With most of them being injured on and off, I'm not sure how much an attitude can do from the stands.
They weren't injured from February to November though and we were pants then We were poor under ML a long time before the injuries kicked in.
What are you going on about? "Flirting" is a term used regularly in the football world for football teams who are generally thought of to be mid-table, but hover a dangerously low amount of points away from the relegation places approaching the final run in. It's not my word, it's used throughout the entire British press when describing struggling football teams. So don't pin it to me and tell me what my 'scale' is - I actually find your comments quite offensive and nothing to do with football. You can twist it however you like, we were 'flirting' with relegation (again, just for you Yankee, not my word, just a general widely used term). It's not saying we were going to get relegated, it's just that we were still in the mix of teams that the general public perceived to be relegation candidates with a third of the season to go. When we played Cardiff, the first game post-Laudrup, Cardiff were in the relegation zone and if they'd have won they would have gone level on points with us. That's how close it was at the time. Add in that we'd only won 1 in 10 and we were most certainly getting drawn into the relegation 'dogfight' (that's not my word either by the way, Yankee).
I won't buy into the injury theory for Laudrup either. If the same people claim that the injuries and suspensions for Monk this season are just ifs, buts and maybes, then I'm sorry, but it's the same for Laudrup last season. You can't have it both ways. "If Laudrup hadn't had so many injuries, then we'd have been doing much better." (not a direct quote) A big 'if' and nobody actually knows. What we do know is that Laudrup's squad purchases (Cañas, Pozuelo, Lamah and Vasquez) when called upon because of injuries could not perform at a good enough level to pick up enough points in the PL. And what we do know is that, with the injuries, Laudrup was 2 points above relegation heading into the derby with form of 1 win in 10. His squad performed awesomely up until the Capitol One Cup triumph, but the moment we lifted that trophy, we took our foot off the gas (1 win in 10 to end the season), and unfortunately, despite numerous squad additions, weren't capable of putting our foot back on the gas at any point during his second season. It was time for him to go. I am not saying that Monk was the right man to replace him, that still remains to be seen - and judging by the football at the moment while ignoring the points tally, he needs some experienced help. But I will always hold the opinion that it was the right time to sack Laudrup. We didn't do it the right way by sacking him by e-mail or whatever it was, that was awful, but it was the right time. Our team was a mess, leaking goals and not scoring, or even looking like scoring any - against West Ham (who were in the relegation zone at the time) in his final game we had no shots on target and no decent chances when we were up a man for the last half an hour. We were shocking.
You have to hear the players.. If I was a player I'd go for Laudrup obviously cos' he's as close as you get to god in my country. However if the players do not like him, of course you can not continue and it would seem specially the UK players could not buy into his ways or like him and then he has to go..
It's a shame but I really hope he will take on the Denmark national team as in a couple of years we will have a real world class team who could win world cup en euro championship.. And laudrup could handle the talent imo!!
http://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2015/february/06/all-that-jazz? Anyone else seen this? “I do love to bomb on as a full-back. At Swansea the full-backs are a bit restricted from doing that but at Fulham Kit likes to let you express yourself." Considering thats where our main strengths have been over the previous seasons, could explain Rangels massive drop in form?
BigK .... We had won 1 in 10 with Tremble in goal and against a significantly stiffer set of opponents - many in the top 7. Monk's record against top 7 teams is just as dismal and in none of that run by Laudrup were we embarrassed 0-5 like we have been against Chelsea.
Ifs, buts and maybes, Yankee. "If we'd have an easier set of fixtures, we'd have been doing better". Laudrup played against the then top 7 (MANC, MANU, ARS, LIV, TOT, EVE, CHE) ten times in his second season. We picked up 1 point against Liverpool at home and lost the rest. That's right, 9 losses. This season, we've beaten Man United away, Arsenal at home, and beaten a Top 4 Southampton away. I'll exclude the draw away at Everton as they are not currently a Top 7 team. So, against the top 7 at the same point of the season, Monk has 9 times more points against the Top 7 than Laudrup last season. I want to reiterate that I'm not a fan of the football now as much as you aren't. But, a) it can't be argued that the points return Monk is achieving is, so far, excellent; and b) it can't be argued that the football and results Laudrup was serving up at the end of his tenure were any good. So, we passed the ball more with Laudrup? The second season was passing for the sake of passing and we were going backwards fast. Some quotes in the press after the West Ham game. Remember, West Ham were in the relegation zone when we lost to them: BBC: "West Ham striker Andy Carroll set up two goals for captain Kevin Nolan before being sent off as the Hammers beat relegation rivals Swansea...They continued to struggle after the break and, even when Carroll was sent off, the visitors could not find a breakthrough as they failed to trouble Hammers keeper Adrian." Guardian: "Swansea, who were toothless without Michu, are in trouble based on this lethargic performance. They did not have a shot on target...Indeed for all Swansea's possession, they rarely threatened West Ham." Goal: "But despite their territorial dominance, Laudrup's side - who are now winless in six league games away from home - were impotent in attack..." FourFourTwo: "Swansea predictably racked up the passes in the opening quarter of an hour, yet the home side looked more threatening as they pressed on either flank...One of the reasons Swansea are just two points above the relegation zone is their inability to make their most of their monopolisation of matches. Laudrup’s side have scored just 8 goals on their travels this season (only Crystal Palace, Cardiff and Hull have managed fewer) and on Saturday’s second half showing you can see why." I'm not on this thread trying to champion Monk. I'm on here to try and cut down the love affair with Laudrup. I loved that first season as much as anyone, I love watching the second DVD that came with Jack to a King detailing the Capital One Cup triumph. But this utterly bizarre notion that we were a better team during Laudrup's second season is nonsense. We were a different type of team (and, choosing between the two, I did prefer Laudrup's style of play), but in Laudrup's second season we were, quite simply, an unsuccessful team that over-passed the ball and couldn't score. OG, yes own-goal, was our highest scorer for Christ's sake. It was equally as frustrating to watch as this season but for different reasons. Match after match we would dominate play, much like we were dominated by Southampton on Sunday, but instead of leaving the game wondering how we didn't win, we'd leave games wondering how we'd barely troubled their goal after having 65% possession.
And, can I add, the same "Tremble" that played in every round of the successful Capital One Cup campaign? Who kept 2 clean sheets against Chelsea in the semi-final? Nobody called him "Tremble" during those matches.
It's because you must understand Laudrup is not only good with players, but also good with goalkeepers!!
BigK ... you now have Monk. I don't know why you choose to denigrate, dismiss and practically despise the events, time and people that brought us the greatest moments of success in our history, in our centenary season and after .... but you and others do ... repeatedly. It's almost like a religion, irrational and dogmatic, refuting fact where it contradicts your myth, where everything contra is heresy and like all religions what you evangelize is mythology. Knock yourself out over it. Your loss. The rest of us are happy to deal with reality. We accept and honor Laudrup and his squad for their achievement (ironically HJ has expressed more than once how much he enjoyed and appreciated working with Laudrup .... was he lying ... is he a heretic). We deal with Monk. Hopefully someday we will again reach the highs of the Laudrup years and perhaps surpass them.
What are you talking about?? Read my posts properly, damn it!! "I loved that first season as much as anyone, I love watching the second DVD that came with Jack to a King detailing the Capital One Cup triumph." "...choosing between the two, I did prefer Laudrup's style of play." Both quotes of myself in my last post. I'm not denigrating anything. I'm heralding his first season and cup win, and criticising his second season, which was pretty terrible. I love reminiscing to Season 2012-13. But, Laudrup's Swans of 2013-14 are not a team that I will reminisce about that often because, to be quite honest, they were pretty bad! There were cup highlights (FA Cup United away - I was there ; Valencia away) which I'll remember, but the season I will try to forget. Give me Laudrup's team of 2012-13 any day of the week. But leave 2013-14 at the door. Laudrup was sacked because, from February 2013 to February 2014, he won just 8 league matches in 35 attempts. Relegation form. I am also 'dealing' with Monk, just as you are. I also said in my last post, "I want to reiterate that I'm not a fan of the football now as much as you aren't." I don't like Monk's style of football, but I'm not going to argue against the fact that he's picking up a lot of points. Neither can I argue against the fact that Laudrup's second season may have seen domination of possession, but saw very little return of points. Neither can I argue against the fact that Laudrup's first season was the most successful in our history as a football club. It's just a crying shame that he couldn't keep it up. Just because I thought it was the right time to sack Laudrup does not suddenly make me a Monk-lover. IMO it was the right time to sack Laudrup, but I would have preferred a more experienced name as our manager and I'm still waiting for Monk to prove me wrong. Points are points, but Swansea fans do expect an essence of style, me included.
I have read your posts and your responses to mine. You seek every opportunity to dismiss facts to support Laudrup's "flirting" with relegation ... when we all know he was coming out of an extremely tough schedule of fixtures, carrying injuries and suspensions after successfully navigated the Europa League group round and got us past United at Old Trafford in the FA cup. Monk then proceeded to squander the opportunities for success that he had inherited .... who can forget our comical display at Everton in the FA Cup in terms of team selection, substitutions and performance. While at the same time using the same factors to void Monk of culpability in his poor performances. You want it both ways. If every time somebody "flirted" with adversity they were fired we'd all be unemployed. The Board have just seen fit to sell one of the leagues best forwards in Bony and top goal scorers in 2014 for a fire sale price .... with an underwhelming Gomis as his replacement ... that's HOPE if ever there was, hope is not a strategy it's wishful thinking .... now isn't this "flirting" with relegation. If we don't score goals and get points that's where we will end up. And before you cite the smash and grab at Soton .... yeah, yeah, yeah, one swallow does not make a spring.
Pozuelo was very good, nippy and offered something different against brick wall defences. Was Vasquez any worse than Oliviera? Don't know yet. Lamah really wasn't up to much but Canas was a more secure option at defensive centre back than Shelvey has been until one of our players started stirring behind the scenes. To suggest we were dead and buried under Laudrup as some have is ludicrous - Yankee has summed up the situation well. By this time last season we had played 10 more competitive games and been travelling across Europe with a small squad and for whatever reason the squad was not bolstered in January 14. When Garry took over we were getting over an horrendous injury backlog and had a very easy run in to the finishing post. Would we have done well under Laudrup? We will never know. What I do know is we have played dire football this season, and it's not about tikka-takka, it is the inability to string passes together, it's about sitting back and losing leads, its about lack of adventure, it's about hit and hope passes out of defence. Last season and before we were black and white - this season we are grey. Other than Montero we have no one 'interesting' in the first team. Monk has achieved a lot this season but we still have a much greater chance of losing under Monk than any manager since Addison. We are less likely to draw and have picked up more points, primarily from teams we should be taking points off. Our fixtures against top 6/8 teams this season are well spaced out and we had limited interest in competitions other than the League.
So is that why Jazz was sent out? Another player Monk can't get on with? And my criticism of Taylor seems less accurate (still don't rate him though)
The only positive that counts for me is we sacked the Muppet before he did any more damage, If monk were to manage like him then i would be the first to call for his head but so far he has done very well so how can you fault the guy for keeping us in the top half all season.......there is no comparison its there for all to see..
