Allardyce isn't in...yet

[Guest alex]

I've always thought Allardyce was a top boss fwiw.

 

 

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement?

The battle of the uber-memories.

 

I was taking the piss out of Leazes.

[tinofbeans 91]

i think big sam will do well here if allowed to set up his scouting/fitness network. and to take his backroom staff.

 

if he can turn kevin davies into a good premiership player then theres hope for a few here. i really think that if given the chance he will be a good boss.

[Kid Dynamite 7309]

Hopefully hel come in and sort out the shit like robson did.

 

As long as we get replacements i wouldnt be upset to see the back of

 

Emre

Luque

Parker

Duff

Dyer

Bramble

Ameobi

 

40-50million worth of players? Wed be lucky to recoup half that but id rather have players who got picked on ability rather than reputation.

 

Allardyce might just surprise everyone and turn out to be a decent coach who can play attractive football if given the money and players to work with.

[Renton 22384]

I've always thought Allardyce was a top boss fwiw.

 

 

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement?

The battle of the uber-memories.

 

FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like?

 

I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him.

You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else.

 

Exactly, does this really need to be explained though?

 

In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course.

 

So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set.

 

The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Basically it all boils down to resources and how a manager uses them. Imo Allerdyce has had less resources and used what he has better than Roeder. Given the same team of players, I think the Allerdyce team would easily out perform the same Roeder one. Futhermore, I reckon Allerdyce will buy better.

 

As you say, it's all about opinions. We'll see soon enough if indeed Allerdyce comes though.

[Kid Dynamite 7309]

Its AllAAAAAArdyce man!

[ChezGiven 0]

I've always thought Allardyce was a top boss fwiw.

 

 

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement?

The battle of the uber-memories.

 

FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like?

 

I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him.

You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else.

 

Exactly, does this really need to be explained though?

 

In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course.

 

So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set.

 

The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Basically it all boils down to resources and how a manager uses them. Imo Allerdyce has had less resources and used what he has better than Roeder. Given the same team of players, I think the Allerdyce team would easily out perform the same Roeder one. Futhermore, I reckon Allerdyce will buy better.

 

As you say, it's all about opinions. We'll see soon enough if indeed Allerdyce comes though.

 

I was being sympathetic to the Owen / Anelka assessment and overall points of the two teams.

 

Overall Allardyce will be better i'm sure of that.

[Isegrim 10011]

I've always thought Allardyce was a top boss fwiw.

 

 

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement?

The battle of the uber-memories.

 

FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like?

 

I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him.

You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else.

 

Exactly, does this really need to be explained though?

 

In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course.

 

So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set.

 

The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents.

For the record, I wasn't so much thinking of other players in our or Bolton's squad, but rather thinking of both clubs didn't have the mentioned players at all. I agree that there wasn't any real alternative to Martins in the actual squad. My point was rather if we hadn't have got Martins (or he had injured himself during the first part of the season) we would have signed someone else (or Bolton would have signed someone else instead of Anelka) who might or might have not performed better or worse. But I think this rather reflects the hypothesis that without Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened. IMHO there isn't a scenario where you can think of those clubs for the whole course of the season without a real alternative.

 

So I think the whole discussion is a bit moot.

[Renton 22384]

Tbh I'm not convinced either Owen or AlAAAAArdyce will be here next year yet.

[ChezGiven 0]

Tbh I'm not convinced either Owen or AlAAAAArdyce will be here next year yet.

 

Me neither tbh.

[Baggio 0]

Froma Bolton site...

 

Getting rid of your manager is an odd thing to do with one game of the season to go, but given Freddy Shepherd`s record on appointments it`s hardly surprising. The pattern is always the same. Appoint rubbish manager. Give him lots to spend. Then sack him.

 

This time things may be different this time if speculation about Big Sam`s appointment is to be believed. Or will they?

 

It`s customary that the new appointee is doing better than the person he replaced. In Allardyce`s case this isn`t so. In 2007, Bolton have won just four league games, taken sixteen points from a possible forty-eight and are conceding two goals a game. In the same period Newcastle have also won four and have gained one more point than the Trotters. In both cases, it`s relegation form over an extended period.

 

Regular visitors to the Reebok will have noticed the change in Allardyce`s demeanour since the New Year. The overcoat-clad figure prowling the touchline, bellowing to anyone within earshot has gone, and been replaced by a disconsolate figure, with hands in pockets who looks as if he has no ideas on how to arrest his team`s slide. His assertion that he needed a break from football was entirely believable.

 

Until Fat Freddy stuck his oar in.

 

That Shepherd should try this sort of opportunism (or oppor-toon-ism, ho ho) is no surprise, but was Allardyce complicit all along? If he was, then as a prominent member of the League Managers Association, he should be ashamed at a move which involved removing a colleague, just so that he could have the job.

 

Of course the speculation may be groundless. The close sources that are spoken of in the press may be waiters on a Spanish beach who are serving Sam pina coladas. It is to be hoped so.

 

Back in Bolton, the first team is a mess. The defence is a shambles, there are gaping holes in midfield, the strikers don`t pass the ball to each other and morale is on the floor. The UEFA spot that should have been sealed weeks ago is in danger of slipping away. Would you really want to appoint the man who left his previous club in such a state?

 

[Park Life 71]

I've always thought Allardyce was a top boss fwiw.

 

 

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement?

The battle of the uber-memories.

 

FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like?

 

I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him.

You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else.

 

Exactly, does this really need to be explained though?

 

In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course.

 

So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set.

 

The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents.

 

Uh oh...Chez has engaged his higher brain.

[Isegrim 10011]

Froma Bolton site...

 

Getting rid of your manager is an odd thing to do with one game of the season to go, but given Freddy Shepherd`s record on appointments it`s hardly surprising. The pattern is always the same. Appoint rubbish manager. Give him lots to spend. Then sack him.

 

This time things may be different this time if speculation about Big Sam`s appointment is to be believed. Or will they?

 

It`s customary that the new appointee is doing better than the person he replaced. In Allardyce`s case this isn`t so. In 2007, Bolton have won just four league games, taken sixteen points from a possible forty-eight and are conceding two goals a game. In the same period Newcastle have also won four and have gained one more point than the Trotters. In both cases, it`s relegation form over an extended period.

 

Regular visitors to the Reebok will have noticed the change in Allardyce`s demeanour since the New Year. The overcoat-clad figure prowling the touchline, bellowing to anyone within earshot has gone, and been replaced by a disconsolate figure, with hands in pockets who looks as if he has no ideas on how to arrest his team`s slide. His assertion that he needed a break from football was entirely believable.

 

Until Fat Freddy stuck his oar in.

 

That Shepherd should try this sort of opportunism (or oppor-toon-ism, ho ho) is no surprise, but was Allardyce complicit all along? If he was, then as a prominent member of the League Managers Association, he should be ashamed at a move which involved removing a colleague, just so that he could have the job.

 

Of course the speculation may be groundless. The close sources that are spoken of in the press may be waiters on a Spanish beach who are serving Sam pina coladas. It is to be hoped so.

 

Back in Bolton, the first team is a mess. The defence is a shambles, there are gaping holes in midfield, the strikers don`t pass the ball to each other and morale is on the floor. The UEFA spot that should have been sealed weeks ago is in danger of slipping away. Would you really want to appoint the man who left his previous club in such a state?

 

Rather sounds bitter to me. Maybe there was a bit of attrition towards the end of Allardyce's reign at Bolton. But his credentials aren't built on his last four months, but rather the 7 years before. So I don't really know what point they are trying to make. Well, except of coming across very bitter...

[Fop 1]

Froma Bolton site...

 

Getting rid of your manager is an odd thing to do with one game of the season to go, but given Freddy Shepherd`s record on appointments it`s hardly surprising. The pattern is always the same. Appoint rubbish manager. Give him lots to spend. Then sack him.

 

This time things may be different this time if speculation about Big Sam`s appointment is to be believed. Or will they?

 

It`s customary that the new appointee is doing better than the person he replaced. In Allardyce`s case this isn`t so. In 2007, Bolton have won just four league games, taken sixteen points from a possible forty-eight and are conceding two goals a game. In the same period Newcastle have also won four and have gained one more point than the Trotters. In both cases, it`s relegation form over an extended period.

 

Regular visitors to the Reebok will have noticed the change in Allardyce`s demeanour since the New Year. The overcoat-clad figure prowling the touchline, bellowing to anyone within earshot has gone, and been replaced by a disconsolate figure, with hands in pockets who looks as if he has no ideas on how to arrest his team`s slide. His assertion that he needed a break from football was entirely believable.

 

Until Fat Freddy stuck his oar in.

 

That Shepherd should try this sort of opportunism (or oppor-toon-ism, ho ho) is no surprise, but was Allardyce complicit all along? If he was, then as a prominent member of the League Managers Association, he should be ashamed at a move which involved removing a colleague, just so that he could have the job.

 

Of course the speculation may be groundless. The close sources that are spoken of in the press may be waiters on a Spanish beach who are serving Sam pina coladas. It is to be hoped so.

 

Back in Bolton, the first team is a mess. The defence is a shambles, there are gaping holes in midfield, the strikers don`t pass the ball to each other and morale is on the floor. The UEFA spot that should have been sealed weeks ago is in danger of slipping away. Would you really want to appoint the man who left his previous club in such a state?

 

 

That would be just our luck, appoint him only to watch him have a nervous breakdown next season.

[Guest alex]

Sour grapes tbh

[Fop 1]

Sour grapes tbh

 

Fair usage.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Leaving Bolton for a 'break' and then walking into another job is suspect, but then again everything about Fat Sam is suspect

 

 

Gratifying to know Fat Freddy gets universal usage

[Happy Face 29]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

[Guest alex]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

[Happy Face 29]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

 

I've not cracked a smile since the bookies closed the book on him.

[@yourservice 67]

So is he in or what?

 

I hope he unveils someone other and suprises us all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wykikitoon 21438]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

 

Turned his fucking brain off a LONG time ago.

 

We sacked Roeder because he is a complete sack of shit!

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4065]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

 

Turned his fucking brain off a LONG time ago.

 

We sacked Roeder because he is a complete sack of shit!

 

He certainly did last 5 games both have lost 3 and drawn 2. So they are the same not worse.

[Happy Face 29]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

 

Turned his fucking brain off a LONG time ago.

 

We sacked Roeder because he is a complete sack of shit!

 

No need for that tbh. I've not abused anyone for their opinion, just expressed my own along with reasons. You mightn't agree at the moment (though you seemed to have a similar opinion of Allardyce a year or two back).

 

It's like sacking Roeder (which might have been worth celebrating because he was a sack of shit) and then giving him the job back.

[Guest alex]

Every need going off the last line.

[Ketsbaia 0]

We sack Roeder on recent form.

His recent form is better than Allardyce's.

But it's sour grapes and stupidity from those fans(of either side) who aren't so sure about "BIG SAM".

 

Did you turn your sense of humour off this morning?

 

Turned his fucking brain off a LONG time ago.

 

We sacked Roeder because he is a complete sack of shit!

 

No need for that tbh. I've not abused anyone for their opinion, just expressed my own along with reasons. You mightn't agree at the moment (though you seemed to have a similar opinion of Allardyce a year or two back).

 

It's like sacking Roeder (which might have been worth celebrating because he was a sack of shit) and then giving him the job back.

 

Your opinions are worth fuck all though because you're coming across as a complete tart.

 

The fact you view Allardyce as a manager on a par with Roeder shows how little you know about football.