We'd be higher up the table...........................

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The style of play would be better under Ole. We'd have more footballers still at the club. Both of which are very much a good thing.

He also signed Macheda = LEGEND! <laugh> I promise that's may last Macheda comment until he plays again <ok>

Ole and a good right hand man who knew how to set up a defence and get the fitness levels right could have worked. The coaching setup he had, however, probably would have resulted in a league position similar to what we have now. It may have been a little better.

As a few others have said neither were going to have us competing at the very top of this division which is where we should be aiming. Our board are probably going to have to make one of the most important decisions in the clubs history. A 3rd managerial **** up in a row could well be too much for our broken finances to take and may be the straw that breaks the back of Tan's seemingly decreasing interest.

L1/L2 obscurity and a very long way back to the top end of the Championship never mind PL loom if they get it so wrong again.
 
VincentTansTache said:
Neither manager is good enough. I think Ole would probably be around the same place in the table but maybe for different reasons. Rather than a load of League 1 and championship players we'd have a load more Norwegians and an unsettled starting 11. It's mental that we didn't even talk to Pulis, who probably would have been a perfect fit for us.
Click to expand...

That is still killing me. When you hear radio 5live say that Pulis had lost 1 in 9 since arriving (before the Villa games) with a **** Brom side it doesn't help either.
 
Dai Jones said:
.

To me the one thing constant is centre mid-field Whitts & Gunnar.
.
Click to expand...

Which pair were in central midfield for our last league win <confused>

Who took the corner for our last goal form a set piece <confused>

Who floated 6-7 ineffective corners in last Saturday <confused>

What was the score when or most effective player was hauled off last Saturday<confused>

When did golden balls [Whittingham] last score from a direct free kick<confused>

Ralls and Gunnarrson is not a bad mix so long as Ralls is told to get up the field more. Too often last game, both him and goldenballs were both the wrong side of the centre circle.

The real issue for me is the lack of a ball carrying central midfielder like Mutch. City just do not as they have no personnel available to them to do it, is play through the middle of the park on the deck. It's all get it out to the fullbacks, wingers who are crowded out, and invariably pass it backwards or sideways.

City must be a dream to play against ponderous, slow, incohesive and predictable.
 
Most of us were calling for Ole's head! I stand by my guns, he wasnt good enough... But then we were lumped with Slade!
 
It also makes it easy for other sides to push up and pressurise us.

Look at Charlton Saturday, Jolly Rog was forever urging his team forward, constricting midfield and giving our ponderous central players no time or room.

In saying that in McAleney and Noone we had players capable of breaking them down on the flanks. So what does Slade do, takes off McAleney and gets Noone to switch wings when he was having his most effective game so far. <doh>

Kennedy did well when he came on but we lost the impetus we had until then. Until that point we were about 60/40 up on the possession stats. Unheard of so far this season.
 
Alright then guys, I'll put this another way.

If you knew back then who we would get to replace Ole and how the effect of his tenure would turn out, would you have preferred to take our chances sticking with Ole?

Simple question I suppose in hindsight, except we know where we are under Slade, but under Ole itg is all conjecture.
 
Oldsparkey said:
I disagree Bluey - now there's a surprise!.......<laugh>

I reckon by the law of averages, Ole would have got it right with little more than a dozen games more. We'd be challenging top 6 even if not already in it.

On the other hand and by the law of averages again, Slade is worse than average.
Click to expand...


Bloody hell sparkey what have you been smoking....ole was the worst manager in cardiff's history that makes slade look good.....<laugh>
 
Disagree. I'd prefer Ole to Slade. At least OGS had an excuse that he was relatively inexperienced and would learn on the job. Slade's been doing it for donkeys years and still produces a load of crap. Also at least I liked Ole as a person but Slade just gets on my wick.
 
BluefromBridgend said:
It also makes it easy for other sides to push up and pressurise us.

Look at Charlton Saturday, Jolly Rog was forever urging his team forward, constricting midfield and giving our ponderous central players no time or room.

In saying that in McAleney and Noone we had players capable of breaking them down on the flanks. So what does Slade do, takes off McAleney and gets Noone to switch wings when he was having his most effective game so far. <doh>

Kennedy did well when he came on but we lost the impetus we had until then. Until that point we were about 60/40 up on the possession stats. Unheard of so far this season.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this game changing sub a fair bit since the weekend. Maybe he should have taken one of the front 2 off (anyone except Sparky is allowed to choose which one), pushed the superb McAleney central and bought on Kennedy?

Aside from that there is no way OGS was our worst manager, we're suffering that fate now and for that reason alone I'd take OGS over Slade based purely on the fact he isn't Slade.
 
Ole had to go
Our highly paid players had to go
More of our highly paid players will have to go in the summer
These have all been been replaced by lower paid managers and players
In the same way costs have been cut around the club - even down to getting rid of programme sellers
The fact is we are financially in the doggy doodoos and with our benefactor clearly unwilling to continue with an unlimited flow of funds to prop up the club we have to cut our cloth to live within our means.
Like it or not we will continue to recruit lower paid players & journeymen from the lower reaches of the the championship / league one for the forseeable future and will remain a mid table club with all the frustrations that go with it. So long as those players show effort and fight for the shirt I am ok with that.
However that does not excuse the tactical errors like those we witnessed against Charlton on Saturday when leading 1-0 and as fans we are entitled to question that.
But - unless you can find another manager at the same or lower rate of pay, who will do better with the same or less resources as Slade, then I think he is here to stay - at least until Tan sells up.
 
As Sparky said though, this decision was made after 8 games. We could easily have been in auto contention had the right man been appointed.

The hugely negative decision to appoint Slade put us on the 'cut your cloth according' path we are certainly on. The question is whether Tan is willing to twist again or if he's sticking? If he sticks with Slade the club will continue to struggle, probably get relegated within a couple of seasons and ultimately be worthless. Tan will lose everything he has put in. The only way Tan can every hope to realise anything from his investment is to find a setup that can deliver PL football again.
 
Barry Tiger said:
Ole had to go
Our highly paid players had to go
More of our highly paid players will have to go in the summer
These have all been been replaced by lower paid managers and players
In the same way costs have been cut around the club - even down to getting rid of programme sellers
The fact is we are financially in the doggy doodoos and with our benefactor clearly unwilling to continue with an unlimited flow of funds to prop up the club we have to cut our cloth to live within our means.
Like it or not we will continue to recruit lower paid players & journeymen from the lower reaches of the the championship / league one for the forseeable future and will remain a mid table club with all the frustrations that go with it. So long as those players show effort and fight for the shirt I am ok with that.
However that does not excuse the tactical errors like those we witnessed against Charlton on Saturday when leading 1-0 and as fans we are entitled to question that.
But - unless you can find another manager at the same or lower rate of pay, who will do better with the same or less resources as Slade, then I think he is here to stay - at least until Tan sells up.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true banker Mart.

However, look at 2 of this season's success stories - Brentford and Bournemouth - lower league managers, players signed, in the main, from lower leagues but with the right management they have achieved way above expectations. It is possible with the right people in the right places.

What's that? Oh yes, we have Slade <doh> <yikes>

And not forgetting who are next 2 games are against, Brentford and Bournemouth!!!!!
 
Stevoldinho said:
As Sparky said though, this decision was made after 8 games. We could easily have been in auto contention had the right man been appointed.

The hugely negative decision to appoint Slade put us on the 'cut your cloth according' path we are certainly on. The question is whether Tan is willing to twist again or if he's sticking? If he sticks with Slade the club will continue to struggle, probably get relegated within a couple of seasons and ultimately be worthless. Tan will lose everything he has put in. The only way Tan can every hope to realise anything from his investment is to find a setup that can deliver PL football again.
Click to expand...

This is the really baffling thing Stevo.

The abject performance against Middlesbrough which signaled the end for Ole was actually only Championship game no. 7 of the season. I'm not saying it wasn't right at the time, but why turf him out so early unless you were doing it to get in a guy to pull it back on the original track? We'd also had two away wins in the Capital One Cup under him in that time and had drawn Bournemouth at home for round 3 - we all know what happened that night under Young and Gabbidon.

This was all at the start of September and when you look back just 2 months earlier to the summer transfer dealings, it doesn't make sense.

We'd got some decent cash in for Caulker, Medel and Mutch because they just didn't want to be here so that was fair enough. Marshall is a Prem class keeper and we could easily have sold him back then for £8M or so to Arsenal or Spurs - but we didn't we kept him. We only needed some cover at CB at Championship level with Hudson, Turner and Connolly already here, and a couple of mill would have been fine to sort that. So what did we do? We wento out and spent £10M on Morrison and Manga - that was not done to stay in the Championship.

There's no way Tan would have given up on the season at such an early stage. I can't see the logic in sacking Ole and appointing Slade to oversee the breakup of the ambition that he had at that time. Something else must have happened those first couple of months of this season to bring about such an obvious policy change at the club.

Slade wasn't appointed to bring success to the club and take us up as we were lead to believe. We were told he was "the right man for the job" but weren't told what that job was. It looks obvious now his terms of reference were to take this club back half a dozen years and start again - only this time with about £100M more debt hanging around our necks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back