Jump to content

Owlsfan

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Owlsfan

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Reserves
  1. Honestly, I think arguing over whether he should or shouldn't be allowed back is kinda pointless. If you think he is or isn't good enough, or you think this will or won't affect how he is in future then ok, but that's not what a lot of this seems to be. Everyone has their own moral standard, and some random off the internet telling you otherwise ain't gonna change what you believe. If you accept him back, fine, you don't, fine, but stop baiting people who think the opposite.
  2. Happy enough for him to come back. He's served his time, and he's shown he can be a goalscorer. He didn't look great at this level, but that said, a lot of his time came either as sub, or as a starter in a struggling side, and he's not the type of forward who will create something out of nothing with no service. However, anything like the MASSIVE fawning over him from some is the last thing he needs. This isn't the first time, he's in the last chance saloon, and he needs to realise it. Edit: Heh, didn't realise MASSIVE was auto changed these days.
  3. No, no, for the love of god no. He may look in better shape, but I seriously doubt much has changed. He's scoring very well at league 1 level - just like he has done every damn time he's played in that division, even when we had him and sent him out. Then when he has to step up - at best you'd say mixed results.
  4. Probably an interesting read when you have the time, but a few things stick out from a quick glance at the first few pages and the bbc story. You're looking at Dutch clubs, the majority of whom will have structures where the manager is more of a coach, and so by defiinition of his job, you're bound to see less of an effect on the 'position' of the club than most sackings over here. The study is based on teams spending over 50% of seasons in the top flight. Combined with the above, you're therefore looking at clubs who've generally made good personnel decisions over time. That should make it more likely that a 'performance blip' is simply that, rather than a situation where a manager should be replaced, so you're more likely to see similar upturns in form in the cases of sacking/non sacking. There may well be several cases where this was not the case, but the results will be outweighed by those that are. The period of 4 games (or I guess effectively 6? with the way he's mentioned moving averages) being 'sufficiently long' just seems a bit crackers. It's difficult I guess, there may well be no better ways to define it, but this is then likely to include every team who goes through a very difficult run of fixtures as having a 'performance blip'. If you have a difficult run of fixtures followed by a run of easier games, results are very likely to improve. But 9/10 chairmen/boards/whoever are likely to recognise who you've played, and won't change the manager because of it. That gives you 9 managers not sacked getting the 'easy games' bump, and only one new manager, which is bound to distort results a bit.
  5. If Owlstalk ever produced a fanzine, it now has a name.
  6. Clearly not in the eyes of Mandaric and many others. In terms of the point, it's only Milan's opinion of them that matters.
  7. Yeah, no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, Mandaric would have been negligent if he hadn't sounded out his first choice replacement before releasing Megson, otherwise you could very easily have ended up hiring someone weaker than the guy you've just paid off to leave.
  8. Jeez, doesn't take some long to forget exactly where we've come from does it? We were in the lower end of the playoffs last Jan window. Then we spent fairly big. How exactly did that work out?
  9. Apparently it was only 5 years initially, but he successfully appealed to get it extended.
  10. Uchechi, woooaaaaaohhhh Uchechi, woooooaaaaohhhh He came from FC Dender He's clearly not a bender
  11. How can you tell by watching two matches that they are better than we already have. Like I said earlier, Buxton has coveniently been forgotton but had more praises than anyone before his injury. On the evidence against CHARLTON which I did watch, neither Morrison or Johnson played any better than some of the performances Buxton has made. So where is your argument. By the way I never mentioned Purse or Beevers. Assume we're going for the old one centre back system then? If you're disregarding Purse and Beevers, that is. I like Buxton, but he didn't exactly tear up the Championship last season either. Even if you assume Buxton is better than both, which based on the comparison between performances of Morrison and Buxton in the Championship isn't true, you'd still need a second central defender. I asked you a question earlier in this thread about Morrison dropping down a level, still waiting for your response. On the one hand, you want us tto look at players from the division above. On the other hand, when a player is signed from the division above, you make assumptions about his skills despite almost never having seen him play. Make your mind up kid. Why would he drop down a division? Well, the same reason a theoretical player that you could make up in your head (we'll call him Chris Brunt, BECAUSE THAT'S HIS NAME) would drop down 2 divisions. Opportunity.
×
×
  • Create New...