In Holloway's Defense.....

[Willlow]

cant give you any reason why he should , little man with little idears ,the job is just to big for him and the club !!!!!

:icon_roll:icon_roll

By all means argue he should go because of the results or performances but dont suggest 'we' as a club or too big for him, it embarassing and lumps us in with Nottingham Forest and Leeds fans from previous years suggesting they are still a 'big' club.

 

[Heineken Matt]

I do sometimes try to take you seriously Matt, but when it comes to your obsessions both with myself, and with Ian Holloway, I know it isn't worth my time getting into a conversation with you.

Firstly, you need to get over yourself Melts. My only obsessions on websites tend to be adult orientated, not on football chatrooms with middle aged men I can assure you. Nor football managers come to think of it.

Secondly, as I have mentioned previously, go into politics. You love to dish it out (just like BG - perhaps you should put me on your block list aswell) but when anything comes back in your direction you either don't want to know, do not answer the question or just write posts like this, and you were the one moaning about people writing posts that were not relevant!

Vote for Melts!

 

[Willlow]

I do sometimes try to take you seriously Matt, but when it comes to your obsessions both with myself, and with Ian Holloway, I know it isn't worth my time getting into a conversation with you.

You still bother to reply though :icon_wink

 

[Melton Fox]

You still bother to reply though :icon_wink

I said that I didn't take him seriously when it comes to a certain topic. I do like my debates with Matt and wouldn't be so rude as to ignore him.

 

[Biff]

You still bother to reply though :icon_wink

Melts is a gentleman, i know, i met him, and he nearly bought me a pint :icon_lol:

 

[Melton Fox]

Firstly, you need to get over yourself Melts.

Indeed I do, but I doubt I ever will.

Please start your posts with something other than a derogatory comment in my direction, I usually read no further.

By all means leave one at the end, you've made your point by then and I've had to listen.

 

[Willlow]

Melts is a gentleman, i know, i met him, and he nearly bought me a pint :icon_lol:

sound exactly like Melton

 

[spionfox]

I do like my debates with Matt

Trouble is, the rest of us have to restrain ourselves otherwise it would become a mass debate.

 

[Melton Fox]

Trouble is, the rest of us have to restrain ourselves otherwise it would become a mass debate.

That exciting is it :icon_lol:

 

[chesterfield fo]

:icon_roll:icon_roll

By all means argue he should go because of the results or performances but dont suggest 'we' as a club or too big for him, it embarassing and lumps us in with Nottingham Forest and Leeds fans from previous years suggesting they are still a 'big' club.

anyway i think we r down. never been out of the two top divisions in the clubs history . so keep him if u want passed caring .

 

[bocadillo]

Boc, while your busy deleting my "off topic" posts in another Leicester City thread, which weren't really off topic. Can you take the time to sort through these 170 odd posts in this thread please and only remove those which contain the answer to the question I asked.

I'm not usually protective of my own threads, but I am now trying to fit in with the rest of the forum as requested.

Thank you.

I deleted the contents of one of your posts - no more than that.

It seems to me that many of the posts here are suggesting that your question is perverse and I agree with others who say that there is no answer that you would accept. As such, I might as well delete the whole thread but I have decided not to take that course of action because it would deprive you of the attention and controversy on which you thrive.

 

[Melton Fox]

deprive you of the attention and controversy on whic you thrive.

:icon_conf

"Attention & controversy"

I only wanted an answer and educating on why people think Holloway is good at his job.

 

[Redditch Fox]

:icon_roll:icon_roll

By all means argue he should go because of the results or performances but dont suggest 'we' as a club or too big for him, it embarassing and lumps us in with Nottingham Forest and Leeds fans from previous years suggesting they are still a 'big' club.

I don't agree.

The overall profile of Leicester City isn't as bad as the results and performances of this season.

When some of us say that we are "too big" for him, we are talking about issues: like our fan base; our facilities; our history and our potential.

If ever there was a small club, lower leagues manager then it is Ian Holloway. It is impossible to take him seriously. The bloke blatantly tries to pull the wool by seeking to be funny and appealing to the lowest intelligence levels. We all know that there is something about the culture of football supporters which means that they can act a bit daft - and Holloway exploits that element in the situation.

 

[Steven]

Since no-one else has mentioned it, is there an argument for stability?

No and I have already mentioned in another thread that Plymouth had had some six managers in the previous five years or so before the Useless One went there and clearly it did not hamper him.

Stability is only useful if the product being developed is worthy of that stabiliy. :icon_wink

 

[Brown Nose]

Let's keep chopping and changing, it must work sometime, eh? It just has to work...It must be all the manager's fault, it just must.

The players know that the owner will ditch any manager who loses the dressing room/loses a few games etc. MM has said it himself and demonstrated it both here and at Pompey.

As a result, the players are in an incredibly powerful position. They can play for who they want to, and detach themselves as they see fit.

I can think of no other reason why the form of players varies so wildly. Under Kelly, Stearman was utter shite. Under Holloway, he's suddenly player of the year. Fryatt played for Kelly, obviously couldn't stand Allen or Holloway so hasn't performed for them. There are loads more examples of this throughout the squad. If the suggestion about Howard disliking Holloway is true, it's alive and well with even the new recruits.

That is MM's fault entirely. He's led to this instability with his reactionary style. The players had to be responsible for Allen going (some say Hume and others went to MM and shortly after he was history). Many players are now playing to get Holloway sacked.

If Holloway had a prayer at City, it was only if MM backed him over the players/fans etc regardless. Because he's never going to do that with a manager, they are always vulnerable unless they are player friendly. To make it even tougher, there are also obvious cliques within the squad so one cliques preferred manager won't be anothers.

Awful mess. No way around it unless you stumble upon a brilliant manager who forces everyone to tow the line and who MM cannot get rid of. Chances of that, very slim to none.

We might as well get rid of Holloway now as he's lost control and authority. However, it's highly likely that the next man will too at some point.

That's why MM is a disaster of an owner. That's why we'll never get anywhere with him unless he gets incredibly lucky with an, as yet unknown, manager.

That's also the best defence I can come up with for Holloway. And Megson. And Allen. And Kelly. And whoevers next. They are all effectively on a rodeo steer and have just got to hang on for as long as they can. Until they are either a genius or backed 100%, they will fall off sooner or later.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I must admit, when things are not going well, you look for someone to blame, and the easiest target at any time is the manager. However, I cannot believe how little flack MM is picking up. It's just my opinion, but I hold him 100% culpable for the mess we are in.

 

[Melton Fox]

Spot on, Brown Nose.

And that supports my theory that a Manager should manage from his office, and not be on the training ground as "one of the lads". When a professional footballer is called before his Manager, he should be shitting himself.

Other than matchdays, I see no reason why the Manager should be involved with the players on a daily basis, that should be the job of his 100% trusted coaches.

The coaches should be reporting back to him on a daily basis as to whom is doing what etc etc.

Ollie has tried to be one of the lads from the outset, not their Manager. You can't be both.

 

[Biff]

No and I have already mentioned in another thread that Plymouth had had some six managers in the previous five years or so before the Useless One went there and clearly it did not hamper him.

Stability is only useful if the product being developed is worthy of that stabiliy. :icon_wink

Spot on

 

[Trifull]

The only arguiment for keeping Holloway is stability, so lets look at the stability argument.
Stability is only ok if there is a glimmer of hope that the manager is taking the club forward rather than downwards. It's ok if the manager appears to be a good choice of player, but then I look at the amount of players that we've had on loan and then stuck into the reserves. What is the point of having emergency players, if when the need arises they're still not used. Obviously those players aren't up to it, therefore that makes Holloway and his scouting team poor when it comes to choosing players.
Tactically, Holloway appears to be one dimentional and easy for other managers to see through, even when he has changed tactics, it's been out of desperation and he reverts straight back to his normal tacics for the next game.
Players being played out of position, after his own comments about positioning players in their strongest position, he often plays our only player who looks like scoring out on the wing.
Results, ok one or two good results, but one of those was against a team that finished the game with only 9 players on the pitch.
Confidence building, barring a small percentage, Holloway hasn't built confidence amongst the fans and as soon as we go a goal down the result looks inevitable. In fact only once do I recall us coming back from a goal down and that was to get a draw, therefore the players must have little or no confidence in the way they are being asked to play.
Stability is a great argument if you have the right man in charge, but imo just to have the same person in charge for more than six months is not a good enough reason if that persons only quality is his humour. Every football manager is judged on results, why should Holloway be any different ?

 

[Willlow]

I don't agree.

The overall profile of Leicester City isn't as bad as the results and performances of this season.

When some of us say that we are "too big" for him, we are talking about issues: like our fan base; our facilities; our history andour potential.

If ever there was a small club, lower leagues manager then it is Ian Holloway. It is impossible to take him seriously. The bloke blatantly tries to pull the wool by seeking to be funny and appealing to the lowest intelligence levels. We all know that there is something about the culture of football supporters which means that they can act a bit daft - and Holloway exploits that element in the situation.

So we are too big for him because we get 22k a week, have great training facilities and have never been out of the top two leagues??

If that is the case were we also too big for Martin O'Neil, Micky Adams, Rob Kelly, Craig Levein and Martin Allen all who had less experience then Ian Holloway?

Ah no you've fallen back on the fact that he comes accross as a pillock on TV, which obviously means he cant cope with a 'big' club like ours. :icon_roll