Hate to ask - but was he sober?
Moyes So Far!
- Thread starter RedTillI'mDead
- Start date
- Status
Hate to ask - but was he sober?
Is he drunk again?
In no way am I saying Steve Bruce would be good at United or I want him at United. However, it would be great to see him on the sidelines at United, everytime you see him, you can only get good memories. Hope he continues to do well at Hull. Seems to be the right club for him.
I do have a little chuckle at the people who believe we could get rid of that amount of players. There is no way you would have that big a turn over. You need to introduce players to the club slowly, all at once just shits on any previous work done. And on top of that takes time to make work.
All that article says is Anderson, Nani, Buttner and Fabio are on their way out. Considering they've barely contributed at all this season, that won't really shit on any previous work done. There's a lot of deadwood in this squad that Moyes clearly doesn't fancy.
The issue is around the fact that so many players could be moved on. There is no sensible explanation to sell 10 players and sign 10 players. 3-4 each way at most in my opinion.
I'm not saying you have said that, just the argument in general.
Articles like that make me think the journalist plays too much Fifa.
I do get befuddled (but that's another story) when we use players out of position, especially when it's obviously not working, and when he leaves subs till really late in the game when Stevie Wonder can see things need changing. Otherwise, it's logical that the handover might not go quite as smoothly as we'd like.
I don't really see the point of Moyes etc going on scouting missions. What happens if the player they are watching happens to have a particularly good/bad game? Is any potential bid off/on. Surely they are better off watching all the matches throughout the season, which I am sure they do aswell. He looks a bit sad there, sitting amongst the proper supporters.
Point is, I don't get what Moyes is hoping to see in a 1 off scouting visit.
Point is, I don't get what Moyes is hoping to see in a 1 off scouting visit.
It seems Moyes is struggling to attract players to the club....might be an idea to get SAF to do our scouting.
Evertonians on Moyes
Well worth a read. They don't seem to have that high an opinion of Moyes, which is worrying.
Well worth a read. They don't seem to have that high an opinion of Moyes, which is worrying.
Well he did leave them, and then try to sign two of their players, and managed to sign one of them. It's not really a surprise that they're suddenly saying that he's shit.
Not at all. Most Everton fans come across as a bunch of ungrateful retards
The three lads answering the questions don't even rate Fellaini, who was their best player for a couple of seasons, so there might be some bitterness there. Definitely a good read though.
Wait until Martinez has to start signing defenders. Suddenly they will think of the good old Moyes days fondly.
Presumably his scouting method is getting loads of dossiers from the scouts, then sending a trusted close part of the coaching team, then going himself.
He'll know what he's after in a way us mere fans won't. You'd hope!
He'll know what he's after in a way us mere fans won't. You'd hope!
There is bitterness there. Remember those taunting chants at Old Trafford when they beat us? they're nearly as bad as those other scouse bastards.
The last two were spot on IMO. The first one was Pimpy masked as an Everton fan.
On Fellaini all exagerated, calling him an awful player that wasn't playing that well for them. I don't like that we signed him and don't expect him to do a good job for us, but he was their best or second best player last season.
Interesting. Though this stuck out for me...
I think I'm right in saying Chelsea have won more trophies since Abramovich sacked Ranieri than any other English club.
They've sacked far more managers than just Ranieri. That wasn't even a poor or surprising sacking because he was there when Abramovich took control of the club - its not at all rare for a new owner to change things around, particularly when they initiate an ambitious business model like Chelsea did.
The point is that after spending so much money and winning the league in '05 and '06 the team should have done much better, but for the constant turnaround of managers in Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Ancelotti, Villas Boas, Di Matteo etc etc.
Chelsea haven't been as successful or become the club that they should have, I don't think that is up for debate. Three league titles in ten years isn't the level of success people were expecting. They have spent well over £600 million and for that investment should have won the league more than they have, particularly when they established themselves as a great team so early in Abramovich's reign as owner.
I think it is. It depends on your expectations of course, but three league titles, a Champions League and a Europa League, plus 4 domestic cups is a decent haul for anyone, and certainly fits the definition of "success". Trying to downsize it to dismiss it's ramifications is disingenuous.
That they could've been more so isn't really the point at all. The point is that people love to use Chelsea as an example of how wrong flippant changes of manager are, because people don't like it morall, and the romantic part of us wants it to be a huge failure.
The truth though is that they have been successful, at least to a satisfactory degree (and to a huge degree by anyone elses standards) however inconvenient that is for the romantic view.
I agree and I only think it's now that people are coming around to accepting what Chelsea do works and has proved largely successful.
Their manager chopping has caused a lack of coherence within their squad though.
Basically, every different manager(of which there have been many) has contributed to the current Chelsea side in some way. If you look down their team sheet and then look at which manager has signed the players(if there even was a manager at the time of purchase), there are about eight different ones.
Now clearly, they've still had success, especially in cup competitions. This is down to the fact that in the biggest games, the sheer number of world class players can pluck a result out of anywhere. Throughout a league campaign though, the cracks do appear, and Mourinho is doing really well to keep them solid at the minute.
Basically, every different manager(of which there have been many) has contributed to the current Chelsea side in some way. If you look down their team sheet and then look at which manager has signed the players(if there even was a manager at the time of purchase), there are about eight different ones.
Now clearly, they've still had success, especially in cup competitions. This is down to the fact that in the biggest games, the sheer number of world class players can pluck a result out of anywhere. Throughout a league campaign though, the cracks do appear, and Mourinho is doing really well to keep them solid at the minute.
I assume a lot of it is in comparison with United. Given how much Chelsea have spent, many people will argue that they should have been more successful than United over the last 10 years, and obviously they have not been. So people look at Ferguson and think that perhaps Chelsea should have brought in a good manager and stuck with him. And Ali makes a good point about squad coherence and continuity.
Well there's two points here, the first whether or not they have been as successful as they should have, the second of the constant changing of managers has hindered their success. I disagree with you on both.
On the first - yes they have had some success, but if you spend over half a billion pounds on players its pretty impossible not to. The issue with Chelsea is that they managed to become so good early on in the ten years under Ambramovich's (and his spending) - this wasn't a ten year period in which they built a team over four or five years, before succeeding with three titles in the latter five. The club didn't progress like that. What happened is that they spent this unprecedented sum of money - an unheard of amount - and became fantastic within a two year period and won the league in Ambramovich's second season in charge, as well as the season after.
At this point people were legitimately seeing Chelsea as a future powerhouse of world football.. How could anyone else keep up? In 2006 not only did they have the best squad in the league but they also had finances which dwarfed that of their rivals.
At this stage if you said Chelsea would win just one more league title in the next seven seasons people wouldn't have believed you. I don't know how you can say they have underperformed from that position.
On the second - I think constantly changing managers has had a negative impact. That isn't being a romantic, it just seems obvious that having stability of management benefits the club. A stable club can build a team and a playing style, bring through youth players, it allows the manager to sign the players he wants to as opposed to a new manager having to work with what he has. There are lots of reasons.
Why do you think it doesn't matter?
I don't think many people at all believe constantly hiring and firing managers is a good way of running a football club.
Well they haven't been too far behind United. They've actually won more in total, though we've won 2 more leagues which most if not all would consider a trump. They've won more European trophies too. Of course getting in a good manager and sticking with him would've likely been better, but that applies to everyone. Even if we agree that our 2 leagues trump their increased total haul, they've still achieved more success than anyone else in the country since Abramovich took over. So to claim they haven't been a success is utter nonsense. People have just decided they don't like their methods and as such are twisting the result to paint it as negatively as possible.
No, but that's not what I've said. Chelsea seem to get berated for their manager merry go round yet the fact remains it has maintained success for them.
You said that what Chelsea do works, when the truth is that they have had success in spite of the way the club is run and not as a consequence of it.
Meh, it works for them and I can't imagine Roman sees any reason to not continue with the trend should he feel Mourinho is underachieving.
I don't, but clearly pretending Chelsea haven't been successful is complete nonsense, however way you spin it.
Also, you've just given a load of reasons why "an unheard of amount" of money was important to Chelsea's success, without giving one for why they should've stuck with a specific manager. This seems an odd way of proving their manager sackings have been detrimental.
Obviously sticking with a great manager is beneficial. But not every club gets a great manager every time, and not every great manager works out. The quote I selected seemed to imply you need to stick with managers because changing is "never a recipe for success", specifically referencing Chelsea. This is obviously a false statement. Why do you think it isn't?
Mourinho won half of their big trophies in three years (and a couple of their lesser ones) and after getting rid of him for no real reason they spent an absolute fortune over six years, and managed to win just the two more truly significant trophies. They didn't even really compete for the last three leagues.
Those FA cups have really covered up for what has been a hugely underwhelming era for them.
Those FA cups have really covered up for what has been a hugely underwhelming era for them.
I'm no Chelsea expert but this has been Chelsea's most successful era?
It's been less succesful than it should have been with the money they've spent. Especially when compared to us.
That's no argument, I'm sorry. Chelsea aren't Manchester United and vice versa.
This for me
Goes along with what I always thought was a strange point that Moyes had a reputation for bringing through youth - considering he was there for 11 years, it did seem to be mostly based on giving Rooney games a decade ago. Wouldn't surprise me if Mourinho was responsible for bringing more quality players up into the first team in his short stint at Porto than Moyes had in his Everton tenure.
Did they? I thought they spent loads in the first few years of the Abramovich era then cooled off, only dipping into the big bucks again to bolster. The squad still has much of the spine of the first Mourinho era, and everyone commented on how it was their last chance to win the CL in 12 with that team.
So, what? They should've stuck with Avram Grant for 6 years after sacking Mourinho?
- Status