I never ignored the "flirting" comment. I addressed it head on and I still hold the opinion that we were flirting with relegation. In his last game, we lost to a team in the relegation zone. The following game, Cardiff, who were also in the relegation zone would have gone level on points with us if they'd won. It's generally perceived that if you're in touching distance of the relegation places after Christmas, you're in the relegation dogfight unless you claw your way out fast. We didn't, and at the start of February, we were still very much in touching distance of the relegation spots. So, we were "flirting". Not married or in a long term relationship with relegation. Flirting with it. I won't reply further on the matter as I've been pretty clear now. You realise that Laudrup wasn't just sacked on a whim and a prayer, right? He was on a run of W8-D9-L18. Of those 35 games, 15 were against 'Top 7'. He picked up 33 points in those 35 games which is relegation form. Normally, you get 14 'Top 7' games in 38. It's not like he had an incredibly tough 35 games overloaded with Top 7 fixtures. He had one more than he may have expected. His main problem was that he couldn't find enough wins against teams we should have beat, we had to settle for so many frustrating draws in which our football wasn't crisp or adventurous enough to break most teams down.
Laudrup was a manager who took the Europa League seriously and usually rotated his stronger players for the Europa League (either playing weaker players in the league, or overplaying/'burning out' his first team on the weekend). So even though he played his best team in the Europa league, he still lost twice and drew twice against the whippings boys, Kuban Krasnodar. We may have qualified, but did we play good football in the group apart from Valancia away? I went to every home match in the Europa League and we were poor in all of them. Deserving losers against Valencia, lucky winners against St Gallen, and also a poor game against Kuban resulting in them unsurprisingly stealing a draw. We deserved to lose at St Gallen and were pressured into another late equaliser at Krasnodar. We were kings of scoring early and trying to hold onto leads by passing for the ball for the sake of passing at the back, as if we were trying to bore the opposition to death. If Monk had been in charge of those games, the "Laudrup brigade" would have been up in arms, saying that despite qualifying, it was some of the worst performances we've seen. Well those performances were poor too, end of! So Laudrup basically went for it in the Europa League and luckily scraped though, and in doing so lowered the priority of the Premier League and that dragged us to touching distance of the relegation places. How can you say "Well, we played poorly but at least Laudrup qualified" and then say "Monk may get points, but we're playing ****!" We played poor under Laudrup for most of that group stage, but Laudrup is forgiven for qualifying and Monk isn't for picking up points this season? There's only one person who wants it both ways in this debate. I want us to play well and pick up points whoever the manager. Neither Monk or Laudrup have done both of those things at one time in the past two seasons, and I'll rightly criticise both of them for it.
Monk squandered Laudrup's opportunities for success? If anyone had watched all the Europa league games, we were not going to win that cup. Our team was not performing like the team from the year before. Napoli at home (I was also there) was our best game in quite a few months at the time and we still couldn't score a goal - obviously bigger and better teams than us know that backs-to-the-wall, smash-and-grabs are sometimes required. We'll never know if Laudrup would have taken us the next round in Naples, unfortunately, but I'd have confidently bet my house on us not winning the Europa League. The FA Cup, I can remember texting my brother lambasting Monk for picking the team he did. But, surprisingly, we actually matched Everton, and the pundits on ITV were particularly surprised. I remember Vasquez missing an open goal by opting not to shoot at it, a comical Neil Taylor backpass, and Jazz giving away a penalty. Not an embarrassing performance without the costly individual errors, even if the team selection was embarrassing on first glance.
Now you have to realise that, above, I have not denigrated the entirety of Laudrup's tenure. I have only laid criticism where I felt it was due (the second season) and I won't ever seriously criticise his 9th place finish or Capital One Cup win. There's only one difference between me and you, Yankee, because, believe it or not, we agree on almost all the Monk issues that are presented at the moment. The difference is that you think that Laudrup's second season would, somehow, have still turned into a success and I don't. In turn, that means that when I criticise Monk, I can do it focusing on the present without a second thought of Laudrup, but, when you criticise Monk, you do it with the past in mind as you still think back to what could have been under Laudrup.
I'll never bow to the fact that Laudrup's second season wasn't one to forget. I don't think we'd have been relegated if he'd stayed (but the possibility was a stark reality), but I don't think we'd have won another cup either. We were a boring side to watch and leaked goals, even if we were a passing one. Likewise, you're never going to agree with me on exactly what I just said.
So, for the sake of my fingers, I suggest a truce. There's a game to worry about today after all! And if you don't want to truce, I'm going to impose it as we've both said our piece and it's clear that it's just one issue that we won't suddenly eventually agree on.
Last edited:
Can we move on? It's all been said hasn't it? To sum up, and whether you're pro or anti-Laudrup he delivered our most successful season ever but we were poor for large parts of last season even though we had some mitigating circumstances. Laudrup was a hero for that brilliant season as far as I'm concerned but his history after one season (possibly two seasons) isn't great with any club he's ever been at. This is a fact. Sending Ki away when we clearly needed him was also a blot for me.
