Big Sam's 'Tevez' perspective

[mattbianco1]

He wanted to bring in players like mcarthy ,warnock and andy reid but they were on 5 times what we would pay ,whats the guy supposed to do ?

Not sign players he had no intention of playing or unproven.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

So in the 1988 Olympic 100 metres final did Karl Lewis only have himself to blame for finishing second, or might the fact that Ben Johnson cheated have affected where Lewis finished?

Well he finished 2nd in the race, they caught the cheat and he was disqualified and Lewis was upgraded to 1st place. We finished 3rd bottom, they caught the cheat and decided they could keep their medal. Same scenario different outcome!

 

[judge]

Not sign players he had no intention of playing or unproven.

Sign no one then ?

 

[oldblade]

Well he finished 2nd in the race, they caught the cheat and he was disqualified and Lewis was upgraded to 1st place. We finished 3rd bottom, they caught the cheat and decided they could keep their medal. Same scenario different outcome!

The only difference being that for some reason everyone on earth sees that Karl Lewis was disadvantaged by Ben Johnson's cheating so the race was not a true race.

However, with regard to ourselves, incredibly even a significant number of our own supporters argue that we got ourselves relegated as though West Ham's action had no effect on the outcome.

I don't see any difference between what happened in that 100 metres final and what happened in the 2006-7 premier league season.

Johnson had the assistance of a substance that he was not allowed to use under the rules. West Ham had the assistance of a player that they were not allowed to use under the rules. He was a world class player and enhanced their performances significantly, just as the drugs did for Johnson. West Ham clearly thought they would perform better with him in the side or they would not have gone to such lengths to get him in their side.

Football should be decided on the pitch, but only if everyone is playing to the same rules. Just as a race should be decided on the track. But I have never ever heard anyone say Johnson should have kept his gold medal.

 

[Silent Blade]

Came across an old photo I'd not seen for years so I thought I'd retire Michael for a while. Darth and Sheffielder will be pleased

Dave Bassett and who are the other two?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

The only difference being that for some reason everyone on earth sees that Karl Lewis was disadvantaged by Ben Johnson's cheating so the race was not a true race.

However, with regard to ourselves, incredibly even a significant number of our own supporters argue that we got ourselves relegated as though West Ham's action had no effect on the outcome.

I don't see any difference between what happened in that 100 metres final and what happened in the 2006-7 premier league season.

Johnson had the assistance of a substance that he was not allowed to use under the rules. West Ham had the assistance of a player that they were not allowed to use under the rules. He was a world class player and enhanced their performances significantly, just as the drugs did for Johnson. West Ham clearly thought they would perform better with him in the side or they would not have gone to such lengths to get him in their side.

Football should be decided on the pitch, but only if everyone is playing to the same rules. Just as a race should be decided on the track. But I have never ever heard anyone say Johnson should have kept his gold medal.

Agreed. On the track Lewis was beaten, most thought with hindsight it was dodgy, but at the time the result stood. We were relegated because we didn't get enough points. Tests proved later that Johnson had illegal help getting his speed to win and was disqualified. Investigation showed that West Ham had illegal help getting their points and should have lost them.

Which is a long winded version of what I said first off

 

[wizadry]

However, with regard to ourselves, incredibly even a significant number of our own supporters argue that we got ourselves relegated as though West Ham's action had no effect on the outcome.

Not one of our supporters thinks West Ham didn't cheat,however,what some do think,like me i may add,is we should have finished higher than Wigan and thats why some of us think it was ourselves to blame for relegation,nothing to do with West Ham.

 

[Darren]

The only difference being that for some reason everyone on earth sees that Karl Lewis was disadvantaged by Ben Johnson's cheating so the race was not a true race.

However, with regard to ourselves, incredibly even a significant number of our own supporters argue that we got ourselves relegated as though West Ham's action had no effect on the outcome.

I don't see any difference between what happened in that 100 metres final and what happened in the 2006-7 premier league season.

Johnson had the assistance of a substance that he was not allowed to use under the rules. West Ham had the assistance of a player that they were not allowed to use under the rules. He was a world class player and enhanced their performances significantly, just as the drugs did for Johnson. West Ham clearly thought they would perform better with him in the side or they would not have gone to such lengths to get him in their side.

Football should be decided on the pitch, but only if everyone is playing to the same rules. Just as a race should be decided on the track. But I have never ever heard anyone say Johnson should have kept his gold medal.

Indeed. If all the teams had been playing on a level playing field, we would have finished 17th and avoided relegation and there would be no-one saying Warnock was "out of his depth" and "tactically inept".

As an aside here's a table of the PL appearances made by our 06-07 players from 07-08 onwards

Kenny 33
Bromby 0
Unsworth 0
Davis 21
Morgan 0
Jagielka 207
Ifill 0
Shelton 0
Akinbiyi 0
Stead 0
Hulse 2
Webber 17
Kabba 0
A. Quinn 0
Bennett 0
Sommeill 0
Kozluk 0
Kilgallon 23
Montgomery 0
Tonge 12
Gilliespie 0
Armstrong 0
Leigterwood 30
Lucketti 0
Fathi 0
Wright 0
Geary 0
Nade 0
S. Quinn 17
Law 0
Kazim-Richards 0

So, out of 32 players who were used that season only 9 have subsequently played in the PL. Only Jags has been any kind of regular over more that one season. Three (Davis, Kenny and Leighterwood) were regulars for one season in a relegated team, whilst the others have essentially been back up players.

Essentially, we had one player if PL class in 06-07. Some might think that getting as close as one goal from safety and only being prevented from staying up by cheating was a minor miracle.

 

[Darren]

Not one of our supporters thinks West Ham didn't cheat,however,what some do think,like me i may add,is we should have finished higher than Wigan and thats why some of us think it was ourselves to blame for relegation,nothing to do with West Ham.

We were a worst team that Wigan over 38 games. Had there been a fair competition there would have been three teams worse than us - Watford, Charlton and WHU and we would not have been relegated.

Hence WHU are completely to blame for our relegation.

 

[bartman]

Eh ?

Horsfield was on loan at Leeds.

Because of Warnock falling out with Horsfield at Coventry the season before,he effectively told Horsfield he didn't want him in the squad. He was that bloody minded he sent to Leeds for the last 3 months of the season and didn't insert a recall clause. Hulse breaks his leg and we couldn't recall an experienced forward who would have been a better option than Nade and Webber especially bearing in he had played at the level for WBA the previous season.

£1.2million ina transfer fee wasted by NW where if he swallowed his pride,Horsfield may have made a difference.

 

[judge]

Horsfield was on loan at Leeds.

Because of Warnock falling out with Horsfield at Coventry the season before,he effectively told Horsfield he didn't want him in the squad. He was that bloody minded he sent to Leeds for the last 3 months of the season and didn't insert a recall clause. Hulse breaks his leg and we couldn't recall an experienced forward who would have been a better option than Nade and Webber especially bearing in he had played at the level for WBA the previous season.

£1.2million ina transfer fee wasted by NW where if he swallowed his pride,Horsfield may have made a difference.

Dont remember many thinking that at the time but if warnock is responsible for us going down by not recalling geoff horsfield then fair do's

 

[oldblade]

Not one of our supporters thinks West Ham didn't cheat,however,what some do think,like me i may add,is we should have finished higher than Wigan and thats why some of us think it was ourselves to blame for relegation,nothing to do with West Ham.

This is a view that I find completely irrational. The Wigan match should have been irrelevant.

What West Ham did had an adverse impact on our league position.

We finished 17th out of 19 sides who played by the same rules. One club played outside of those rules and so should have been removed from that competition, just as Ben Johnson was removed from the 1988 100 metres final.

 

[wizadry]

We were a worst team that Wigan over 38 games. Had there been a fair competition there would have been three teams worse than us - Watford, Charlton and WHU and we would not have been relegated.

Hence WHU are completely to blame for our relegation.

As a rule we were worse than Wigan,but what i'm saying is,if Warnock would have done a few things differently we would have finished above Wigan,hence not worrying about what West Ham did.

 

[bartman]

Dont remember many thinking that at the time but if warnock is responsible for us going down by not recalling geoff horsfield then fair do's

maybe not responsible for sending us down(we will never know) but it was shocking planning by allowing an experienced player to stay out on loan when we could have done with him in the squad over those last few games. He surely would have been a better option than Shelton.

 

[Darren]

As a rule we were worse than Wigan,but what i'm saying is,if Warnock would have done a few things differently we would have finished above Wigan,hence not worrying about what West Ham did.

But, as Oldblade has pointed out, if WHU had played by the rules, they would have been down by the last day of the season and the Wigan game would have been irrelevant.

 

[wizadry]

This is a view that I find completely irrational. The Wigan match should have been irrelevant.

What West Ham did had an adverse impact on our league position.

We finished 17th out of 19 sides who played by the same rules. One club played outside of those rules and so should have been removed from that competition, just as Ben Johnson was removed from the 1988 100 metres final.

I'm not denying West Ham cheated and should have been fucked royally for it.And iv'e not even mentioned the Wigan match,i was on about the whole season in general.

 

[oldblade]

We were a worst team that Wigan over 38 games. Had there been a fair competition there would have been three teams worse than us - Watford, Charlton and WHU and we would not have been relegated.

Hence WHU are completely to blame for our relegation.

Does having a goal difference just one goal worse than Wigan over 38 games mane we were worse than them? Maybe. When the margin is that small it could be caused by refereeing mistakes and the odd crucial decision going against us.

Obviously there has to be some way of determining who finishes higher up the table in the event of teams having equal numbers of points, but when it's that close it's questionable whether or not one of those sides is any better than the other.

But like you I believe Wigan are an irrelevance in this debate.

 

[Greenwich Blade]

Is this really seven pages in now? Yawn, yawn and more fucking yawn! Can't someone just slag off Sam Allardyce for a minute to relieve the fucking tedium of this fucking debate?!

Can I swear again? Fuck yes!

 

[oldblade]

I'm not denying West Ham cheated and should have been fucked royally for it.And iv'e not even mentioned the Wigan match,i was on about the whole season in general.

But that's the point. Over the whole season we finished 17th out of the 19 teams playing to the same rules. The 20th team played outside of those rules for the entire season and so was in effect removing itself from the league.

And lets not forget that for half the season they were using two players that they should not have been using, not just one.

 

[wizadry]

Does having a goal difference just one goal worse than Wigan over 38 games mane we were worse than them? Maybe. When the margin is that small it could be caused by refereeing mistakes and the odd crucial decision going against us.

Obviously there has to be some way of determining who finishes higher up the table in the event of teams having equal numbers of points, but when it's that close it's questionable whether or not one of those sides is any better than the other.

But like you I believe Wigan are an irrelevance in this debate.

I will finish on this because i feel iv'e gone round in circles on this debate,and i'm sick of repeating myself.

WH cheated,fact
WH should have had points deducted,didn't
We got relegated,no matter whether they cheated or not,fact
We need to MOVE ON,nothing is going to change.

 

[SotonBlade]

Sod all this again...there'll be another Ched thread soon as well...gcb ringtone anyone?

 

[Darren]

Does having a goal difference just one goal worse than Wigan over 38 games mane we were worse than them? Maybe. When the margin is that small it could be caused by refereeing mistakes and the odd crucial decision going against us.

Obviously there has to be some way of determining who finishes higher up the table in the event of teams having equal numbers of points, but when it's that close it's questionable whether or not one of those sides is any better than the other.

But like you I believe Wigan are an irrelevance in this debate.

Under the rules of the competition, Wigan were slightly better than us. Whether they were better than us in some universal absract sense is unknowable and irrelevant.

 

[oldblade]

Indeed. If all the teams had been playing on a level playing field, we would have finished 17th and avoided relegation and there would be no-one saying Warnock was "out of his depth" and "tactically inept".

As an aside here's a table of the PL appearances made by our 06-07 players from 07-08 onwards

Kenny 33
Bromby 0
Unsworth 0
Davis 21
Morgan 0
Jagielka 207
Ifill 0
Shelton 0
Akinbiyi 0
Stead 0
Hulse 2
Webber 17
Kabba 0
A. Quinn 0
Bennett 0
Sommeill 0
Kozluk 0
Kilgallon 23
Montgomery 0
Tonge 12
Gilliespie 0
Armstrong 0
Leigterwood 30
Lucketti 0
Fathi 0
Wright 0
Geary 0
Nade 0
S. Quinn 17
Law 0
Kazim-Richards 0

So, out of 32 players who were used that season only 9 have subsequently played in the PL. Only Jags has been any kind of regular over more that one season. Three (Davis, Kenny and Leighterwood) were regulars for one season in a relegated team, whilst the others have essentially been back up players.

Essentially, we had one player if PL class in 06-07. Some might think that getting as close as one goal from safety and only being prevented from staying up by cheating was a minor miracle.

That would suggest that to get as close to safety as we did with those players Warnock must have been a tactical genius!

 

[Darren]

That would suggest that to get as close to safety as we did with those players Warnock must have been a tactical genius!

That was indeed my point

 

[oldblade]

Under the rules of the competition, Wigan were slightly better than us. Whether they were better than us in some universal absract sense is unknowable and irrelevant.

I view the goal difference aspect as just being a method of placing one side above another in the event of a draw. It doesn't necessarily show one side to be any better than the other when the difference is that small, as there are many factors that could account for that one goal difference. Edit - like Rob Styles for instance!

 

[Darren]

I view the goal difference aspect as just being a method of placing one side above another in the event of a draw. It doesn't necessarily show one side to be any better than the other when the difference is that small, as there are many factors that could account for that one goal difference.

My point is that it is irrelevant and meaningless arguing whether or not one team is subjectively better than another team using criteria outside the rules of the competition. The only criteria is the rules of the competition.

Were United better than Walsall in 80-81? Under the 2 points for win system as operated then, no. Under the 3 points for a win system that came in the next season, yes.

 

[oldblade]

My point is that it is irrelevant and meaningless arguing whether or not one team is subjectively better than another team using criteria outside the rules of the competition. The only criteria is the rules of the competition.

Were United better than Walsall in 80-81? Under the 2 points for win system as operated then, no. Under the 3 points for a win system that came in the next season, yes.

Agreed.

I suppose what I'm trying to show is that there was as near as damn it no difference between ourselves and Wigan. It was so small that even a gust of wind at the right time could have altered the outcome, and yet some would have you believe Warnock was a complete tactical numpty.

 

[Darren]

Agreed.

I suppose what I'm trying to show is that there was as near as damn it no difference between ourselves and Wigan. It was so small that even a gust of wind at the right time could have altered the outcome, and yet some would have you believe Warnock was a complete tactical numpty.

Oh indeed, it's simply ludicrous to suggest Warnock was out of his depth. Some clubs have been relegated with over 10 points to spare - Sunderland more than once and Derby spring to mind. Those clubs and their managers were clearly out of their depths. But relegation by one goal (which incidentally must be the narrowest margin of relegation in the PL's history).....?

 

[oldblade]

Oh indeed, it's simply ludicrous to suggest Warnock was out of his depth. Some clubs have been relegated with over 10 points to spare - Sunderland more than once and Derby spring to mind. Those clubs and their managers were clearly out of their depths. But relegation by one goal (which incidentally must be the narrowest margin of relegation in the PL's history).....?

And in the case of Sunderland I would suspect that their manager had far greater financial resources at his disposal than Warnock had at his.

 

[wizadry]

I think Warnock is getting a room ready for you two as we speak