Venables may have had the ability to be a good manager at club level but he was a crook.
I know a lifelong Crystal palace fan and he told me that Venables was not signing players for the good of the club but for the backhanders he was getting out of it. He was also paying over the odds for these players for the same reason.
Perhaps if he put the effort (???) in he might have been a good international manager.
There would not be the opportunity to make extra funds from transfers of players.
Maybe he would have concentrated on coaching but i believe he would always on the look out for the opportunity to increase his income by any means possible.
Dunphy would find something wrong if we beat Italy 10-0. He'll find something wrong if we qualify. He'll find something wrong if we make it through the groups. He'd find something wrong if we made it to the final. He'd find something wrong if we won the damn thing.
Then he'd sugar coat the situation in 20 years time, like how the team we had in 1990 was "the best in the world" in his opinion.
I truly despise the man
A lot of managers are at the backhanders lark and a lot in the past were at it including managers who won the league. George Graham and I think Brian Clough.
It's harder to do it obviously as an international manager. You cannot buy or sell players.
I agree his financial dealings were usually dodgy. But as an international manager there is no transfer policy to manipulate.
Emmet, it may be worth your while going back to the anti-Venables threads here after Stan was sacked. Plenty of objective criticism of his so-called football successes before his character was even taken into account. I'm too tired of that argument to go over it all again. I'm sure D69er is too.
New faces for the panel?
I'd keep Souness and Giles. Add Mick McCarthy. Kenny Cunningham. Owen Coyle.
Is Pat Walker telegenic?
I'd have one of those female Italian football presenters as host.
Temptation to post pictures of Ilaria D'Amico on Totty Watch rising...Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Her wikipedia page has a link to a bikini gallery for the love of God.
You can't spell failure without FAI
What about John Sheridan/ John Aldridge?
I am not alone! I am not alone!
As for Jewell, here's his record:
Apart from being brutal at Wednesday, his overall managerial record on games won/lost etc isn't fantastic. Very good at Wigan, average at Bradford and poor at Wednesday.
.................................................. ......G... W. L ..D Win %
Bradford City....................................117.. 46 45 26 39.31
Sheffield Wednesday...........................38. .12 21.. 5 31.57
Wigan Athletic..................................291.127 90. 74 43.64
__________________
For Derby, he led them to relegation from the Premiership (although they were in a poor position when he took over) and was looking at a further relegation from the Championship until he was sacked. No one else has hired him since his sacking (now a pundit on Sky, the job of most failed managers) which tells its own story.
I know I am slightly biased because of his failure with Wednesday but at the two reasonably sized clubs he's been at, he failed miserably.
Trappatoni vs Jewell: no contest but of course the poison dwarf knows better.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
just checked. No link to a bikini gallery in either...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
I'm afraid he was manager of Boro. He managed the team in a joint capacity with Robson. Just because his business cards listed his job title as Director of Football or some other such nonsense doesn't hide this fact. Look it up.
Last edited by youngirish; 13/10/2009 at 8:41 PM.
It was Boniek actually. Taken down by Gillespie who had replaced the injured Lawrenson.
"Football is a game you play with your brain".
I have already made the point it was Venables managing the team in all but name. That's the reason they stayed up. Before he arrived they were heading for relegation. I'm not disputing that once he arrived he was the main man managing first team affairs.
The fact he saved them from relegation is another positive for him, not a negative.
I just think some of the arguments put forward by people, that he was a crook and all that, is dumb.
Give me a crook who has experience, can manage and get good results any day over someone with perfect financial dealings but is a poor manager. Anyone would think he would steal all the FAI money. If he writes a newspaper column, who gives a sh*t? Clough and several managers wrote newspaper columns.
No manager is perfect in character. Brian Clough is an example of that. There are litterly tons of managers who have had fingers in several pies, including managers today. Remember the Panorama expose a couple years ago pointing fingers at Allardyce and a couple other managers?
You are right, fair play. It's all a distant memory now.
Last edited by Emmet7; 13/10/2009 at 9:57 PM.
It's worth watching this again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g7z70keOQw
Plenty of generalisations from the Irish experts.
Souness was spot on in what he said. He said he doubted very much Trap would play open expansive football and if fans were looking for that they would be dissapointed, but he was a winner. Demonstrates Souness does actually know what he is talking about.
Dunphy only knew Trap had won a lot of things. He didn't know what his tactics were.
Giles also says it's impossible to improve the players' skills in the couple of days Trap has the players. He can only work on a system.
Last edited by Emmet7; 14/10/2009 at 12:15 AM.
Boro were in a similar position to Derby when Jewell took over at Derby. Derby went down, Boro stayed up.
At the end of the day he (Jewell) was sacked from a Championship side after a disastrous run of results. We were lucky not to get him.
Every competant international side these days have managers of vast experience.
If Ireland were to meet Russia in the play offs, and Russia have Gus Hiddick on the side line, who would you rather have on our side, Paul Jewell or someone with experience of international and top level European management such as Venables.
I know who I'd prefer.
Appointing Jewell would be a gamble like appointing Kerr and Stauntan was. Another manager with no experience of managing internationally or of top players against top opposition. Serious football people like me know that.
That Boro squad contained recognised internationals in Ugo Ehiogu, Alan Boksic and Christian Karembeu. Derby's squad had Darren Moore and Robbie Earnshaw. Alex Ferguson could have taken over with Mourinho as his assistant and the chances are they still would have gotten relegated. If anything, it's an even more damning indictment of Robson's inability to put together a functioning XI from that squad.
Possibly not, but I'd still have had him over Venables.
Brazil would probably be the exception, but fair enough.
The obvious question then is - why would appointing Venables not be a gamble?
It would be less of a gamble. It's a job after all and you look for the guy who is most qualified with the most experience. That gives us the best chance of success.
I'm the sort who thinks that managers generally aren't geniuses or brillant. They learn from their mistakes and they get better. Top managers become top managers after making a lot of mistakes but in the end they get it right.
Even Trap is still learning as he goes along. A lot of players he started the campaign with have been replaced and a settled team, his best team, is now taking shape.
Rubbish. Some get better and some don't. George Graham didn't over the last years of his management career. Neither did Howard Wilkinson who remains the last Englishman to win the top flight (a year after Venables last trophy by the way). Nor did Kenny Daglish. And nor did Terry Venables. Sometimes the game moves on and leaves people behind.
As for your 'serious football people like me' remark....You must be on a wind up with a comment like that.
I think a big factor in managers "getting better" or not had to do with the culture change that occurred in England starting in the mid-to-late nineties, as science started to play a bigger role.
Diets, proper fitness regimes, and paying attention to the details started to give teams an edge against teams of the "old school."
In contrast, a lot of this scientific (and common sense) stuff has been commonplace in Europe for decades, albeit at a lower level of complexity.
But simple stuff like going to bed early, eating properly, and abstaining from alcohol ahead of key matches has always been part of the footballing culture in places like Italy.
This is why Trap has been able to be so successful for so long. In contrast you see some British managers who failed to embrace this new way of doing things, and they faded as a result.
Absolutely. A culture Trap is trying to instill to the Irish setup.
He is trying to bring the utmost professionalism to the Irish Team setup. That means not staying out late, not staying up drinking, eating the right food and respecting the manager and the team.
Of course you will have one or two players who cannot cope with that. But that's their problem not the manager.
Do we want to go back to a culture where the players stay out all night drinking with the press? Eating rubbish food, tired during games as they clearly were against Cyprus in the 5 - 2 defeat.
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks