| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we 19:40 - Feb 11 with 45266 views | textbackup |
Even a draw after pissing about going 2-0 down isn’t good enough.
We were fcking top, points clear.
This is an absolute shtshow, we’ll probably nick a 5th 6th place finish due to the sheer amount of sht we have left to play… but I don’t see us getting anything from barnsley Bolton or Derby, might nick a point or two if we are lucky, which really then gives nobody any hope that the playoffs will result in anything but 82726 passes then concede from the only shot or two we have against us.
[Post edited 11 Feb 2023 19:44]
|  |
| |  |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:13 - Feb 14 with 2090 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 10:54 - Feb 14 by Metal_Hacker |
Long and short , I’d suggest it is the best football but not necessarily the best results
Two slightly different arguments |
Quite. He knows that but is building straw men as he flails about trying to win something on the internet. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:13 - Feb 14 with 2086 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:03 - Feb 14 by StokieBlue |
"People loved the beginning of Hurst before it failed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hurst
"Under Hurst, Ipswich made a very poor start to the season, winning just one of their opening 14 games and losing on penalties to League Two side Exeter City in the EFL Cup."
https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/21463095.hursts-149-days-charge-ipswich-town-shorte
Outlines a series of poor displays with very little in the way of loving the performances.
I don't remember people loving the Hurst football but maybe I've just blanked it out of my mind. However sticking to the published evidence you would seem to be wrong in continually pushing that point as evidence to support your position.
SB |
SB. All you've done it proven my point. Thanks.
FB. |  |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:14 - Feb 14 with 2077 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:11 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I've explained one of the main reasons. Are you thick?
Yes people enjoyed some of Lambert, Royle and Hurst's football, but we weren't smashing viewing records.
I'm sure every manager has a few great games - that doesn't automatically put them on a par with McKenna. Otherwise you might as well say every manager player brilliant football sometimes. You're being disingenuous because your argument's nonsense.
And then you repeat the 'not winning enough games' line. Because your argument about style WHICH IS ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT has failed. |
There's a reason for that. A reason. What's the reason? | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:16 - Feb 14 with 2068 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:06 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
If its not getting results. Then it can't be the best football.
Is it modern football and a style not seen by many in league 1, yes. Buts it's still not the best since Burley. |
So you can't understand a scenario where a team plays some fantastic football, a joy to watch, but they end up drawing the game? That's impossible by your logic? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:17 - Feb 14 with 2056 views | StokieBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:13 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
SB. All you've done it proven my point. Thanks.
FB. |
In no way does that prove your point, it totally undermines your point.
I thought you "weren't playing games" anymore? Why don't you address evidence like a sensible poster and explain how that proves your point rather than focusing on ending posts with a clear dig at me.
SB |  | | |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:19 - Feb 14 with 2050 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:13 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
SB. All you've done it proven my point. Thanks.
FB. |
Hahahaha, what a pathetic weasily swerve. You claimed people enjoyed his football at the start - and that enjoyable football is only winning football - yet Hurst only won 1 of his games before being fired.
You're full of horse$hit. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:22 - Feb 14 with 2032 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:14 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
There's a reason for that. A reason. What's the reason? |
FFS. Are you a baby? Do I really have to spell everything out or do you understand context and nuance without people having to post everything literally?
Ok, I'll give it a go - when people say, "There's a reason for that" it's a turn of phrase. They don't literally mean that's THE ONLY REASON.
Do you see why so many people take umbrage with you on here? And I'm largely one of your defenders! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:39 - Feb 14 with 1991 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:16 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So you can't understand a scenario where a team plays some fantastic football, a joy to watch, but they end up drawing the game? That's impossible by your logic? |
I can indeed. And it's good to see you starting to see things differently.
We are playing some fantastic football. Not the best since Burley but some fantastic football. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:44 - Feb 14 with 1983 views | Metal_Hacker |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:06 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
If its not getting results. Then it can't be the best football.
Is it modern football and a style not seen by many in league 1, yes. Buts it's still not the best since Burley. |
Two different conversations / arguments sweetheart |  |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:48 - Feb 14 with 1948 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:17 - Feb 14 by StokieBlue |
In no way does that prove your point, it totally undermines your point.
I thought you "weren't playing games" anymore? Why don't you address evidence like a sensible poster and explain how that proves your point rather than focusing on ending posts with a clear dig at me.
SB |
It proves my point more than you realise.
The football itself people were liking the look of. It followed a different style and people were liking it. The results however didn't match it and subsequently the feeling of the style changed. Look at now. You've completed forgotten how Good some of the football was being played because it wasn't successful. You're rewriting history if you're going to ignore that there was a sense of excitement of the ball on the floor football Hurst was bringing to the party.
He was shocking. There is 0 doubt about it.
But yes you've proved my point. Thank you.
FB | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:53 - Feb 14 with 1910 views | Metal_Hacker |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:48 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
It proves my point more than you realise.
The football itself people were liking the look of. It followed a different style and people were liking it. The results however didn't match it and subsequently the feeling of the style changed. Look at now. You've completed forgotten how Good some of the football was being played because it wasn't successful. You're rewriting history if you're going to ignore that there was a sense of excitement of the ball on the floor football Hurst was bringing to the party.
He was shocking. There is 0 doubt about it.
But yes you've proved my point. Thank you.
FB |
Sorry Frimmers , just an observation but why do you on occasion sign your posts off with “FB” ? | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:01 - Feb 14 with 1874 views | leitrimblue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:53 - Feb 14 by Metal_Hacker |
Sorry Frimmers , just an observation but why do you on occasion sign your posts off with “FB” ? |
Shorthand for feeble?  |  | | |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:06 - Feb 14 with 1840 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:48 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
It proves my point more than you realise.
The football itself people were liking the look of. It followed a different style and people were liking it. The results however didn't match it and subsequently the feeling of the style changed. Look at now. You've completed forgotten how Good some of the football was being played because it wasn't successful. You're rewriting history if you're going to ignore that there was a sense of excitement of the ball on the floor football Hurst was bringing to the party.
He was shocking. There is 0 doubt about it.
But yes you've proved my point. Thank you.
FB |
No. You said enjoyable football was only successful football. So how on earth can Hurst's be enjoyable?! You're tripping over your own logic.
There's no re-writing of history. "there was a sense of excitement" - because we had a new manager. But it wasn't some scintillating style of football.
Anyway, we're talking about the "best since Burley". Hurst's obviously wasn't, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:12 - Feb 14 with 1808 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:22 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
FFS. Are you a baby? Do I really have to spell everything out or do you understand context and nuance without people having to post everything literally?
Ok, I'll give it a go - when people say, "There's a reason for that" it's a turn of phrase. They don't literally mean that's THE ONLY REASON.
Do you see why so many people take umbrage with you on here? And I'm largely one of your defenders! |
Flash. You're very angry today. Just chill.
If you meant more than one reason. You would have said there are reasons for that. Not there is a reason for that. 'a reason' means one. Reasons means more than one.
You sound like an FIA steward and the any doesn't mean all farce. | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:14 - Feb 14 with 1795 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:53 - Feb 14 by Metal_Hacker |
Sorry Frimmers , just an observation but why do you on occasion sign your posts off with “FB” ? |
Politeness. | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:21 - Feb 14 with 1767 views | Metal_Hacker |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:14 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
Politeness. |
Oh right because it comes across as provocative.
Politeness is nice though hey | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:24 - Feb 14 with 1735 views | itfcjoe |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 11:06 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Go up by how much though? All sales go up when a new manager comes in, that's just optimism. The support now hasn't been as good in donkey's years, even in the Champ, and loads cite the style of football.
I don't remember there being an issue over STs under those other managers. There were countless people moaning about the football under Mick and/or cancelling STs because of it, that was my point.
I think you're being rather pedantic on the play off finish. It's been done to death and I'm not wasting another moment on it.
If you think backing Frimmers is a good position to take, fill your boots. But my point is and remains that Mick-ball isn't remotely as attractive to watch as McKenna-ball. And the level of support under both managers is an indication of that. |
Our average attendance went down every season from 2004/2005 until 2014/15.
Every single year of Jim, every single season of Keane, every single season of Jewell saw it go down.
In 2014/15 it went up 2,500, then it fell again but by 16/17 it was only 20 less than it was in 13/14.
When Mick came in our average attendance was 17,526 when he left it was 16,272 - most of the 1300 people who stopped going were obviously those that came back for a bit of glory and then disappeared
Joe Royle - 25,455 to 24,240 (-5% over 3 seasons)
Jim Magilton - 22,445 to 20,862 (-7% over 3 seasons)
Roy Keane - 20,841 to 19,615 (-6% over 2 seasons)
Paul Jewell - 19,615 to 17,526 (-11% over 2 seasons)
Mick McCarthy - 17526 to 16,272 (-7% over 5 seasons)
After Joe left we were losing fans every season, and Mick had the least to work with financially out of all of them (bar Jim's first season) - we'd have been in League 1 far earlier without him and the fact we finished in the top half of the Champ 4 times in 5 season, including a deserved 6th place is testament to what he could do
And whilst the football, outside of 14/15 wasn't always the best - just look at the infrastructure we had - we now have about 8 people doing the jobs Lee O'Neill and Ian Milne did, with a further 4 picking up what Luke Chambers and Cole Skuse did. Ticket promotions, beam backs, merchandise, Ed Sheeran etc - the club did nothing to engage the community and that is why we lost fans every season. |  |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:31 - Feb 14 with 1694 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:06 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No. You said enjoyable football was only successful football. So how on earth can Hurst's be enjoyable?! You're tripping over your own logic.
There's no re-writing of history. "there was a sense of excitement" - because we had a new manager. But it wasn't some scintillating style of football.
Anyway, we're talking about the "best since Burley". Hurst's obviously wasn't, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up. |
We were talking about best football. Not enjoyable. You've just changed the discussion.
If you are going down enjoyable. Then I'd say football under Joe and magilton was equally if not more enjoyable than now as it was higher level and we were fighting for promotion to the prem.
But if you want to stick to best. Which Is what we were talking about then no its still to early to call this the best football until we've actually achieved something. Otherwise if we fail.. it won't be remembered as the best at all. It will be like it was under Hurst and under Lambert something at the time people were fond on until it failed.
So yes. Let's see if KM can achieve promotion and do something further in the league above.. then we have then witnessed the best football since Burley. But at present it's just another style being played and currently a failing style. But there's time to turn it back around:) | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:41 - Feb 14 with 1644 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:21 - Feb 14 by Metal_Hacker |
Oh right because it comes across as provocative.
Politeness is nice though hey |
I wouldn't have thought so Metal. Otherwise anyone else that does it you'd have to say was being provocative aswell.
But yes politeness is nice. | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:41 - Feb 14 with 1649 views | itfcjoe |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:31 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
We were talking about best football. Not enjoyable. You've just changed the discussion.
If you are going down enjoyable. Then I'd say football under Joe and magilton was equally if not more enjoyable than now as it was higher level and we were fighting for promotion to the prem.
But if you want to stick to best. Which Is what we were talking about then no its still to early to call this the best football until we've actually achieved something. Otherwise if we fail.. it won't be remembered as the best at all. It will be like it was under Hurst and under Lambert something at the time people were fond on until it failed.
So yes. Let's see if KM can achieve promotion and do something further in the league above.. then we have then witnessed the best football since Burley. But at present it's just another style being played and currently a failing style. But there's time to turn it back around:) |
I don't (for once!) massively disagree with you on this - but think the difference between the 'good football' we are playing under McKenna is both that it is measurably good - i.e. we dominate games, we create good chances, we limit teams, we dominate the ball - plus it is easy on the eye - pass completion, possession, territory etc.
Whatever happens results wise with McKenna going forwards, if we stick to this style and have the same metrics, then we will have played what every neutral would consider good football whether we get over the line or not.
I think with other managers in the past (and bearing in mind they haven't had the financial backing) is that we have at times played winning football and that is always good to watch unless totally dire but we've never dominated a division like this since George Burley or Joe Royle days.
You simply can't roll along at 2 ppg for full seasons plus which we did under GB, JR and have basically done under KM without being dominant in key areas like creating lots of chances and not conceding many.
But if we don't get where we want to get under KM, I think it will be viewed with frustration that we were playing good football the whole time. | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:11 - Feb 14 with 1560 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:24 - Feb 14 by itfcjoe |
Our average attendance went down every season from 2004/2005 until 2014/15.
Every single year of Jim, every single season of Keane, every single season of Jewell saw it go down.
In 2014/15 it went up 2,500, then it fell again but by 16/17 it was only 20 less than it was in 13/14.
When Mick came in our average attendance was 17,526 when he left it was 16,272 - most of the 1300 people who stopped going were obviously those that came back for a bit of glory and then disappeared
Joe Royle - 25,455 to 24,240 (-5% over 3 seasons)
Jim Magilton - 22,445 to 20,862 (-7% over 3 seasons)
Roy Keane - 20,841 to 19,615 (-6% over 2 seasons)
Paul Jewell - 19,615 to 17,526 (-11% over 2 seasons)
Mick McCarthy - 17526 to 16,272 (-7% over 5 seasons)
After Joe left we were losing fans every season, and Mick had the least to work with financially out of all of them (bar Jim's first season) - we'd have been in League 1 far earlier without him and the fact we finished in the top half of the Champ 4 times in 5 season, including a deserved 6th place is testament to what he could do
And whilst the football, outside of 14/15 wasn't always the best - just look at the infrastructure we had - we now have about 8 people doing the jobs Lee O'Neill and Ian Milne did, with a further 4 picking up what Luke Chambers and Cole Skuse did. Ticket promotions, beam backs, merchandise, Ed Sheeran etc - the club did nothing to engage the community and that is why we lost fans every season. |
I take on board your points and agree with most of them. As I said myself, I'm a Mick fan and I appreciate the football had to be more agricultural as he didn't have the resources.
This is all besides the point though - for whatever reasons, Mick's football can't be described as on a par with McKenna's. I'm not judging on whether it's a fair comparison due to resources, just judging on what we saw with our eyes.
I think we're going round in circles with the stats. Maybe my memory's deserting me, but I don't remember swathes of people leaving (and declaring they're leaving on these pages) due to the non-entertaining football under those other managers like they were Mick. Whilst the community engagement was carp, I think that's a bit of a red herring. If we were playing great football nowhere near as many would have left. Was the community engagement that great under Burley? I don't know, I just went to the pub and then the game.
Community engagement may well play a part for some, but I think it's a pretty small part. Successful football and/or entertaining football are surely the biggest reasons why people come. Wasn't Evans hand forced, in part, to get rid of Mick due to the rapidly declining ST sales? Yes he'd had a falling out with a section of the fanbase, but if ST sales and attendances were still holding up Evans would have had less incentive to pull the trigger. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:19 - Feb 14 with 1542 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 12:31 - Feb 14 by FrimleyBlue |
We were talking about best football. Not enjoyable. You've just changed the discussion.
If you are going down enjoyable. Then I'd say football under Joe and magilton was equally if not more enjoyable than now as it was higher level and we were fighting for promotion to the prem.
But if you want to stick to best. Which Is what we were talking about then no its still to early to call this the best football until we've actually achieved something. Otherwise if we fail.. it won't be remembered as the best at all. It will be like it was under Hurst and under Lambert something at the time people were fond on until it failed.
So yes. Let's see if KM can achieve promotion and do something further in the league above.. then we have then witnessed the best football since Burley. But at present it's just another style being played and currently a failing style. But there's time to turn it back around:) |
Er, no. You started this bit saying "it's nice football". For several pages now we've been talking 'best' as in 'best to watch' (i.e. nice football). It's you who's trying to change best to mean 'most successful' because you're losing the argument. It's you who is moving the goalposts.
And you repeat the Hurst lie, despite Stokie catching you out with it. Nobody remembers Hurst's football fondly.
I agree McKenna's football isn't the most successful yet, but then he hasn't had a full season of management yet, and that wasn't the discussion anyway. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:21 - Feb 14 with 1529 views | itfcjoe |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:11 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I take on board your points and agree with most of them. As I said myself, I'm a Mick fan and I appreciate the football had to be more agricultural as he didn't have the resources.
This is all besides the point though - for whatever reasons, Mick's football can't be described as on a par with McKenna's. I'm not judging on whether it's a fair comparison due to resources, just judging on what we saw with our eyes.
I think we're going round in circles with the stats. Maybe my memory's deserting me, but I don't remember swathes of people leaving (and declaring they're leaving on these pages) due to the non-entertaining football under those other managers like they were Mick. Whilst the community engagement was carp, I think that's a bit of a red herring. If we were playing great football nowhere near as many would have left. Was the community engagement that great under Burley? I don't know, I just went to the pub and then the game.
Community engagement may well play a part for some, but I think it's a pretty small part. Successful football and/or entertaining football are surely the biggest reasons why people come. Wasn't Evans hand forced, in part, to get rid of Mick due to the rapidly declining ST sales? Yes he'd had a falling out with a section of the fanbase, but if ST sales and attendances were still holding up Evans would have had less incentive to pull the trigger. |
I think the problem we had under Mick, was effectively that our budget saw us set out for a bottom half finish - and if everything went right with recruitment and the like we had a shot at top 6.....but if a couple of bits went wrong, we just had to knuckle down, ensure we stayed up and then went again the following season.
It's the right thing to do, and it's what most teams in the PL try to do to stay up - but as fans it's not particularly exciting to just do what is needed to pick up a few points and try and save what money can be saved to go again next season.
Even when we had a bad season in 16/17, we won back to back games over Easter and were effectively safe with half a dozen games to go so even our relegation scraps were not in any way exciting! | |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:27 - Feb 14 with 1499 views | FrimleyBlue |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:19 - Feb 14 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Er, no. You started this bit saying "it's nice football". For several pages now we've been talking 'best' as in 'best to watch' (i.e. nice football). It's you who's trying to change best to mean 'most successful' because you're losing the argument. It's you who is moving the goalposts.
And you repeat the Hurst lie, despite Stokie catching you out with it. Nobody remembers Hurst's football fondly.
I agree McKenna's football isn't the most successful yet, but then he hasn't had a full season of management yet, and that wasn't the discussion anyway. |
Stokie hasn't caught me out. He'd helped to prove the point.
You've twisted yourself up. You're now agreeing it's not the best football. It's the nicest looking. Which is different. So fine if you feel its the nicer looking. But then it falls into people did like the nice football managers like Hurst were putting on despite results and lambert football was nice to many until it failed. So yes I agree it's nice.
It's good to finally agree however that it's to early to call it the best football since Burley. [Post edited 14 Feb 2023 13:29]
| |
| |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:30 - Feb 14 with 1481 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| We have absolutely fcked this haven’t we on 13:21 - Feb 14 by itfcjoe |
I think the problem we had under Mick, was effectively that our budget saw us set out for a bottom half finish - and if everything went right with recruitment and the like we had a shot at top 6.....but if a couple of bits went wrong, we just had to knuckle down, ensure we stayed up and then went again the following season.
It's the right thing to do, and it's what most teams in the PL try to do to stay up - but as fans it's not particularly exciting to just do what is needed to pick up a few points and try and save what money can be saved to go again next season.
Even when we had a bad season in 16/17, we won back to back games over Easter and were effectively safe with half a dozen games to go so even our relegation scraps were not in any way exciting! |
I don't disagree with any of that. In fact I'd say it's spot on.
Again, though, it's beside the point I was making.
Mick's football may well have been up there with McKenna's if he'd had the resources. But we don't have any evidence for that. If we put caveats to one side and just go on what we saw, there's no way Frimmers can say "McKenna's football's great to watch but Mick had some great to watch stuff too" with a straight face.
And you can't put them remotely close if we're discussing "best football since Burley". | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
