[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=42340.msg1202515#msg1202515 date=1287647613]
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=42340.msg1202506#msg1202506 date=1287647096]
I'm not sure what people's problem with Purslow is. He had a hand is Rafa leaving but after a 7th place finish, let's be honest that Rafa had to go. [/quote]
did he? a proven manager that had one truly poor season (I that I would snatch your hand off now if it were offered) compared to his previous seasons which gave us regular CL football. rafa didn't 'have to go' at all.
[/quote]
Yes, he did.
He'd bought very badly at a point in time when he really couldnt afford to, he had alienated his players, he was a media whore who constantly used it to to his advantage, and he constantly blamed everyone but himself for his mistakes where he even blamed others for the shit players he wanted.
He remains a fantastic manager, far better than the man who replaced him..but I don't think he'd have been able to fix things.
If he were here and we were in this mess, (we'd probably be in better shape,yes) he'd probably be having another press conference comparing some record or other , some incredible points tally 2 years earlier, and berating his inability to spend more money.
The fact that his replacement was worse does show that a poor choice was made, it doesnt indicate that no choice should have been made.
The Board chose Hodgson over Dalglish and Pellegrini, in hindsight..that probably wsant smart.
I daresay either would have been far better, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Hodgson had done fairly well the year before, and what kind of top manager would have come into a club with that much uncertainty hanging over our heads AND accept a clause that says I can sack you...only a manager who'd never in a million years get a job at a big club like Liverpool otherwise.
Let's liken it to a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say a poster on here had an irrational hatred for a LB and went on and on about how he should have been sacked or killed or whatever.
Let's say this is done, but the replacement LB we bring in is far far worse.
I'd expect this same poster to say that yes, in comparison to what happened, we should have kept the previous LB...but in short, the main thing was that a very poor choice was made, not that no choice should have been made at all.
That poster would have a point, even if keeping the original LB might have been the better idea at the time.
For the same poster to act differently when it involves the manager is a bit surprising.
Hypothetically, of course.
[quote author=RolandG link=topic=42340.msg1202506#msg1202506 date=1287647096]
I'm not sure what people's problem with Purslow is. He had a hand is Rafa leaving but after a 7th place finish, let's be honest that Rafa had to go. [/quote]
did he? a proven manager that had one truly poor season (I that I would snatch your hand off now if it were offered) compared to his previous seasons which gave us regular CL football. rafa didn't 'have to go' at all.
[/quote]
Yes, he did.
He'd bought very badly at a point in time when he really couldnt afford to, he had alienated his players, he was a media whore who constantly used it to to his advantage, and he constantly blamed everyone but himself for his mistakes where he even blamed others for the shit players he wanted.
He remains a fantastic manager, far better than the man who replaced him..but I don't think he'd have been able to fix things.
If he were here and we were in this mess, (we'd probably be in better shape,yes) he'd probably be having another press conference comparing some record or other , some incredible points tally 2 years earlier, and berating his inability to spend more money.
The fact that his replacement was worse does show that a poor choice was made, it doesnt indicate that no choice should have been made.
The Board chose Hodgson over Dalglish and Pellegrini, in hindsight..that probably wsant smart.
I daresay either would have been far better, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Hodgson had done fairly well the year before, and what kind of top manager would have come into a club with that much uncertainty hanging over our heads AND accept a clause that says I can sack you...only a manager who'd never in a million years get a job at a big club like Liverpool otherwise.
Let's liken it to a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say a poster on here had an irrational hatred for a LB and went on and on about how he should have been sacked or killed or whatever.
Let's say this is done, but the replacement LB we bring in is far far worse.
I'd expect this same poster to say that yes, in comparison to what happened, we should have kept the previous LB...but in short, the main thing was that a very poor choice was made, not that no choice should have been made at all.
That poster would have a point, even if keeping the original LB might have been the better idea at the time.
For the same poster to act differently when it involves the manager is a bit surprising.
Hypothetically, of course.
