Ian Hollowpants

[David Gwilliam]

I can assure you I don't, it infuriates me that IH would make the comparison. Just feel it was a pathetic attempt by him to gain some sympathy

I am relieved to find that I misunderstood you.

It seems to me that the pro and anti Holloway camps will never agree. Right from the starft there were those who enjoyed his interviews and those who did not.
Luckily everyone seems to agree that Nigel is doing an excellent job.

 

[Redditch Fox]

The reason I put Megson in the same class as Peter Taylor was that they both IMO damaged Leicester. I would agree that they did so in very different ways.

Peter Taylor was the usual kind of "bad manager". His judgement in the transfer market was dreadful and he was a poor motivator. These are obviously football faults. I have nothing against him as a man. He did his best and that was not good enough. So far as I know he always behaved with integrity.

Gary Megson's situation was different. He was brought into a club that desperately needed stability after Martin Allen. Although he may not have had a written contract he would have given his word. To walk out the way that he did made an unstable situation worse. I do not regard him as being a bad manager in general but I regard his behaviour here as putting the club in crisis.

Megson accepted the job and when a "better" job came up walked out on us. It is when keeping your word is inconvenient that you are most obliged to keep it.

Peter Taylor is almost in a class of his own - but Holloway just manages to qualify alongside him for the kitemark indicating a catastrophic Leicester managers. Holloway has the excuse of being way out of his depth and Taylor has the excuse that a foolish board sanctioned his crazy purchases.

My understanding about Megson is that he never actually signed a contract at Leicester and I assume that he knew he was not welcome to most of the Leicester support. He did an o.k. job for a short time then moved on. As I recall most of us were pleased to see the back of him. I really don't see how he can be logically placed in the category of being a bad manager - I would say 'unclassified' would be fair.

As for keeping his word - we are talking here about professional football - not squash. People don't do 'keeping their word' in football - they see the main chance and go for it.

 

[Blue Maniac]

My understanding about Megson is that he never actually signed a contract at Leicester and I assume that he knew he was not welcome to most of the Leicester support. He did an o.k. job for a short time then moved on. As I recall most of us were pleased to see the back of him. I really don't see how he can be logically placed in the category of being a bad manager - I would say 'unclassified' would be fair.

We all remember the chants of 'Megson for Bolton' at the Sheffield United game, don't we?

 

[Dour]

My understanding about Megson is that he never actually signed a contract at Leicester and I assume that he knew he was not welcome to most of the Leicester support. He did an o.k. job for a short time then moved on. As I recall most of us were pleased to see the back of him. I really don't see how he can be logically placed in the category of being a bad manager - I would say 'unclassified' would be fair.

His part in our downfall should not be underestimated - his vile tactics left a legacy that made it harder for Holloway to impose his style.

Plus the truly dire football he imposed was starting to make me hate going down the Walkers. No surprise even Bolton fans were repelled.

 

[Redditch Fox]

His part in our downfall should not be underestimated - his vile tactics left a legacy that made it harder for Holloway to impose his style.

Plus the truly dire football he imposed was starting to make me hate going down the Walkers. No surprise even Bolton fans were repelled.

I usually tend to agree with your posts but what's this about "vile tactics". Does that mean focussing on defence, stifling the opposition and hoofing the ball upfield. Hardly "vile" is it? We've had plenty of managers at LCFC who have been into that......as a matter of fact I don't think that MON is particularly renowned for producing and encouraging 'attractive' football. Matt Gillies concentrated on defence first - setting up a "blue curtain" and Big Jock Wallace's sides were more about effort than silky skills. The only manager who i can recall who put football first was Jimmy Bloomfield.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I usually tend to agree with your posts but what's this about "vile tactics". Does that mean focussing on defence, stifling the opposition and hoofing the ball upfield. Hardly "vile" is it? We've had plenty of managers at LCFC who have been into that......as a matter of fact I don't think that MON is particularly renowned for producing and encouraging 'attractive' football. Matt Gillies concentrated on defence first - setting up a "blue curtain" and Big Jock Wallace's sides were more about effort than silky skills. The only manager who i can recall who put football first was Jimmy Bloomfield.

You had me right up to that sentence. I agree with your point completely, but why is attacking / passing / 'attractive' football any more 'football' than defensive / 'hoofing' football? Or is it just a poor choice of words?

 

[homer]

You had me right up to that sentence. I agree with your point completely, but why is attacking / passing / 'attractive' football any more 'football' than defensive / 'hoofing' football? Or is it just a poor choice of words?

Because playing entertaining football is much more important than actually winning the game

I though we all agreed on that.......

 

[camberwell fox]

You had me right up to that sentence. I agree with your point completely, but why is attacking / passing / 'attractive' football any more 'football' than defensive / 'hoofing' football? Or is it just a poor choice of words?

Because playing entertaining football is much more important than actually winning the game

I though we all agreed on that.......

Oi!

Because surely everyone would agree it is more entertaining to watch a passing team (with an end product) than hoof and run?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Oi!

Because surely everyone would agree it is more entertaining to watch a passing team (with an end product) than hoof and run?

Why?

 

[Real Sharapova]

Oi!

Because surely everyone would agree it is more entertaining to watch a passing team (with an end product) than hoof and run?

Some Arsenal friends of mine wouldn't mind a bit of hoofball - they want results against the better teams.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Oi!

Because surely everyone would agree it is more entertaining to watch a passing team (with an end product) than hoof and run?

We may be able to get out of this division with an attractive team but we will not survive in the Prem with one. My gut feeling is that Nigel will get us promotion within the next two or three seasons. He will then need to have a team like O'Neills or like Big Sam did at Bolton to grind out results.

Jimmy Bloomfield's team played with great skill and I enjoyed watching them more than any other Leicester team. However, they won matches because they had three great players (an overused word but in this case true). Shilton, Weller and Worthington play for Leicester today even in the Prem because they would want Champions League football.

Jimmy's team was willing to let the other side play because he believed we could outplay them and he was often right but he never won any thing. It is difficult to believe that Nigel will ever be able to bring in the quality of player who can outplay Arsenal, Man U or Chelsea.

For clubs like Leicester, Bolton, Birmingham etc effectiveness is the key.

 

[Redditch Fox]

You had me right up to that sentence. I agree with your point completely, but why is attacking / passing / 'attractive' football any more 'football' than defensive / 'hoofing' football? Or is it just a poor choice of words?

It was poor choice of words (due to having to do some work as well!)

I should have said that only Bloomfield has made played playing with an attractive, attacking style a main priority. As I guess you already know his main club as a player was with the Arsenal and I'm sorry to have to admit that I'm old enough to having seen him play for them!

The obvious thing is that Bloomfield boughtto Leicester stylish players who could play with flair. If you haven't got those sort of players then it's no good trying to play that way...obviously.

Back to Megson....I don't like his approach, but to me he was trying and not doing too bad at damage limitation at Leicester and since the crowd never liked him and Milan has established a reputation for chopping and changing, I don't blame him for going to Bolton.

 

[Redditch Fox]

We may be able to get out of this division with an attractive team but we will not survive in the Prem with one. My gut feeling is that Nigel will get us promotion within the next two or three seasons. He will then need to have a team like O'Neills or like Big Sam did at Bolton to grind out results.

Jimmy Bloomfield's team played with great skill and I enjoyed watching them more than any other Leicester team. However, they won matches because they had three great players (an overused word but in this case true). Shilton, Weller and Worthington play for Leicester today even in the Prem because they would want Champions League football.

Jimmy's team was willing to let the other side play because he believed we could outplay them and he was often right but he never won any thing. It is difficult to believe that Nigel will ever be able to bring in the quality of player who can outplay Arsenal, Man U or Chelsea.

For clubs like Leicester, Bolton, Birmingham etc effectiveness is the key.

Bloomfield had two fine wingers in Weller and Glover - so he was in a position to play expansive football.

I guess very few people on this forum can imagine that we once had a team in the top half of the top flight that was a regular main feature on Match of the Day because of its success and entertaining style.

 

[camberwell fox]

Why?

Why what BM?

 

[camberwell fox]

We may be able to get out of this division with an attractive team but we will not survive in the Prem with one. My gut feeling is that Nigel will get us promotion within the next two or three seasons. He will then need to have a team like O'Neills or like Big Sam did at Bolton to grind out results.

Jimmy Bloomfield's team played with great skill and I enjoyed watching them more than any other Leicester team. However, they won matches because they had three great players (an overused word but in this case true). Shilton, Weller and Worthington play for Leicester today even in the Prem because they would want Champions League football.

Jimmy's team was willing to let the other side play because he believed we could outplay them and he was often right but he never won any thing. It is difficult to believe that Nigel will ever be able to bring in the quality of player who can outplay Arsenal, Man U or Chelsea.

For clubs like Leicester, Bolton, Birmingham etc effectiveness is the key.

I agree we cannot compete with the top 3 or 4 playing the same style as them but we can surely mix it up a bit. At the end of the day we will not need to beat the top 3 or 4 to stay in the premier, these games are in a way more like cup games, we need to compete (as you say) with Birmingham, Bolton and the like, which there seems to be no problem with doing so. Yes we need to be effective but surely we can compete with the rest of the premier playing a more attractive style of play.

 

[Dour]

Back to Megson....I don't like his approach, but to me he was trying and not doing too bad at damage limitation at Leicester.

There wasn't that much damage until he came - which was just after the match that never happened, which had it happened, we would have won 4-1.

We had a solid enough defence from the season before, and was seen also after Megson. We never needed to go to the absurdities of the number of defenders he tried to play. And it wasn't a case of being a problem with direct football, or kick and chase - it was that there was never any commitment to attacking or going forward even at home. It always looked as if we were playing for a draw. And so it resulted - our home record under him was 3 draws and 1 defeat, I think.

 

[homer]

What's all this talk of competing with other teams in the Premier League ?

Is this the loony forum, or what

We are in a shitty horrible league, with a load of pretty average teams, and we are just about holding our position in the top six - but it's a bloody struggle and we are a mere seventeen points away from that crappy, less-than-average Newcastle side we watched a week or so ago

We play whatever shite style of football is necessary to keep ourselves in the hunt for a play off place, and we then play whatever shite style of football may be necessary to win those three games.

All that is a pretty feckin' slim chance, but I don't give a toss how we get there - long ball, defensive football, cheating diving and punching if we have to. Anything else is just completely and utterly irrelevant, and this insane conversation can just go merrily along with the loonies wishing away their lives in a complete fantasy world of lovely total passing football that simply will not happen right here, right now, where the real people live :icon_roll

 

[Redditch Fox]

How crazy would you say I was if I said as Leicester managers that Holloway's win to matches ratio was virtually the same as Bloomfield's? And that Taylor's was a bit better.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Shilton, Weller and Worthington play for Leicester today even in the Prem because they would want Champions League football.

What?

Why what BM?

Why is a passing game more attractive or entertaining than 'hoof and run' as you call it? Why is one any more 'football' than the other?

 

[camberwell fox]

What?



Why is a passing game more attractive or entertaining than 'hoof and run' as you call it? Why is one any more 'football' than the other?

I don't have the answer to that but i think i can safely say that everyone would sooner watch atttractive passing footballl rather than hoofball if the result (in score terms) was the same, no?