A bit misleading?

[Revolution]

Yes I would give him credit as the manager because that's what he was. You're struggling to understand something here and that's the difference between involvement and responsibility.

Imagine you were made Governor of the Bank of England tomorrow at midday. At 1pm the Bank's value crashes through the floor. Who is responsible? YOU ARE! You might not have been in the job barely an hour. You might not have had any previous input into what has led to the current situation, but...it's your responsibility regardless. That, my friend, is how "responsibility" works. You can't say "it's not my fault" when things go wrong that you werent involved in. If you're in charge it's your problem. And similarly when things go well you can't say "it wasn't down to me because I only just started".

It cuts both ways. Whoever was boss at the time gets the brickbats or bouquets.

That's a terrible analogy.

In that scenario (putting aside for the moment that the value of the Bank of England, a statutory corporation, will not collapse - I assume you mean the value of sterling) you are not responsible for what just happened. You had no involvement in what just happened, and no fair minded person would describe you as responsible for that collapse.

What you are responsible for is what happens next - how you react to the crisis.

And I don't think you understand what Nicholson actually did for United. Because whilst he was a very important person in the running of the club - perhaps more important than anyone else in the club's history - he did not coach the team, or pick it, or decide tactics, in 1899. His appointment will have had no impact whatsoever on a cup final played a matter of days later.

Nicholson was called the "secretary-manager" and I'm glad he was remembered during the game, but he was not doing what Chris Wilder is doing now.

 

[Revolution]

Presumably the captain's role at cricket and football was very similar for many years; the role in football became less and less important, but cricket has retained much of the traditional role. And in football, the manager's role is now becoming more and more focussed on coaching, with signings someone else's responsibility.

Yes, and this process happened much earlier in US Sport - where there is a defined gap in role between general manager and manager/coach - and in football in some continental countries, most notably Germany.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Agree completely. Ernest Needham was an integral part of what could justifiably be called the best team in the country at one time.

And I don't want this to come across as a dig at undeniably great players, but for all the mythologising around the Currie/Woodward era, it yielded little in the way of tangible success.
Most of the figures who were there when we actually won things in the late 19th/early 20th century have been criminally underacknowledged.

Ernest is no longer in anyone's living memory and the others are; it's human nature to have the most recent thing at the forefront of your mind. It's why, whenever there's a poll of "best song ever" you'll get some recent hit up there that you know will be forgotten in a few years time. When it comes to statues, however, it would have made perfect sense for them to look over the entire club history and pick a figure or two from our best period. Perhaps they were just shallow and incompetent. Or perhaps they didn't want to give the impression to the world that we're a club that hasn't had a top team for a century - which of course is the truth.

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

He should have been voted as the greatest ever player and greatest ever captain in the club's history!

Agree 100%

 

[BusheyBlade]

Nicholson was called the "secretary-manager" and I'm glad he was remembered during the game, but he was not doing what Chris Wilder is doing now.

I suspect this may be more down to the fact that Peroni wasn't around in his day.

 

[BladeFisher]

View attachment 27294

No Sheffield Wednesday on there? Some mistake surely?

 

[Davalon]

Agree totally about honouring the likes of Needham etc from our greatest era, and even Hagan from later.

We have rightly featured the history of the stadium in recent years and have a fantastic museum. Can't think of any reason not honour contributors from over a hundred years ago.

 

[BushBlade]

Agree totally about honouring the likes of Needham etc from our greatest era, and even Hagan from later.

We have rightly featured the history of the stadium in recent years and have a fantastic museum. Can't think of any reason not honour contributors from over a hundred years ago.

Thinking about it, my impression is that clubs seem to be fixated on the first TV stars/celebrity footballers who emerged in the sixties

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

Didn't know about how clubs where run in the early days, thanks for the information.

 

[bornablade]

There are so many worthy recipients of a statue in our car park. Obviously it would be impractical to have too many statues but may be the club should consider dedicating a wall at the ground with a picture / painting of all those great players.
Rather than a Hall of Fame it could be our Wall of Fame. The background of the pictures should show the crowds at BDTBL that were relevant to the time that player was appearing for us.

 

[coaxingstar71]

I'm with Silent Blade and Revolution on this debate.
Nicholson was an administrator and although he may have had a say in the signing of players and certainly negotiating contracts, he did not solely pick the team, nor did he have any involvement in training or tactics.

It's interesting though how different managers even in the modern era have had differing styles. I have read that John Harris was an astute tactician and was heavily involved in team affairs. Sirrel was apparently a tracksuit manager, although none of the players could understand him, the players didn't see Haslam from one week to the next and he basically showed up in the dressing room before kick off to say good luck, leaving training and tactics to Bergara. Arthur Rowley apparently spent all his time watching horse racing.

 

[coaxingstar71]

If people on here don't know my opinion and mini campaign, I'll say it again. Statue of that man in my avatar HAS to happen. The most decorated Blades player ever; how is he not recognised by the club?

We should have 'Fatty' Foulke too, but the cost of the bronze would be too much.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Because the club are absolutely shite at recognising anything that occured before 1975.

We've honoured individual kits more than we've done for actual people from our early history.

 

[Revolution]

We've honoured individual kits more than we've done for actual people from our early history.

There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Many Blades fans, and I suspect many club employees and officials, have only a sketchy idea at best of the club's history before they started watching (if you doubt that, whoever wrote that fifty greatest United players list in the Times a decade or so ago had Adrian Littlejohn higher than one of Jimmy Hagan or Ernest Needham).

2. There is precious little film of United games pre 1960, and very little other material that is accessible.

3. It's easier to honour the living than the dead. Tony Currie won "greatest ever player" in that 125 year poll a couple of years ago. There's little doubt he's our greatest living player, and many have seen him play think he's the greatest they've ever seen, so he wins. Not to knock TC, who is a Blades legend, but looking at his historical record I am confident Needham was a better player (certainly relative to his peers), and I suspect Hagan was better, but who cares if dead players get snubbed? Not many people.

Needham, Hagan and Currie should all have statues at the Lane. Those 3 and Shaw would be terrific. I would move the other statue somewhere "neutral", where sets of supporters from both sides of the City will enjoy viewing it.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Many Blades fans, and I suspect many club employees and officials, have only a sketchy idea at best of the club's history before they started watching (if you doubt that, whoever wrote that fifty greatest United players list in the Times a decade or so ago had Adrian Littlejohn higher than one of Jimmy Hagan or Ernest Needham).

2. There is precious little film of United games pre 1960, and very little other material that is accessible.

3. It's easier to honour the living than the dead. Tony Currie won "greatest ever player" in that 125 year poll a couple of years ago. There's little doubt he's our greatest living player, and many have seen him play think he's the greatest they've ever seen, so he wins. Not to knock TC, who is a Blades legend, but looking at his historical record I am confident Needham was a better player (certainly relative to his peers), and I suspect Hagan was better, but who cares if dead players get snubbed? Not many people.

Needham, Hagan and Currie should all have statues at the Lane. Those 3 and Shaw would be terrific. I would move the other statue somewhere "neutral", where sets of supporters from both sides of the City will enjoy viewing it.

Own viewing bias absolutely comes into it for fans, but there are plenty of other sports that seem to do a better job at recognising those from eras well before their own. The likes of Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Cy Young are all regularly heralded as baseball greats, though few living fans will have ever seen them. Their former teams have done a decent job at helping to keep those names in the fans' minds, often through simple things at the grounds. It's an aspect most football clubs are poor at – though I do think we are better than most (the small plaques at the edge of the car park marking key landmarks in the club's heritage for example). There's so much more we could do though.

On the statue front, as a starting point it would be great to have a new statue that ideally doesn't look so much like the Saddam Hussein statue that was taken down in the last war. Though if we ever decided to move the Dooley statue, this might be the most efficient way of doing so.

 

[Revolution]

Own viewing bias absolutely comes into it for fans, but there are plenty of other sports that seem to do a better job at recognising those from eras well before their own. The likes of Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Cy Young are all regularly heralded as baseball greats, though few living fans will have ever seen them. Their former teams have done a decent job at helping to keep those names in the fans' minds, often through simple things at the grounds. It's an aspect most football clubs are poor at – though I do think we are better than most (the small plaques at the edge of the car park marking key landmarks in the club's heritage for example). There's so much more we could do though.

On the statue front, as a starting point it would be great to have a new statue that ideally doesn't look so much like the Saddam Hussein statue that was taken down in the last war. Though if we ever decided to move the Dooley statue, this might be the most efficient way of doing so.

Baseball does this very well. The Washington Nationals have only played in Washington for just over a decade but they have 3 great statues illustrating your point: Walter Johnson (perhaps the greatest pitcher who ever lived and the star of the Washington Senators team of the 1910s and 1920s), Frank Howard (the best player on the second franchise called the Senators, which existed in the 1960s) and Josh Gibson (one of the greats of Negro League baseball when the game was segregated who played many games in Washington).

There are so many great stories and characters from the past to let people know about.

 

[coaxingstar71]

With regard to statues, I think the Joe Shaw one is worthy, a one-club man with over 20 years service and our record appearance holder. He was also treated quite shabbily by the club after he hung up his boots. I suppose the Dooley one will divide opinion. He undoubtedly worked hard for the club and gave many years service, but there must be many others who have done this too including our friend Mr Nicholson. I think perhaps the 'Dooley story' is partly responsible for this, a player who famously had a promising career cut short by a horrific injury, sacked as manager on Christmas Eve by a club where he was supposedly idolised and then successfully joined their city rivals and somehow seemed to unify both clubs in some people's eyes.

 

[Foxy]

If people on here don't know my opinion and mini campaign, I'll say it again. Statue of that man in my avatar HAS to happen. The most decorated Blades player ever; how is he not recognised by the club?

Because the club are absolutely shite at recognising anything that occured before 1975.

Ignoring the suggestion of a statue, which I understand...

Needham has his own cabinet in the museum, with caps, shirt badges etc.

The bulk of the museum collection is pre-1950.

If you've not had a look, it's generally open match days, entry £3.

 

[BushBlade]

Ignoring the suggestion of a statue, which I understand...

Needham has his own cabinet in the museum, with caps, shirt badges etc.

The bulk of the museum collection is pre-1950.

If you've not had a look, it's generally open match days, entry £3.

It's an actual museum? I thought it was just a nickname for our trophy room.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Ignoring the suggestion of a statue, which I understand...

Needham has his own cabinet in the museum, with caps, shirt badges etc.

The bulk of the museum collection is pre-1950.

If you've not had a look, it's generally open match days, entry £3.

Yeah I've seen it, hardly adequate for the most succesful player/captain ever in a Blades shirt.

 

[Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen]

Where's Carlos?

Give it a decade.

(Fuckin' deluded PIGS.)