Well, if Dai's theory that our success under ML was all down to a carryover of BR's Swansea, then us staying in the PL must be down to ML....so we should give him credit.
I've argued the death out of this with him in the past and he gives Laudrup no credit for the way we played until the cup final.
Was ML a success at Swansea of course he was, was the appointment of Monk the correct one after ML's sacking yes it was we're still in the Premiership. Is Monk the right man to take us forward only time will tell, now that he has the job I'll back him and the club to the hilt. The board are playing a high risk strategy game in appointing him. It's the cheapest and easiest option but so so risky, his lack of experience will undoubtedly be tested during next season, I hope for the clubs sake he succeeds. In all sports it's the seasoned experienced pro that more often succeeds at the top. You don't hire a go-kart champion to drive in Formula one.
Id rather keep things financially low key and risk relegation than spend big, unwisely, and risk relegation . I dont mind going down if we are financially sound . I dont mind the route Huw took after the sacking , its the sacking that was the absolute blunder
first game we played the Swansea way and won. we kept on playing that way right up to the cup final and won.....What went wrong after that ?????? did we stop playing all of a sudden or could it be that laudrup changed our playing style and training routine and every other part of the swansea philosophy that the players were use too maybe..........you decide and see if you can come up with a really good enough reason why we ended the season with the worst form in the premiership and have been poor this season until he was sacked ??? But wait a minute law and behold we put monk In charge and he begins to reverse laudrups ways back to the swans way and WOW what a transformation in the way we were playing again. we went from 2 points off relegation to reaching safety with two games to spare and our first back to back win all season......Do you think that its a miracle or a coincidence or maybe laudrup was wrong...again you decide..
Yes your right, they have won our first back to back games in 17 months. Did you also know: - Monk failed to win in 9 consecutive games, (he has managed us for 15 games, which makes it all the more impressive) ML's worst run since joining Swansea, was no win in 7. - new record HJ/GM - Monk in 6 games, against bottom half clubs lost 2 (33%). ML played 11 games against bottom half clubs this season, losing 2 (18%) - new record GM/HJ - Monk has won 26.7% games, drawn 26.7% games and lost 46.7% games he has managed - ML this season had won 32.4% of games, drawn 24.3% of his games, and lost 43.2% of his games, new record HJ/GM - Based on games played in all comps (cups included in points total) Monk has played 15 games, and picked up 16/45 points. At a rate of 35.5%. ML this season in 37 games, picked up 45/111 at a rate of 40.5%. - New record HJ/GM In his time with us, its also worth noting that ML played 31 bottom clubs, losing just 6 (19%) with Monks ratio right now, that would have been 10.2 games lost. He also managed us for 84 games, winning 34.5%, drawing 28.6% and losing 36.9%. In those 84 games ML picked up 111/252 = rate of 44% I don't mind congratulating Monk on getting the points we needed to survive, but to say he kept us up, or saved us is laughable.
Not a coincidence or miracle. The explanation is quite simple - the best starting XI could be played and we played two teams that are at their lowest performance point of the season in Newcastle and Villa. No Europa League to force squad rotation. No injury list full of key players. It's not rocket science. A ship sails best with calm seas and a good wind at its back .... and under those circumstances it doesn't really make much difference who the "captain" is, sail a straight course and the crew knows what to do. Who the "captain" is makes a difference during rough seas, adverse winds, torn sails and with most of the crew chumming over the side. We haven't yet seen Monk perform under the sort of adversity that ML had to face ... and for that matter that Sousa had to face.
Id also like to mention the stats since the cup final, after all, its what many use to justify the sacking of ML. Since the cup final, until his sacking. ML was in charge of 48 games. Of those 48 games, ML had won 14. He drew 12 and lost 22. Win rate = 29.2 Draw rate = 25% Loss rate = 45.8% So as many would make you believe, thats a terrible return from ML, that is every competitive games since the capital one cup final, a game that Dai would have you believe is when ML took over how the team played. So then if ML was that bad, and some of you are saying he was rightfully sacked. Then how the hell can you explain to me why you are not shouting for Monk's head, unless you are being hypocritical? Monk has been in charge of 15 games, Of those 15 games, GM had won 4. He drew 4 and lost 7. Monk has won 26.7% games, drawn 26.7% games and lost 46.7% games he has managed ML had a better win rate, a better loss rate. Yet you criticise him as a manger, and praise GM as manager. You got to be ****ing kidding me. And you wonder why there are some of us who try and defend our past manager, from I am sorry, idiots who cannot see further than their own noses.
Everyone knows we were pretty lucky in those back to back wins , not that we werent due a little luck relief .
What's the stats looking like for the league games only for both Monk and Laudrup (after the COC) Swans? As for Monk going, I personally would prefer a more experienced manager next season as I have stated several times. That said, we were 2 points away from relegation when ML was sacked and we are currently 7 points from the relegation zone under Monk, which eventually, is the only stat that matters.
"That said,we were 2 points away from relegation when ML was sacked". But then came Monk,and he had all those "easy/easier" games to look forward to. So,it would appear that ML had a harder time than Monk.
I think we did change style after so much had been said about us being one dimensional and having no punch in the final third. All of a sudden 20 - 30 yard passes were preferred to our short keep ball style. In other words we became a little more like all the other teams in 'our league'. While we have had a little success results wise in the last few weeks it has been playing a style that is even more like the dross. For me our last 'Swansea style' performance was away to Napoli. My fear is and has been for much of the season is we don't have players good enough (in that style) to out-Stoke Stoke etc. We are successful when we are being different.
I had purposely used all games, as both managers had different priorities, ML focused on cup, GM focused on league, so league alone will I assume fair better for Monk than ML. But here it is anyway. Monk W: 4 D: 3 L: 5 W: 33.3% D: 25% L: 41.7% ML W: 8 D: 9 L: 18 W: 22.8% D: 25.7% L: 51.4% Which as I expected would show as Monk being the better of the two in terms of league. Which I guess is why I have always tried pointing out when making my point of view in the past, is also the calibre of teams played in that time, ML having to play a lot more against top 7 clubs than Monk has done 15 of ML's 35 games were against top 7 teams (42.8%. Compared to Monks 4/12. (33.3%) I suppose a fairer reflection too would be this season alone for ML. Again, managerial preferences would not be accounted for. ML W: 6 D: 6 L: 12 W: 25% D: 25% L: 50% Which again, shows Monk as the better of the two, but again, Monk plays 4 of 12 against top 7 clubs (33.3%), ML had played 10 of 24 games against top 7 (41.6%) which will again, distort the results. Just as Monk playing 6 (50%) against bottom half, compared to ML's 11 (45.8%) I as you guys know am part of the "why the **** did we sack ML group", which is why I bring up the case of differing opposition as being a factor that many seem to ignore, such as his run in Dec and Jan being so tough, 7 of the 11 premier league games in that time were against top 7 teams. Which goes a long way to explaining why he only won 2 of those 11 games. Picking up just 9 points. Not to mention the injuries we had during those 2 months, which I know some like to forget about, but they were tough times for us. And I do feel bad for the bloke, yes there may have been issues behind closed doors, but I don't believe the results side of it was ever a problem for us. After all, playing 41.6% of his 24 games against top 7 sides, he was still managing a point per game, even with focusing on Europe. So was he really as bad as people make out, for me, no chance in hell. For me personally, he was doing his job on the pitch just fine. People were going on about the training being a problem, but didn't Ash even come out afterwards saying something about how we couldn't get a decent training plan going with Europe? (am sure someone did, or along those lines anyway). I mean he wasn't even backed in the January window, there is noway that Lita and Emnes were ML choices. And a way to try and prove that, is by lookign at his results per group in the league Top 7 - 10 games - 1 point = 0.1 points per game 8-10 - 3 games - 4 points = 1.33 points per game 11-17 - 7 games - 13 points = 1.86 points per game Bottom 3 - 4 games - 6 points = 1.5 points per game When you look at Monks ratio over them groups Top 7 - 4 games - 1 point = 0.25 points per game 8-10 - 2 games - 4 points = 2 points per game 11-17 - 4 games - 4 points = 1 point per game Bottom 3 - 2 games - 6 points = 3 points per game So if you were to use GM's raio, with ML's games you would see this Top 7 - 10 games @ 0.25 per game = 2.5 points 8-10 - 3 games @ 2 per game = 6 points 11-17 - 7 games @ 1 per game = 7 points Bottom 3 - 4 games @ 3 per game = 12 points That would give Monk 27.5 So is Monks focus on League, and not on cup, worth the 3.5 points? Or that ML had the horrid run of injuries and matches throughout January? For me there really is very little difference between the two. Which is why I cannot fathom Dai's approach of hate ML, yet adore GM, when they are really no different results wise.
Has Monk been confirmed yet, or is it still just a strong rumor. Personally I think HJ's recent remarks about it being a big decision and one for the long term point to Monk.
So what we can conclude from this then is that Monk is better in the league than Laudrup As for the 3.5 points', given our position, I'd say they are more important than the cups ATM.
