Do you have a source for this data please? I've checked using Transfermarkt and it appears your stats are wrong.
Blah, blah. His words are meaningless to me. I have no interest in any excuses for failure. Simply show the progress on the pitch or go.
Should only count since he was perm. His temp spell is irrelevant, he played a different formation entirely. Now he plays to not lose. Ole out!
I included his total record for full transparency. I fully understand it was a totally different team back then, playing a totally different way to now. It's just easier to compare records this way isn't it?
So he is shite at everything. Not surprised.
For you.
Come on. They count the Rochadale game as 6-5 win. It was 1-1.
Chose and chose. We all agreed something should be done in defense and the club did something. Money don’t grow on trees and the club decided to fix that part first. We could have gone for fixing attack but it would also mean leaking goals. He would get stick either way. And for what I know Ole wasn’t the only one deciding.
If you look at statistic and believe, the answer is yes. If my sources are correct.
I took my data from a website below. If you believe in it and if it is correct. I haven’t dubblechecked it.
Haha you can't do that. Nothing fundamentally changed between him as an interim manager and him as a permanent manager, besides signing a contract. You can't make arbitrary cutoffs to make him look worse.
He don’t even bloody play them. What’s he talking about.
It's a misleading title, but can't help thinking. Why he had Rashy as main striker last season if he genuinely think Martial is all that?
That's weird. Well spotted. Thanks.
He's a Jose level shit talker, but you won't hear a word about it..
Please consider Ole's tenure when he became the manager. Its quite clear that "the new manager bounce" thing happened.
so trueYes. But mourinho got the boot. While ole got praised and should be given 3 years contract and a 300m budget.
How close were we to the relegation zone when Jose was sacked?
Who is saying that? Name and shame.
Dunno, can't remember, but we were only heading in one direction, and it wasn't up.
Actually we haven't got anything. When Mourinho was sacked we were 11 points behind after 17 games and were 6th in the table 14 points ahead of the relegation candidates Burnley. Right now we are already 10 points behind having played 7 fewer games and are 15th in the table and are just 2 points from relegation scrap.
We were 6th. And now we are 14th. You think we are going up now? We have been going down since the season started.
We win today, and we will quite comfortably, we could be 7th, with a far happier camp, still not great, but....
That's great, but it was in December. After 10 games we were only 5 points away from the CL spot and 12 points away from the relegation zone. So, which one is better?
So we didn't win a title for 3 years and it was bad? Jesus there's a problem with your logic there, and it's not because we sold Beckham
you need to revisit that era and look at all the factors. Our strength (or lack of according to you) is immaterial anyway since we are discussing whether the club had media was always slave to the media side, not whether its as good or bad that we allowed it or not. We had Nike adverts coming out of our arses, football songs you could hear on MTv, Cole had his own music video.. Giggs had personal documentaries and personalised boots like R9. What would you class as media in a world that didn’t have YouTube or twitter? Dwight Yorke was going out with a page 3 model I don’t remember that being top secret...So we didn't win a title for 3 years and it was bad? Jesus there's a problem with your logic there, and it's not because we sold Beckham
Re Lingard, he was just one of my points which you wanted to nit pick on. I've actually provided examples of other managers who currently handle players and their media distractions better than we do. I've given examples of how the club were one of the slowest to adapt to media channels themselves (twitter and YouTube both post Ferguson). And then, I gave Lingards example.
But alas, all you can weirdly claim is that we were a brand whore before then. Which is an absolute pile of wank. Only two players really got away with it and that's because they did the business on the pitch. Ferguson was known to have an iron fist otherwise on the social media side. There's tons of articles you can dig up on the matter, so it's not even an argument at this stage.
Wow 30%. Surely that is less than the Southampton boss.
Sponsorships were always part of the game, and who footballers date in their personal lives is not related to the issue. The club itself has become far more commercial driven in its objectives and succumbs to media driven hype way more post Woodward, not in the Fergie days. You're basically loosening the rules to suggest anyone media related is a problem at the club.
His shit talk is all positive though. He's closer to Brendan than Jose.
This. It's sensationalist bullshit that tabloids use and an inherently dishonest way of making a point. If you are going to make a cutoff, take his entire time here or this season alone.
See this guy gets it, and he wants Ole out.
Based on the sacking of Moyes, VG and Jose I think there are only two cases:
