Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Roberto Martinez discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moomin said:
Won leagues with PSG and Lyon. Come on now, think about it. The likes of Mancini and Houllier have won more titles than 99.9% of the other managers out there and you call them average.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

So he won a title with PSG before they had a massive decline, and won with Lyon before they had a massive decline also? And in a french league that was not too long ago dominated by one team for periods of time?

And as for mancini, on what basis is he a good manager?! he had no competition in Seria A when he won things there and he went all out attack with a load of top players he spent millions on and won it here. when his tactics was found out they didnt come close to united.

So yes i would say winning leagues with massive advantages before a ball is kicked is not criteria to being called a good manager. compare them to Wenger, who more than once built teams to topple the monopoly of United. compare them to Klopp who took a poor dormund side on a budget and finished in the champions league final. These are great managers because they achieve against the grain, not the grain itself.
 
Ashtonian said:
So he won a title with PSG before they had a massive decline, and won with Lyon before they had a massive decline also? And in a french league that was not too long ago dominated by one team for periods of time?

And as for mancini, on what basis is he a good manager?! he had no competition in Seria A when he won things there and he went all out attack with a load of top players he spent millions on and won it here. when his tactics was found out they didnt come close to united.

So yes i would say winning leagues with massive advantages before a ball is kicked is not criteria to being called a good manager. compare them to Wenger, who more than once built teams to topple the monopoly of United. compare them to Klopp who took a poor dormund side on a budget and finished in the champions league final. These are great managers because they achieve against the grain, not the grain itself.
Click to expand...

Don't bring Kloop or Wenger into the discussion.

It's about Houllier and Mancini and you calling them average even though they have multiple titles at various clubs. I think even Houllier has a trophy win at international level with France for the under 21's.

And, they are average. Just run of the mill managers. Spent the career plodding along without winning anything...... Wait that's not true.

Think about it properly now.
 
Moomin said:
Don't bring Kloop or Wenger into the discussion.

It's about Houllier and Mancini and you calling them average even though they have multiple titles at various clubs. I think even Houllier has a trophy win at international level with France for the under 21's.

And, they are average. Just run of the mill managers. Spent the career plodding along without winning anything...... Wait that's not true.

Think about it properly now.
Click to expand...

I feel i am repeating myself here but Mancini won Seria A when the top 2 teams in the division were either domoted points or relegated altogether. combine that with him buying their best players who weren't loyal and Inter were unstoppable. Up until that point Mancini hadn't made any impressions as manager in Inter. After that he spent well over 100 million and went all out attack to win the league with all these top talent. Even then won it with the last kick of the season.

Houllier may have won leagues but at times and at clubs were you expected that every year from said club. Coincidentally the clubs declined after he left them so track record there(NOT saying he caused it without a google first lol).

And as for winning at france under 21, by any chance were any of the squad future world cup winners?
 
Moomin said:
Don't bring Kloop or Wenger into the discussion.

It's about Houllier and Mancini and you calling them average even though they have multiple titles at various clubs. I think even Houllier has a trophy win at international level with France for the under 21's.

And, they are average. Just run of the mill managers. Spent the career plodding along without winning anything...... Wait that's not true.

Think about it properly now.
Click to expand...

Can say the same about Walter Smith. Some leagues are easier to win than others.
 
Ashtonian said:
I feel i am repeating myself here but Mancini won Seria A when the top 2 teams in the division were either domoted points or relegated altogether. combine that with him buying their best players who weren't loyal and Inter were unstoppable. Up until that point Mancini hadn't made any impressions as manager in Inter. After that he spent well over 100 million and went all out attack to win the league with all these top talent. Even then won it with the last kick of the season.

Houllier may have won leagues but at times and at clubs were you expected that every year from said club. Coincidentally the clubs declined after he left them so track record there(NOT saying he caused it without a google first lol).

And as for winning at france under 21, by any chance were any of the squad future world cup winners?
Click to expand...

Houllier won PSG's first league title ever, and two decades later went back to France to manage Lyon and won the French double 2 years in a row.

Yet he is just average.
 

Moomin said:
Houllier won PSG's first league title ever, and two decades later went back to France to manage Lyon and won the French double 2 years in a row.

Yet he is just average.
Click to expand...
PSG success was 30 years ago and the club was backed by wealthy people back then to be a dominant capital team. So yeah, well done houlier but that leaves like 15 years per success right there.

Lyon were winning the league every year when he took over there and therefore it wasn't a difficult job.
 
Ashtonian said:
PSG success was 30 years ago and the club was backed by wealthy people back then to be a dominant capital team. So yeah, well done houlier but that leaves like 15 years per success right there.

Lyon were winning the league every year when he took over there and therefore it wasn't a difficult job.
Click to expand...

So not just being an expert on average managers, you are an expert on PSG's first title win and how they were heavily backed.

What about us in the 80's, on the basis of what you have said would you class Kendall as an average manager? We were heavily backed by rich benefactors. Catterick as well??
 
Moomin said:
So not just being an expert on average managers, you are an expert on PSG's first title win and how they were heavily backed.

What about us in the 80's, on the basis of what you have said would you class Kendall as an average manager? We were heavily backed by rich benefactors. Catterick as well??
Click to expand...

Well we were and you cant deny that. At the same time gordon Lee failed and Kendall bought from lower leagues rather than Ardilles and Maradonna type signings. We signed cast offs from them lot and elsewhere and won trophies that way. But yes, was he a good manager at the time yes, but after the 80's he had zero success away from getting oldham promoted (or was that royle?) and even if he popped up years and years later and won the F.A cup the massive gap between actual success would diminish that.

i mean at least the likes of daglish won the rophy with different clubs rather than with one only. He was bank rolled the second time sure but he took two teams to the top of the league and flirted with taking newcastle there as well.

Further to the point winning the league in the 60's is not comparable to any modern era win. the game beyond the rules was such a different game and it took more than money to win things.
 

Ashtonian said:
Well we were and you cant deny that. At the same time gordon Lee failed and Kendall bought from lower leagues rather than Ardilles and Maradonna type signings. We signed cast offs from them lot and elsewhere and won trophies that way. But yes, was he a good manager at the time yes, but after the 80's he had zero success away from getting oldham promoted (or was that royle?) and even if he popped up years and years later and won the F.A cup the massive gap between actual success would diminish that.

i mean at least the likes of daglish won the rophy with different clubs rather than with one only. He was bank rolled the second time sure but he took two teams to the top of the league and flirted with taking newcastle there as well.

Further to the point winning the league in the 60's is not comparable to any modern era win. the game beyond the rules was such a different game and it took more than money to win things.
Click to expand...

Sweet Jesus, now your an expert of the game in the 60's.

So, lets get this right. You think the following.

Mancini as a manager who has won trophies at 5 different is average.

Houllier a winner of numerous titles at 3 different clubs and international level ( Asst manager of the world cup winning team in 98 ) is average.


US of A are spreading Ebola in Africa.

Dogleash was a better manager than Kendall.

Money did not matter in the 60's game.
 
Moomin said:
Sweet Jesus, now your an expert of the game in the 60's.

So, lets get this right. You think the following.

Mancini as a manager who has won trophies at 5 different is average.

Houllier a winner of numerous titles at 3 different clubs and international level ( Asst manager of the world cup winning team in 98 ) is average.


US of A are spreading Ebola in Africa.

Dogleash was a better manager than Kendall.

Money did not matter in the 60's game.
Click to expand...


1) Yes Mancini is an average manager

2) Houlier is not a great manager. Too inconsistent success and convenient success at convenient clubs that failed to follow up after he left.

3) I never said USA were spreading ebola once :) I said it was caused by something like that, a lab accident, an experiment etc didn't say who it was.

4) Didn't say daglish was a better manager. Kendall on a whole was better for building teams and not inheriting/buying them as daglish did.

5) Money didnt play that big of a part when the game consisted of pig skin balls, kicking lumps out of each other, playing on with injuries etc Sure signing the best players still worked out but it is not like real madrid vs stoke here. it was a much more even playing field where the best team won the league through earning it.
 
Moomin said:
Sweet Jesus, now your an expert of the game in the 60's.

So, lets get this right. You think the following.

Mancini as a manager who has won trophies at 5 different is average.

Houllier a winner of numerous titles at 3 different clubs and international level ( Asst manager of the world cup winning team in 98 ) is average.


US of A are spreading Ebola in Africa.

Dogleash was a better manager than Kendall.

Money did not matter in the 60's game.
Click to expand...

Plus Martinez at Wigan and Swansea had a "self sufficent youth academy", and their both "high profile clubs"
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top