment
-
Besides the signings, the main issue I had was the fact we never evolved on the pitch. The play was deteriorating and his selections were sometimes bizarre
He never gave Coates a run in the 2nd half of the league campaign. He needes games to see if he could make it. Regularly played 1 up front and left his £35m striker on the bench, no thought or indication as to how he was going to play with Suarez ongoing
(I thought subbing Carroll at Newcastle was such bad man management too)
He played Henderson out of position and you never really saw anything to indicate the following season would be any differentComment
-
Feels like you've taken an emotive approach to this knowing of who I am talking about rather than an objective view you've given the impression of giving other managers.Originally posted by Arn View Post
Perhaps the real answer is your personal feeling on the manager is the answer you're most likely to give rather than anything based on results.Comment
-
If you only look at the results that season then Rafa deserved to be sacked but if you count in what he done since he joined the club then he deserved to get a chance to turn things around because his record at Valencia showed that he could do it. Then you can also add things we don't have a clue about. How the players felt about him. Did they want him to stay or not? How much did they believe that he could turn things around? The answer to those two questions is a part of picture.Originally posted by rcasemore View Post
I have said many times that Rodgers should stay even if we finished sixth for example.
Why? He showed that he have a clear idea of how he want us to play, a clear vision.
Kenny for example didn't. No one could really say what system and tactic we played. We just played rubbish football and played worse and worse. Players like Kuyt for example started to moan and that isn't a good sign.Stop the cyberhate
from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a
Susan BlackComment
-
-
Originally posted by Arn View Post
That's hit the major point. Remember that under new owners, and coming off the back of 6 successful months under Kenny, that summer was a real chance to make a statement of intent in the transfer market. We didn't, and we changed our style too, occasionally producing moments of brilliance against Man Utd, Everton and Man City in the cups.
It made things much more difficult come the season after in terms of the deadwood in the squad, image of an improving team to players in Europe and so forth.
Even if he'd won the FA Cup as well, I felt it was only going to be short term success, that the season after would've been a season of declination too.
He brought stability for 6 months, but then the 12 months after brought more uncertainty due to the lack of system, lack of results, and such contrast between cup and league runs. People didn't want to comment because it was Kenny Dalglish, but I think the objectivity of FSG in that they didn't have the emotional connection with Kenny was decisive, and the right one too.Comment
- 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
Comment