[QUOTE="Shaper, post: "Again I find myself asking where the brevity is." There's an ephemerality about your continued love affair with the "brevity" word,Shaper. It's use would be more acceptable if it were introduced to threads where previous Managerial incumbents are on the receiving end of constant vindictiveness,and abuse,as is STILL the case with Michael Laudrup,for example. I say that only in the interest of fair play.
Thought brevity meant concise. I am totally confused what everyone is trying to say when using it on here!! Am I missing something?
I'm using it on the basis that I haven't ever criticised Laudrup unfairly and similarly haven't given Monk praise he isn't due. Bap, it's use (as far as I'm concerned) related to some posts I felt were too polarised. In either direction. I was criticised a bit for caring too much about other people's opinions, but really I just take part in the debate. Makes little difference to me if people have a go at me or not. I suppose I'm just a lover, not a fighter so 'brevity' is my liberal lefty middle ground.
laudrup nearly had us relegated and it took monk to save us...that's why most of us dont rate him plus his attitude stinks just ask the players and the board
Where is ML still on the receiving end of abuse? Other than 1 poster, nobody else has posted abuse in his direction at all.
Not true,Laudrup DID NOT NEARLY GET US RELEGATED. That's the FACT that you clearly STILL DON'T GET. Monk didn't "save" anything,he simply took possession of the 24 points earned under Laudrup,and then added 18 under his tenure. So, Laudrup contributed 33.333% MORE points than Monk. Laudrup also won us a Major Cup,taking us into Europe. Monk,on the other hand,has yet to actually achieve/win ANYTHING. Keep on spouting your anti Laudrup crap Dai,and I'll just keep reminding you of the FACTS. If anyone's "attitude stinks",it's yours.
THAT'S MY OPINION YANK, NO WHERE NEAR AS JAUNDICED AS YOURS. i TOOK YOUR LOVER BOY LAUDRUP OUT OF THE EQUATION AT THE GET GO, AND HIGHLIGHTED WHAT'S GONE ON UNDER MONK BUT YOUR JAUNDICED VIEW BIT WHEN THERE WAS NO REASON TO DO SO.
Jaundiced means yellow. As in the poor metabolisation of haem by the liver after the breakdown of red blood cells. Do one or both of you mean biased?
Vetch - I agree with you that Laudrup did not nearly get us relegated. How could he, there were still 18 matches and 54pts to play for? However, when he left, although we were in 12th position, we were, nevertheless, only a couple of points above the relegation zone. Similarly, Monk didn't save us from relegation, but he did manage (the team) to extend the points gap to 9pts between us and the relegation zone. However, Monk did not improve our league position. I agree that under Laudrup we secured 24pts to 18pts earned under Monk. However, Laudrup's points came from 24 games, Monk's from 14. In absolute terms, Laudrup contributed 33% more, but in relative terms (pts per game), Monk was 28.6% higher. Laudrup obviously won a major trophy during his first season. However, whilst Monk has yet to win a major trophy, I disagree that he has yet to actually win/achieve anything. He has won 51pts from 37 PL games (incidentally, the best return of any of the 3 guys who have managed us in the PL) and he was Manager of the Month in August 2014, matching Brendan who won the same award in January 2012.
Hi Taff,a well reasoned post,and nothing controversial to fall out about. My post was in response to the Laudrup hater from Penclawdd. He really DOES have a problem with him,and I like to wind him up. Stats and opinions re different Managers are endemic here now,and will continue,until Monk,a) leaves,or,b)he actually wins/achieves something meaningful. I don't want to rain on your parade,but winning the Manager of the Month Award is rather insignificant, and not something I would boast about. Monk's points haul still only has the team in 9th,which is where the team finished under Laudrup. One could argue that Monk is benefitting from a particularly poor Premier League. See how fallacious stats can be? Monk would have to win a major Cup,take us into Europe,get to the later stages of the tournament,play good football,and finish 9th,or above,to be as good as Laudrup. Not going to happen. Just my opinion. Other opinions are available,and worthy of consideration. All the above doesn't gloss over the fact that,in general terms,the team has regressed,and playing crap most of the time. Some are happy with that,however.
The FACTS speak for themselves. If those at The Club don't understand them,or choose to ignore,that's their problem,not mine.
It was meant as a double play on the same word .... I see I must avoid sophistication and keep it simple.
Everything you said was an indirect swipe that at Laudrup through your simpleton hatchet job on players who were performing well for us, some of our best players in fact and ranked at the top of the league vis a vis their peers. Vis a vis ... a teaspoonful of sophistication there for you, don't choke on it.
We were like this under Laudrup both in the league and in Europe under his second season. Difference with Monk is, we are WINNING games and picking up points. We also arguably played our best football in Europe under Monk too
The one thing Monk is not going to do for us is provide 3.95 million euro in revenue from our participation in the Europa League. Laudrup did and his "suspects" did that. In fact we achieved round 32 performance money, and if we'd beaten Napoli, which Laudrup had the tactical tools to achieve, we'd have earned even more.
We just about scraped through against teams we had never heard of. Monk nearly got us through against Napoli.
Monk played one game with Laudrup's lads and lost .... our best football Valley, really? I guess it all goes to player attitude .... so sayeth the Monkster ... so of course he's not culpable.
