Unpopular opinions.

[Ludo*1]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

up until three summers ago , Paul Hartley's record showed him to be a good manager who could be trusted to do well in the transfer window   

FTFY.

f**k knows what happened, he had an absolutely excellent start to his career.

[ah-dee]

FTFY.
f**k knows what happened, he had an absolutely excellent start to his career.

Hartleys inability to build a solid defence was his undoing in my opinion. we were just hoping to out score teams every week and after stewart and hemmings left we got found out. i mean he thought daryl meggatt has a premiership defender!

[tamthebam]

Football managers are perhaps subject to the Peter Principle the same as managers in business. The Peter Principle, simplified, states "an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."

So for one manager their ultimate level of competence might be getting Alloa promoted. for another, getting Aberdeen into 2nd place in the League. 

The strange thing is that you constantly see Chairmen of Football clubs appointing managers that have proved to be duds or busted flushes. 

[DAFC.]

Coldplay aren’t actually that bad. In fact, A Rush of Blood to the Head is a genuine 10/10, exceptional album.

[Guest JTS98]

5 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Football managers are perhaps subject to the Peter Principle the same as managers in business. The Peter Principle, simplified, states "an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."

So for one manager their ultimate level of competence might be getting Alloa promoted. for another, getting Aberdeen into 2nd place in the League. 

The strange thing is that you constantly see Chairmen of Football clubs appointing managers that have proved to be duds or busted flushes. 

I'd say football managers - outwith the extremely talented and the extremely untalented - are basically judged unfairly, whether the judgement is positive or negative.

Almost all signings made by the vast majority of the football clubs in the world are complete gambles, whether a substitution 'works' or not is very often more luck than judgement, whether a player maintains previous form at a new club is down to a whole host of factors, many of which are outside a coach's control.

Essentially, football is a lot more 'random' (a word I dislike, but I can't think of a better one for this) than we like to admit. There's a whole industry built around analysing and talking about football. But a lot of what happens is just luck.

Of course, a team that has a bigger budget will generally do well. There are patterns. But nobody can predict a striker's sudden loss of form because he and his missus have fallen out, or a key player picking up a long-term injury (look at Hearts this season), or the form of a player signed from a league that nobody watches, or the impact of refereeing mistakes or the ball hitting the post and either going in or coming back out in a key game, or a player suddenly coming up with a moment of brilliance that he isn't prone to. Yet all of these things shape seasons and shape our opinions.

As I said, there's now a whole industry around this. There are tactics blogs and tactics books, there are newspaper columns, there are podcasts with minutes to fill. Loads of people analysing things in tiny detail, yet so, so often their predictions are off the mark because they fail to take into account that so much of what happens in football is just chance. Also, we all like to sound clever in the pub so we like to think football is a lot more prone to analysis than it really is. We like to be able to explain things.

If Steven Gerrard doesn't slip, Brendan Rodgers is very possibly a Premier League-winning manager. Instead, he became a bit of a joke figure. If Hibs win a penalty shoot out in the promotion/relegation play-off final, Alex Neil probably never goes down to England to become a millionaire. If Stilian Petrov doesn't get injured at Tynecastle on New Year's Day 2006, Strachan never subs him for Stephen Pearson, who goes on to turn the game and turn a one-point gap at the top into a seven-point gap. That's fitba.

I've seen detailed blogs about how Chelsea beat Barcelona in the 2010 Champions League semi-final. Yet the simple truth is that if Messi scores his penalty instead of hitting the bar, Barcelona probably win and nobody ever talks about Di Matteo's game-plan. We massively over-state the influence of coaches in most situations.

For this reason, I think that the cult of the manager is massively over-blown. Clearly, there are exceptions at both ends of the spectrum, but your average manager is just that. And your average manager will have success or failure on the basis of a load of things he doesn't control.

Edited January 17, 2019 by JTS98

[BigBo10]

I'd say football managers - outwith the extremely talented and the extremely untalented - are basically judged unfairly, whether the judgement is positive or negative.
Almost all signings made by the vast majority of the football clubs in the world are complete gambles, whether a substitution 'works' or not is very often more luck than judgement, whether a player maintains previous form at a new club is down to a whole host of factors, many of which are outside a coach's control.
Essentially, football is a lot more 'random' (a word I dislike, but I can't think of a better one for this) than we like to admit. There's a whole industry built around analysing and talking about football. But a lot of what happens is just luck.
Of course, a team that has a bigger budget will generally do well. There are patterns. But nobody can predict a striker's sudden loss of form because he and his missus have fallen out, or a key player picking up a long-term injury (look at Hearts this season), or the form of a player signed from a league that nobody watches, or the impact of refereeing mistakes or the ball hitting the post and either going in or coming back out in a key game, or a player suddenly coming up with a moment of brilliance that he isn't prone to. Yet all of these things shape seasons and shape our opinions.
As I said, there's now a whole industry around this. There are tactics blogs and tactics books, there are newspaper columns, there are podcasts with minutes to fill. Loads of people analysing things in tiny detail, yet so, so often their predictions are off the mark because they fail to take into account that so much of what happens in football is just chance. Also, we all like to sound clever in the pub so we like to think football is a lot more prone to analysis than it really is. We like to be able to explain things.
If Steven Gerrard doesn't slip, Brendan Rodgers is very possibly a Premier League-winning manager. Instead, he became a bit of a joke figure. If Hibs win a penalty shoot out in the promotion/relegation play-off final, Alex Neil probably never goes down to England to become a millionaire. If Stilian Petrov doesn't get injured at Tynecastle on New Year's Day 2006, Strachan never subs him for Stephen Pearson, who goes on to turn the game and turn a one-point gap at the top into a seven-point gap. That's fitba.
I've seen detailed blogs about how Chelsea beat Barcelona in the 2010 Champions League semi-final. Yet the simple truth is that if Messi scores his penalty instead of hitting the bar, Barcelona probably win and nobody ever talks about Di Matteo's game-plan. We massively over-state the influence of coaches in most situations.
For this reason, I think that the cult of the manager is massively over-blown. Clearly, there are exceptions at both ends of the spectrum, but your average manager is just that. And your average manager will have success or failure on the basis of a load of things he doesn't control.

Likes rugby.

[Guest JTS98]

4 hours ago, BigBo10 said:

Likes rugby.

Perhaps another for this thread.

Rugby League is a tremendous sport and the NRL in Australia is arguably the best sporting competition in the world.

Rugby Union is garbage.

Edited January 18, 2019 by JTS98

[Cerberus]

M. Night Shyamalan makes terrible movies.

 

 

[19QOS19]

Constant fishing isn't amusing, it's boring.

[Romeo]

the NRL in Australia is arguably the best sporting competition in the world.

Shut up mate

[tongue_tied_danny]

Sasha Baron Cohen is an unfunny c**t.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

19 minutes ago, Romeo said:

 

 

Shut up mate

 

 

This

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

The Prodigy were much better before Pierre Van Hooijdonk left.

Some mover.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo

[Guest JTS98]

13 hours ago, Romeo said:

 

 

Shut up mate

 

 

What's not to like?

Many of the sport's best players in the world, a fast-paced sport played in front of up-for-it crowds, a healthy culture of rivalry and laughs around it and it's not been retained by anyone since 1993. A model of what a competition should be.

I honestly can't think of a football league that touches it.

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

State of Origin is class, tbf.

[Guest JTS98]

Just now, Barry Ferguson's Hat said:

State of Origin is class, tbf.

Up there with the best sporting events in the world. No question.

[Sergeant Wilson]

11 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

What's not to like?

Many of the sport's best players in the world, a fast-paced sport played in front of up-for-it crowds, a healthy culture of rivalry and laughs around it and it's not been retained by anyone since 1993. A model of what a competition should be.

I honestly can't think of a football league that touches it.

It's shite.

[throbber]

M. Night Shyamalan makes terrible movies.
 
 

Not really an unpopular opinion as he’s had a few howlers, especially After Earth. I really like The Visit, The Village and the 6th Sense through.

[Miguel Sanchez]

8 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

Not really an unpopular opinion as he’s had a few howlers, especially After Earth. I really like The Visit, The Village and the 6th Sense through.

 

The Village is the definition of a howler

[throbber]

The Village is the definition of a howler

I liked it, maybe I have exceptionally awful taste in films but I thought it was pretty good. Don’t think the reviews for it were particularly bad either but the last few films leading up to After Earth were all terrible I think:

Split/Unbreakable were good also.