roversfan99

Obviously its debatable. Thats the point.

You are yourself re writing history. At that time, Eustace's overall record was poor. In a fresh season after a full pre season he obviously then showed himself as a very good manager, unlike Ismael so far. But at the time, he was struggling. Notice how no manager doing well has his record split into home and away. At the time, Eustace had an ok away record but his home record combined with that meant that his overall record was poor. If you split out Ismael within the inflexible argument that we are bad at home and good away, that suggests that we would level out right in the middle. The fact that we arent suggests that such an implication is misleading. Splitting into home and away is partly flawed because teams on average pick up more points at home than they do away. Our away form is 6th best, so its certainly above average. Our home form isnt below average, its truly woeful, 2nd worst, 2 points less than a point per game. If we had collected the points we have away at home, it would actually be the 17th best rather than the 6th. But by saying bad at home and good away, it makes us look better than we actually are doing.

Agenda as in to suit the argument which always for you when a manager is employed by the club (barring an occasional blip) is to make them seem as good as possible. What use is it that "he knows" that the home form is crap? I know and you know that its crap. Until that knowledge turns into results, its of no use. My argument is not that his man management is bad. Its that we cant possibly know in my opinion that its strong enough to be used as a positive in regards to him being our manager. We dont know either way, I have pointed out some red flags regarding how he manages his players, members of the squad not trying in training, not running back in games, being questioned personally in public etc, when brought up you take any debate off on weird tangents. But I couldnt strongly say his man management is poor. Why does playing youngsters prove good man management? Or winning the odd match? Coyle and Kean won the odd match, obviously Ismael isnt on par with them but every manager wins sometimes. You could easily say he loses more than he wins so his man management must be crap, its such a weak argument because there are so many variables that lead to results. Are there any areas of Ismael's management that concern you beside the generalised observation that the home form is poor (although even then you try to qualify that by saying "he knows"), and what do you think of his overall record in charge without splitting it into home and away?

I believe so.

But again, especially Rogers, they wouldnt have got the same game time. City had Foden, De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva etc. Its impossible to suggest that they could have merited that game time and therefore they wouldnt be the same player. It made sense for them to move on. Its not a difficult concept.

Whatever happened to unleaded? I feel like he was the one who mentioned or at least championed this player in the summer. Throughout the summer and just before, he was particularly strong (both here and on twitter) in saying how well Gestede and co were doing in the market, and how much he disliked Eustace and to a lesser extent the players that left. He mentioned how Eustace didnt want the likes of Gueye, Kargbo etc as if he was wrong to do so. Seems to have vanished having seen how the season has unfolded.

I presume you mean the season below, when he was doing poorly and being criticised. And people were adding a game he wasnt in charge of to try and skew things. As it was, once he had a pre season, results went from being poor to being excellent and those previous criticisms became a thing of the past. Ismael hasnt done that so the criticisms remain. You can start trying to cut up his record (home v away etc) but overall his results in charge have been poor.

I dont think anyone has suggested that Boro was anything other than a good result.

Its hardly weird, its blatantly obvious the source of our problems. But I have repeatedly said that I dont rate Ismael and have criticised him for various decisions. Its the extent of your dislike which I find over the top. Ismael isnt to blame as much as Gestede who isnt to blame as much as Pasha. But none are remotely as destructive as Venkys. If we dont spend this window, it isnt Ismael to blame.

That comment taken out of context hasnt bailed the owners out unless you choose to bail them out by again deflecting any blame away from them. I have never warmed to him and dont rate him or the job hes doing but I cant see why anyone would take it as far as not being able to stand him. That doesnt seem like a rational level of dislike but I suppose its not the first time.

Why do you HAVE to play them? Palmer is a central player predominantly and as good as he was, he would have struggled to break through regularly and immediately past who was in front. Rogers was nowhere near the standard he is now when he left. They had world class players ahead of both. With O'Reilly, they had issues with left backs so that position was up for grabs. They didnt have a player of a De Bruyne/Foden/Bernardo Silva standard blocking that position. Both needed to move on to get regular game time to become the players they are today.

McLaughlin feels like he is playing central purely out of necessity. When Wharton was fit, a player who also in the past has played left of a back 3, because unlike McLaughlin he is decent in the air and a lot more commanding and dominant. Theres a bit less reliance on aeriel ability etc if you play left rather than central, and McLaughlin has played at full back throughout last season (because he couldnt make Hulls team as a centre back) so he is used to defending in those areas. We need someone for the centre and then McLaughlin can compete with Pratt down the left. When suggesting players you want to sign chaddy, you seem happy to point out good things they have done at previous clubs. Its only the red flags and the question marks that you seem keen to dismiss as irrelevant.

Ultimately his overall record result wise is poor. You can split it into home and away to try and suit an agenda but ultimately its the overall record that matters. If you want to assume that his man management is really good to try and big him up, I think thats based on circumstantial evidence but thats up to you and it is an assumption. Extreme examples, Steve Kean won at Old Trafford, Coyle did the double over Newcastle, it doesnt mean that the team spirit was good. Main thing, is his overall record of results good here? I would say no. Obviously not helped by the squad downgrade he seemingly was on board with in the summer.

Surely its better from our point of view that he doesnt play. Rest him up and although I appreciate the days of players being signed based off good tournaments are much less common seeing as all games are available, less awareness as to how good he is to reduce the likelihood of bids.

He has, but it has no relevance to whether Dykes would be good for us or how good a player Dykes is.

But he has been churning out trophy after trophy in that time. Palmer himself forced the exit. Players that with regular game time elsewhere turn into stars are just collateral damage. Rogers has taken years of regular football to get to where he is now. The player that joined Boro was miles away.

Watched Newcastle last night against a poor United side, and theyve been on a few times this season. If Gordon is England's first choice left winger then its a problem. Quick but so poor in the final third, has been all season.

They wouldnt have played, especially Rogers. The Rogers that left and went to Boro (?) would not have had a sniff around Foden, KDB etc. So he wouldnt have come on as he has done going elsewhere. Even Palmer would have been slower getting into a team with such quality so wouldnt have come on as much.

Obviously the correct treatment is to not include them. My point is, you and others are pointing out his good man management and the great team spirit. I dont see how there is any evidence or foundation to use that as a positive specifically to attribute to Ismael. In fact, players within the squad not training properly, not giving 100% in games or being questioned outside of football would if anything be red flags. The main barometer for any manager is results. Ismael's overall have been poor. Obviously with him being currently employed by the club, besides a very brief blip last season, you will go on full unequivocal propaganda mode.

For a start, he isnt very good in the air. Even when he wins it, it isnt particularly accurate. I dont think hes good enough to be the main central defender. I think he is more suited to the left side.

And subsequently they wouldnt have been the players they are today had they stayed. People often mention it as if they let current day Rogers and Palmer leave. Not quite the same but there are similarities with Raya here. He was let go on the cheap but had be stayed, he certainly wouldnt have developed into who he is today, after 7 or 8 years in the Premier League, training with top class players and coaches etc.

Im not sure he has fully united the dressing room. I think youd have to go back to the Murphy/Etuhu days where it was clear that 100% wasnt being put in. But we have had problems of players not training properly this season according to Ismael himself, seemingly wasters like Gueye and Tavares. Also Kargbo not bothering to track back leading to a goal, public comments about Carter's preparation. There have definitely been performances full of grit and real character but also ones showing a real fragility. I certainly wouldnt be able to commit to bigging up Ismael's man management as a positive. There is certainly a lot of merit to the argument that he has been left with a poor and imbalanced squad, even if he has seemingly played a big part in endorsing the players hes been left with. And he isnt in the Kean and Coyle category. But I certainly havent been impressed with or warmed to his management overall.

He has never scored more than 2 goals in a single season. Any screamers were very much the exception so are a strange area to focus on. I think Travis was a good player and has been missed but he isnt this all rounder you suggest. He cannot protect the defence or read the game as well as Tronstad and isnt as good on the ball. Travis was more athletic and got about the pitch more although he isnt the same type of player. You suggest that the stats back you up, what stats? Tronstad does a very specific role, he sits in front of the defence, he keeps the play ticking, he reads the game really well and he is essentially the glue in our team. We play much better and do better when he plays. 2 players of a similar style (obviously elite players) are Busquets and Makelele, neither ran all over the pitch and neither made it to 20 career goals. Did they hold their teams back as limited and peripheral players?

If we were stupid enough to repeat the mistake of putting any reliance on Carter and Wharton then we deserve the inevitable spell of being short that will occur. We are short not only of regularly available numbers but of quality and balance. We need someone to slot into the middle of the back 3, essentially (I know we played a different formation, but in terms of quality) a massively overdue Hyam replacement.

Im not twisting anything. Youve dominated the thread doing everything you can to deflect and divert blame away from the club. I also find your consistent desire to know whether I am attending every game when its totally irrelevant to be a little strange. But no, I am not going.