Jump to content

What do you think is the number one reason why......


Mr X

Recommended Posts

ron atkinson was doing well when he was at ipswich...as was joe kinnear ffs..

 

Heart..hmm he had 16 games..would you say Phill Brown was dynamite after the first 16 games last season with Hull...?

 

I am not on about arry or nige..im just looking at the burley situation and the bigger picture...

 

IMO (and probably many others) he is finished in the football world..well, in england for a long time anyway

 

McMenemy had better players to call on and didn't do as well points wise. I am not saying that Burley is the best manager in the world but in his only full season for us he did okay and we have gone downhill rapidly after he left.

 

Perhaps people have forgotten what is was like to win matches because he was the last manager we had that used to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative fans :mad:

 

And also all the sh!t we have put up with over the past few years, with inconsistent management, the Rupert Lowe debacle, finances. 2 relegations in 6 years hardly enforces a positive attitude. We need wins to get rid of the losing mentality (obviously).

 

I also think we lose fitness and focus in the last 20 mins or so... Fitness we have not seen since the Strachan era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well yes...look who has won the CL in recent years..

 

Man U

Barcelona

AC Milan etc

 

none are penny pinchers are they..lol

 

So you are telling me that they just had one brief spell of spending cash and were instantly successful? I seem to recall all of those clubs spending a great deal of cash over a long period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McMenemy had better players to call on and didn't do as well points wise. I am not saying that Burley is the best manager in the world but in his only full season for us he did okay and we have gone downhill rapidly after he left.

 

Perhaps people have forgotten what is was like to win matches because he was the last manager we had that used to do that.

No matter what you type will ever change my mind about burley...thank god he is getting shown up in a bigger stage and Scotland fans are largely baffled by his selections as much as we were...

 

no point in trying to post counter arguements as my mind will never change about Burley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what you type will ever change my mind about burley...thank god he is getting shown up in a bigger stage and Scotland fans are largely baffled by his selections as much as we were...

 

no point in trying to post counter arguements as my mind will never change about Burley

 

You can think what you like, it doesn't change the stats and what he achieved in a short time. How many away games have we won since (and how many 6-0)?

 

It is just a shame that we didn't keep the services of somebody that knows a thing of two about a "winning mentality" too.

 

Funny that this is a hot topic now but was derrided at the time when we had the "best" exponent of it in the business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep because as we see elsewhere money means success. Remind me again how many European Championships have Chelsea won and how much have they spent?

 

Redknapp was given £6m to keep us up (quite a lot of money for us wouldn't you say?). That worked.

 

Money means success if it is invested wisely. Clearly Burley didn't invest all that wisely as he brought very little success. Personally, as a chairman if I gave a manager £10m to spend, I'd want answers if it didn't work out rather than, "oh well, these things happen, money doesn't bring success blah blah"

 

Chelsea may not have won the CL, but they've been in the semi final about 4 times, lost a final on penalties, won back to back league titles, a couple of FA Cups and a few League Cups. In what possible context could that be called not bringing success.

 

Redknapp was crap also, but I don't remember £6m being spent. £2m for McQ and a couple of £100k for Camara's loan fee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also think we lose fitness and focus in the last 20 mins or so... Fitness we have not seen since the Strachan era.

 

I checked that out once and we actually conceded just as many late (last 10 mins) equalisers and winners as with other Saints managers. The difference being with Strachan is that we often won/drew games against opposition that would normally have beaten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win ratios:-

 

Burley 42.7%

Hoddle 42.3%

McMenemy 41.7%

Bates 39.2%

Sturrock 38.5%

Strachan 35.5%

 

Doesn't make Burley the greatest manager we ever had but does show that he won more his his matches than anybody else, so not such a mug maybe? Certainly much better than Strachan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win ratios:-

 

Burley 42.7%

Hoddle 42.3%

McMenemy 41.7%

Bates 39.2%

Sturrock 38.5%

Strachan 35.5%

 

Doesn't make Burley the greatest manager we ever had but does show that he won more his his matches than anybody else, so not such a mug maybe? Certainly much better than Strachan!

when you have one of the best squads in the league..(or even the best) it sort of helps...but you wont see that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money means success if it is invested wisely. Clearly Burley didn't invest all that wisely as he brought very little success. Personally, as a chairman if I gave a manager £10m to spend, I'd want answers if it didn't work out rather than, "oh well, these things happen, money doesn't bring success blah blah"

 

Chelsea may not have won the CL, but they've been in the semi final about 4 times, lost a final on penalties, won back to back league titles, a couple of FA Cups and a few League Cups. In what possible context could that be called not bringing success.

 

Redknapp was crap also, but I don't remember £6m being spent. £2m for McQ and a couple of £100k for Camara's loan fee

 

What is success? Burley said clearly the aim was the play offs, which he achieved in his only full season. With a slice of luck we might have gone further. We were ceratinly one of the top 6 sides in the Championship that season. What we didn't have was consistency, something you can't buy unless you have a bottomless pit of money. He won nearly 43% of his matches. I don't think he did that badly. Be nice to get somewhere near that now wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you have one of the best squads in the league..(or even the best) it sort of helps...but you wont see that

 

McMenemy had the best squad ever. Bates had Ron Davies and two fine wingers to supply him.

 

Don't you think that Burley would have liked Channon, Keegan, Armstrong etc? But he manged to win more matches with inferior players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McMenemy had the best squad ever. Bates had Ron Davies and two fine wingers to supply him.

Don't you think that Burley would have liked Channon, Keegan, Armstrong etc? But he manged to win more matches with inferior players.

 

But they were in the role a considerably longer period of time than Georgie Boy!

 

Ted and Mac also proved that they knew how to lead, motivate and instill a fine work ethic within the team.

 

Burley had money to spend and had a good squad to work with, against a generally very mediocre set of opposing teams at the time - And yet these other mediocre teams showed on many occasions far more cohesion and effort than we did ( Baird,Bale and Jones aside I would suggest).

We were generally slovenly and careless and the attitude set from the top engendered this malaise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shown up? Didn't do too badly at Ipwich and Hearts and took us to the play offs, so yeah, he must be rubbish.

 

If you want to have a pop at managers why not Redknapp or Pearson, neither of whom had good records with us.

 

I will certainly give you Redknapp who on paper was well equipped to keep us up but failed !

 

However I will take strong issue with you on Pearson. He took charge midway through a season (Virtually immediately post Burley), where morale in the club was on the floor, the players did not have any direction or leadership, where destructive boardroom disagreements were rife and he had to turn us around with the players he had and very few games to do it ! He succeeded !

He also showed more commitment, leadership and presence than I had seen at the club since Strachan.

 

I am chuffed to bits that AP is at the club now, but lamented the crass decision to release Pearson at that time. He was an up and coming manager with talent when put in the right surroundings ( as he is now with Leicester), would flourish and succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win ratios:-

 

Burley 42.7%

Hoddle 42.3%

McMenemy 41.7%

Bates 39.2%

Sturrock 38.5%

Strachan 35.5%

 

Doesn't make Burley the greatest manager we ever had but does show that he won more his his matches than anybody else, so not such a mug maybe? Certainly much better than Strachan!

 

Can you do the same sort of stats for Loss ratios and Draw ratios? Or perhaps the number of points per game?

 

Burley may have won the most, but did he also lose more? Perhaps WGS won less, drew more and lost less?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McMenemy had the best squad ever. Bates had Ron Davies and two fine wingers to supply him.

 

Don't you think that Burley would have liked Channon, Keegan, Armstrong etc? But he manged to win more matches with inferior players.

 

Have you lost the plot?

 

Lawrie signed those players, he built the "best squad ever", and signed Keegan, Osgood, Ball because of his personality.There weren't too many about who'd have done a better job than Lawrie or Ted, but there's dozens and dozens who given Burleys inherited squad and money would have got us promoted. No players of the class you mention would have signed for George Burley, no matter what we were paying.

 

 

 

As for the thread, I think we've lacked leaders and mental toughness on the park for a number of years.Hopefully AP is sorting this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona is spot on.

 

I put it down to fitness, if you make average players train bloody hard until they are blue in the face then the last 20 minutes of a game they will not be such a panic towards the end of games because the team are strong enough to push on for more.

 

Strachan had it right totally and the results started to show it.

 

And then this problem started which was a lack of ambition which results in your manager/star player leaving and so on as you struggle to keep balancing the books because the fans stop coming so much.

 

It's only now for the first time we IMHO are at rock bottom and ready to make that journey back IF Pardew makes them train much bloody harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona is spot on.

 

I put it down to fitness, if you make average players train bloody hard until they are blue in the face then the last 20 minutes of a game they will not be such a panic towards the end of games because the team are strong enough to push on for more.

 

Strachan had it right totally and the results started to show it.

 

And then this problem started which was a lack of ambition which results in your manager/star player leaving and so on as you struggle to keep balancing the books because the fans stop coming so much.

 

It's only now for the first time we IMHO are at rock bottom and ready to make that journey back IF Pardew makes them train much bloody harder.

 

 

And is he ? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i am 24, and always been a selling club struggling in the prem from my first experiences of supporting the club, until recently of course, when we were selling players and struggling in the championship.....

 

Ah then you will appreciate it even more when we turn the corner - we're having a peek around it at the mo'. Just need the confidence to actually walk round it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you do the same sort of stats for Loss ratios and Draw ratios? Or perhaps the number of points per game?

 

Burley may have won the most, but did he also lose more? Perhaps WGS won less, drew more and lost less?

 

Lose ratio:

 

Redknapp 30.6 (drew a lot)

Ball 31.3%

McMenemy 31.5%

Burley 32.3%

Hoddle 34.6%

Strachan 35.4%

Bates 35.9%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this club has such a losing mentality? there must be a reason for it?

 

its like any players we get are automatically cursed with this 'we are saints we are supposed to lose or conceed in the last minute' mentallity imprinted on their brain.

 

thoughts? ............

 

The Lowe factor. Fact.

 

Once it finally fades we will be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it you want to split hairs, Lowe was more successful than unsuccessful in his tenure but hey, who cares any more?

 

Getting back to managers, only three have managed to average 1.5 per game or more - Burley, McMenemy and Hoddle. Bates is next with 1.4 per game. Strachan started well but faded. His figure of 1.35 a game is slightly better than Ball's 1.34 per game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That puts our need to achieve a 65% win ratio from here on in to make the play-offs into perspective!

 

But it's not impossible. The lower down the leagues, the easier it should be for a club with a wealthy owner.

 

A 65% win ratio in the Premiership is only really the preserve of the very top clubs, utilising the very best international stars and the best up and coming home grown youngsters.

 

We have not been able to achieve that degree of success since Lawrie Mac's best season when we were runners up to Liverpool, having topped the old first division for much of the season. Mostly we were propping up the basement with a much lower win rate, as we couldn't afford to splash out on the players who could have improved our fortunes.

 

When we were relegated, several of the better players left and we did not replace them with enough quality to ensure our survival in the fizzy pop, let alone enough quality to get back up.

 

Now, at last, we do have the bones not only of a squad able to survive in this division, but once we have got rid of the points deduction, a team that is on paper possibly the best team in the division in terms of quality and ability. Certainly it is starting to look like a team that ought to be able to win 2 out of every three matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it you want to split hairs, Lowe was more successful than unsuccessful in his tenure but hey, who cares any more?

 

Getting back to managers, only three have managed to average 1.5 per game or more - Burley, McMenemy and Hoddle. Bates is next with 1.4 per game. Strachan started well but faded. His figure of 1.35 a game is slightly better than Ball's 1.34 per game.

 

Lowe was more successful than unsuccessful? Are you daft?

 

Come on SOG... the league table never lies mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic reading MLT's book you get the feeling that since the Board sacked Chris Nicholl the trend , other than a few seasons, has been downward.

The appointment of Branfoot and then the loss of Ball, i had forgot Guy the Snake had his hand in that, and the rush again my Guy the Snake to bring in secure retirement homes in 97 meant that a club build on solid steady finance was suddenly reliant on Sky money and an "us and them" culture developed at the club.

as MLT a man called Rupert should never have been involved with football.

 

the other reason is southampton as a city has never really been big enough to support a top 10 club for long but to big to be a 3rd/4th division side UNTIL NOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it you want to split hairs, Lowe was more successful than unsuccessful in his tenure but hey, who cares any more?

 

 

So if managing to get a team relegated from the Premiership and then subsequently even from the fizzy pop league isn't failure of the worst kind, what sort of measurement of success can possibly stack up on the other side of the balance sheet to counteract it? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they were in the role a considerably longer period of time than Georgie Boy!

 

Ted and Mac also proved that they knew how to lead, motivate and instill a fine work ethic within the team.

 

Burley had money to spend and had a good squad to work with, against a generally very mediocre set of opposing teams at the time - And yet these other mediocre teams showed on many occasions far more cohesion and effort than we did ( Baird,Bale and Jones aside I would suggest).

We were generally slovenly and careless and the attitude set from the top engendered this malaise.

 

Yes it is interesting that our two "best" managers had longer to build their teams. THey also took longer to achive success - in fact McMenemy took us down and we stayed down with a team full of 1st Div standard players for a few seasons before he had success.

 

Burley inherited a pile of rubbish from Redknapp and in his first full season was perhaps unlucky not to make the play off final. If he had been able to keep Bale, Baird and Jones and if Hone hadn't effectively come out and publically pulled the plug on any ambition re promotion, perhaps he would have done better if he had stayed longer - we shall never know.

 

What we do know is that when we stick with managers and give them time it has worked better for us (in terms o success) than chopping and changing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if managing to get a team relegated from the Premiership and then subsequently even from the fizzy pop league isn't failure of the worst kind, what sort of measurement of success can possibly stack up on the other side of the balance sheet to counteract it? :rolleyes:

 

1st class catering

radio station

insurance business

jobs for the boys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not impossible. The lower down the leagues, the easier it should be for a club with a wealthy owner.

 

A 65% win ratio in the Premiership is only really the preserve of the very top clubs, utilising the very best international stars and the best up and coming home grown youngsters.

 

We have not been able to achieve that degree of success since Lawrie Mac's best season when we were runners up to Liverpool, having topped the old first division for much of the season. Mostly we were propping up the basement with a much lower win rate, as we couldn't afford to splash out on the players who could have improved our fortunes.

 

When we were relegated, several of the better players left and we did not replace them with enough quality to ensure our survival in the fizzy pop, let alone enough quality to get back up.

 

Now, at last, we do have the bones not only of a squad able to survive in this division, but once we have got rid of the points deduction, a team that is on paper possibly the best team in the division in terms of quality and ability. Certainly it is starting to look like a team that ought to be able to win 2 out of every three matches.

 

 

I agree with you despite Bates having a record of 39 %

 

 

His record in 1959-60

 

Was

 

46 games 26 wins 9 draws 11 losses

 

 

similar to a poster on another thread

Edited by John B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if managing to get a team relegated from the Premiership and then subsequently even from the fizzy pop league isn't failure of the worst kind, what sort of measurement of success can possibly stack up on the other side of the balance sheet to counteract it? :rolleyes:

 

Wind the clock back a bit Wes. Staying up was success for us which we did for most of his time here, add in a Cup Final, highest ever Prem finish and European football I would say we had a decent run before the wheels came off. My arguement he had more better years than bad years overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is interesting that our two "best" managers had longer to build their teams. THey also took longer to achive success - in fact McMenemy took us down and we stayed down with a team full of 1st Div standard players for a few seasons before he had success.

 

Burley inherited a pile of rubbish from Redknapp and in his first full season was perhaps unlucky not to make the play off final. If he had been able to keep Bale, Baird and Jones and if Hone hadn't effectively come out and publically pulled the plug on any ambition re promotion, perhaps he would have done better if he had stayed longer - we shall never know.

 

What we do know is that when we stick with managers and give them time it has worked better for us (in terms o success) than chopping and changing all the time.

 

do not forget we only sacked Gray the rest left for lots of reasons all with the word mutual in the reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe was more successful than unsuccessful? Are you daft?

 

Come on SOG... the league table never lies mate.

 

Check the stats. As I said beforem success for us was staying up, which we did for longer than we probably should, plus a purple patch under Strachan. The move from the 15k capped Dell was a positive.

 

If you are going to give the bloke a kicking for the negatives you aslo need to balance things up and accept there were positives too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the stats. As I said beforem success for us was staying up, which we did for longer than we probably should, plus a purple patch under Strachan. The move from the 15k capped Dell was a positive.

 

If you are going to give the bloke a kicking for the negatives you aslo need to balance things up and accept there were positives too.

 

Just checked the stats... 2 relegations and our worst position for 41 years.

 

Come on - Lowe was the biggest loser in Saints history - which is what the question of the thread is dedicated to. We are now just about rid of his influence... last players of his regime are leaving. Now roll on success.

Edited by SaintRobbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked the stats... 2 relegations and our worst position for 41 years.

 

Come on - Lowe was the biggest loser in Saints history - which is what the question of the thread is dedicated to. We are now just about rid of his influence... last players of his regime are leaving. Now roll on success.

 

Yep, well I hope this new guy is such a loser that he can take us to a Cup Final too. Still, better just to stay focussed on the negatives eh? Not so complicated then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is success? Burley said clearly the aim was the play offs, which he achieved in his only full season. With a slice of luck we might have gone further. We were ceratinly one of the top 6 sides in the Championship that season. What we didn't have was consistency, something you can't buy unless you have a bottomless pit of money. He won nearly 43% of his matches. I don't think he did that badly. Be nice to get somewhere near that now wouldn't it?

 

Several points:

 

1. Burley may have stated his goal was to get into the playoffs, but what was to stop us getting automatic promotion? We had a core of experienced players and very tallented youngsters and he was given £10m to spend on building a squad. The playoffs were the bare minimum for him to be aiming at and he only scraped in on the last day of the season.

 

2. ANY team in ANY competition could have gone further with a slice of luck. It's a pointless thing to say. We wouldn't have got into the playoffs at all if it weren't for a few late, narrow wins against teams like Leeds and Norwich. Then we got already relegated Saarfend on the last day of the season. I'm not saying we were lucky to win those games, but we sure as heck weren't unlucky that season.

 

3. How does not being consistent not reflect badly on Burley? If you think it's because he didn't have enough cash to spend you are seriously deluded. It was up to him to pick the strongest team available and get them organised, fit and confident.

 

4. I'm sure if Pardew was given £10m to spend and had a proper pre-season to prepare, he'd easily match that.

 

Yep, well I hope this new guy is such a loser that he can take us to a Cup Final too. Still, better just to stay focussed on the negatives eh? Not so complicated then.

 

Lowe took us to the cup final? Either you're on a wind up or you're as mad as two badgers in a postbox.

 

Lowe was not repsonsible for our on the field performances, that is down to the manager. Lowe gets credit for appointing Strachan yes, but that's about as far as it goes IMO. Strachan and the squad get the lions share of the credit for that cup run. That and an incredible stroke of luck being drawn at home in every round against lower league teams (and Spuds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth here's my thoughts...

 

Once upon a time we were hated by teams, they didn't like coming to The Dell. The facilities were ****e and the team were christened as the "Ale house brawlers". Teams knew they were in for a hard time when they played The Saints.

 

On top of that we had an ardent fan base - not a noisy fan base...but they knew when to get behind a team. Sure there was always The Milton, Under the West Stand, Under the East Stand, even The Archers...but when it was needed the whole ground responded. It was intimidating...

 

Now let's consider the last 6/7-years. We've had rule changes meaning "hard tackles" are not allowed. We haven't had a " hard" hard team and teams were cosseted when they visited SMS. The crowd are disjointed - there's too much open space to generate the intimidating atmosphere!

 

To cap it all we've had "kids" out there who can't seem to fight the fight. They get bullied - from every part of the field. No one looks out for the team - it's all about me! The team is not a team - look at the defence when we concede - they don't turn around and get on with it - they all look at each other and point the finger of blame. That's not a team ethic!

 

Talking of the losing mentality...we bought players that knew that sinking feeling. Quashie, Philips...it rubs off - that Jonah feeling. Poor old Davies went down with Sunderland - didn't he?

 

I think things will soon turn around.

We've got some hungry players, some big lads who will bully the bullies.

We've got players who will put a foot in again - and leave it in.

You watch the younger ones start enjoying getting stuck in and dishing it out.

 

Football went "soft" and we fell into the trap of believing people liked "nice" football & nice football clubs...like Southampton. It went soft and corporate and we all know it's about making more money and not producing the results...he who must not be mentioned had a lot to do with that!

 

I'd take a couple of seasons of winning ugly and teams not like playing us again. To some extent the failure at Southampton FC is the fault of the success of football. Little old clubs like ours tried to compete, and failed miserably.

 

Bring on the winners in 2009/2010 - I wanna be in that Number!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...