Nibor

More good work by the EU ensuring consumers don't pay twice for the internet and scrapping roaming fees...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869

Excellent result, well done City!  

Yep, have we gone back in time or something and Sam did not miss all those chances?

I can't be bothered to go over old ground but Sam B HIMSELF knows he should be on 30 already with the chances he's had this season.

Should be on 30? That's insane. Do you expect him to go to Brazil as well?

He'll be our first player to hit 20 league goals since Lita 10 years ago, try and be just slightly realistic.

Really sticks in the throat he's doing so well, doesn't it?

Not in the least. Why on earth would it?

Sometimes things come back to bite you in the ass.

As I've said several times I'll be delighted to be proved wrong. I suspect this will still be a bad appointment in the long term and don't like the bloke.

Anyway I'm glad the opportunity to be a troll on the Internet brought some sunshine to your life, Making premature "I told you so" posts is a really ace hobby.

Good to get another result, and that much closer to safety.  Well done City!

Good result, well done City!

Better performance and a good result. Well done City :-)

You say I'm a hypocrite because I've criticised O'Driscoll but post here that I am bored of the whole SOD v SC endless roundabout.

Two separate things: 1) because you were hyper critical of SOD yet now defend Cotterill from criticisms that roughly equivalent. 2) because you complain about the endless SOD v SC roundabout yet are one of the principal posters who causes it.

Now to the thing you took umbrage at - as you always do when someone challenges your assertions. You think Cotterill's appointment was a bad one and fair enough, you can take that view, although I think it's too early to judge.

Those two points that you use as "major reasons" why he was wrong for the club are very weak however. He is a "divisive" figure who was "opposed" by the "majority of fans". First up, how did you carry out this survey? I don't remember getting a ballot paper.

It's fair to say, his appointment was opposed noisily by a number of people on this board, but you can't extrapolate that to the fanbase as a whole. I suspect if you'd walked around the Gate on Steve's first match in charge and questioned every spectator you'd find some people with strong opinions, but the majority would say "let's see how he does" or "can't be as bad as the last bloke" and some would probably say "Steve who?"

I haven't taken any umbrage I just generally respond in kind.

There was a poll on here prior to his appointment that had a sample size more than large enough to be reliable that made it clear that appointing him was opposed by the majority. Not that he wasn't the first choice, people actually saying NO to him beinb manager. The "we'll see how he does" sentiment emerged after it was a fait accomplit, as would be expected from fans given they can't change it. The consequences of appointing someone objected to like this are obvious - the complete lack of a honeymoon period and no real tolerance from fans who have in the main given other managers time. I think this is the reason there is no unity / siege mentality at AG, and a huge amount of malaise.

There were people who raised objections to McInnes "not experienced enough"; Millen "the cheap option" even Johnson "not proven at this level". I can't remember Alan Dicks' appointment but I imagine there might've been some consternation then. Being a "divisive figure" doesn't mean you are a bad manager. When Stoke appointed Pulis for the second time, there were fan protests outside the ground, but of course when he proved successful those fans who would "never go again" drifted back. Bloody hell! The popular choice on this board seems to be Warnock who has "divisive figure" engraved on his cufflinks!

Every potential appointment will have some objectors but few will have a clear majority objecting. Warnock is divisive in a different way - he polarizes. You either despise him (me) or love him. Probably this is in roughly equal measure.

You also state, he was a bad appointment because his public pronouncements made him difficult for some fans to like. Bloody hell, when have we heard that before?!

The nonsense things he says sometimes are there but not really what I mean. When I listen to him being interviewed I find all kinds of warnings going off in my head. The same kind I get from a tactless salesman. It is very hard to get behind someone you dislike and I find him dislikable. I think a majority of people do, but that is anecdotal.

My initial post on this thread said that post-match interviews - conducted in the heat of the moment as it were - do often contain some doozies. And 'I'm a winner' falls into that category. But really it doesn't matter what people say - he could've grabbed the Mic and said I Am A Dalek for all I care.

What matters is how he manages the team. We both can agree that there are some causes for concern there.

I haven't really commented on how he manages the team as it is too early but concerns are there. What I am more worried about though is the long term change that I believe is fundamental to any decent future the club might have is in my opinion at risk with someone like Cotterill in charge. Whilst relegation would be a complete arse, I'd take it if it was a consequence of a series of changes that meant a healthier club five years from now as opposed to scraping by and bumbling along at this level making a huge loss for five years. I believe SOD was working for the long term hence why I was disappointed to see him sacked. I believe Cotterill thinks no further than this weekend (and would do even when not in a relegation battle).

Of course you can say anything with stats, the question, is it both based on accurate facts, and is it meaningful.

 

Extrapolating points per game of both managers this season over a full term, SOD comes out at 36, and SC comes out at 56.

 

No team has ever stayed up with 36 points, and no team has ever been relegated with 56 points.

 

Hence, you are incorrect, points per game under the current manager is sufficient to stay up, the problem is the weight of the opening 19 games.

 

Or, if you like, as you might put it, SC is "bright enough" to keep us up, whereas SOD wasn't "bright enough" to keep us up. 

Fair enough, I've miscounted. I think SOD would have achieved more had he stayed than Cotterill has, for me the signs were there and IMO we'd have done better in the transfer window than players like Elliott and Barnett - signings which fill me with dread. I would be delighted if I am proven wrong about Cotterill but when even his fiercest defenders have no confidence in him what does that tell you?

 

If we were sacking SOD we should have made a better appointment than one most of the fans objected to.

Many of the comments about SOD have been since he left, not while he was here.

 

I think you would be very hard pressed to assemble a collection of quotes about SOD with anywhere near as much vitriol and personal insults as I have reproduced in this thread.

I disagree, there was plenty of vitriol about SOD whilst he was here. Also, I don't think pointing out that someone doesn't come across as intelligent but as a bullshitter is vitriol either.

I've flounced back, Mr Tedium.

You've spent 3 months arguing in a majority of your posts about our ex manager so the irony here is almost funny.

Good luck with your plan to ensure the manager is always supported by 51% of the fanbase. Perhaps when you buy the club you'll be able to implement this plan to democratically elect playing staff. Good luck with that one...

I guess I'll repeat it one last time for the hard of thinking but there is a big difference between already supported by a majority of the fanbase (something I didn't say), and objected to by a majority of the fanbase (something I did). They are not opposites.

I said it was long, not enjoyable. Your posts are never that.

So, I beg to differ as to Cotterill's past. He is well regarded at Notts County and Burnley.

I can't be arsed to read your reply with this, since your last one veered from puerile characterisations of the manager to inaccurate statements about me.

Time this wanky thread was put to bed. Ta-ta.

Ah the old hypocrite's flounce. G'nite.

The significant difference between the criticism of SOD and now SC are:

 

1) Those of SC started from day one, whereas at least SOD was given the courtesy of an opportunity to prove he was a failure

2) Those at SC have been full of personal venom, vitriol and character assassination to a degree thankfully not directed at SOD.

 

That is my essential point.

I think 1) was entirely predictable given how many objected to his appointment and 2) is inaccurate. There was plenty of vitriol, venom and character assassination directed at SOD often by the very people bemoaning legitimate criticism of Cotterill as the same now. For every "dumb, bullshitter" comment about Cotterill there was at least one "boring, miserable" comment about SOD. I've even seen one poster who slated SOD for having a boring black country accent defend Cotterill on the basis that people only think he's dumb because of his accent. You could hardly make it up.

Apologies however I missed the glaring error in the above, namely that results are in fact 55% better under SC, to date.

We've gone from not enough points per game to stay up, to not enough points per game to stay up. You can say anything you like with stats.

I didn't vilify the last manager.

I think many would beg to differ. You've even carried on kicking the horse for three months after it died.

I didn't like him and I thought he was bad for the club. However I think micro-analysing the post match statements of managers is pointless and a bit pathetic. I thought that in the past too.

I agree it's pointless. You don't need to micro analyse what Cotterill says to get the impression it's bullshit however.

Nice long post, Nibor.

Thanks. I find people tend to read / enjoy posts someone has put a bit of thought into. I do certainly.

I'd say the absurd hypocrisy is shown by those who bitched and moaned about quotes being taken out of context and character assassination of previous managers and are now happy to do so with this one.

If anybody was doing that it would indeed be just as hypocritical as your remarkable about face from vilifying the last manager to defending this one, or turning every thread into a dredging up of that particular history and then complaining about it.

As I said elsewhere, SC has been a success at some clubs, failure at others and somewhere in between at others. We don't know how he'll do here. You may have your theories, but you don't know.

His last and only success was at Cheltenham, 12 years ago. No theory involved in that fact. My prediction is that he won't succeed here. It's based on a lot of things not least the two points made above. It's obvious that nobody can know the future so I don't see why you make that point. The irony here is that even the cheerleaders for getting rid of the last manager can't find the confidence to predict success under this one. That's what happens with poorly thought through decisions.

Your post advances a hypothesis that I disagree with: namely that whoever is appointed manager needs to command some sort of majority support and that everyone has got to like them from the outset. Perhaps you can tell me which manager you have in mind who would meet these criteria?

It doesn't advance that hypothesis actually, that's an error of logic. It says divisive appointments are bad, unlikable appointments are bad and appointments which are both are terrible particularly in a relegation battle.

There's a big difference between appointing a manager more than half of your fans actually object to, and appointing a manager that is the top choice of less than half of your fans. Cotterill was the former, and because of that the fan base is anything but backing him despite our perilous position. There were any number of appointments we could have made that would have been far less objectionable. Likewise you confuse likeable and liked.

As for names, there were a number suggested at the time so please do go and read all those threads. It's moot now because the mistake is made.

I'm sick and tired of every thread turning into an SC v SOD civil war. Most posters said last season you couldn't judge SOD on a few months, FFS show some consistency and do the same to Cotterill.

You owe me a new keyboard, I just got coffee all over this one. Please refrain from absurd levels of hypocrisy in future!

The bloke hasn't been here 3 months yet!

I'm not judging Cotterill on 3 months as City manager.

Not saying SC is a good manager, not saying a crap manager, but IF he's a crap manager he's OUR crap manager, so get behind him and the players unless you WANT division 4 football.

 

The Hall of Shame:

Shame? Come off it. My opinion is that Cotterill was a terrible appointment. There are loads of reasons for that, some of which aren't for the public domain, but there are two that are absolutely fundamental:

1) His appointment was divisive. Before he was appointed a massive majority were against it and even after it was a done deal a large minority of fans still did not want him. The most divisive since Pulis or Osman.

2) For many people he is extremely hard to like as a person, because he comes across as a bullshitter. No, that's not objective but it is reality for many fans.

When you've got either of those problems you've got a bad appointment but both together in a relegation battle makes it terrible. The board dropped a giant 3.5 year bollock on this one and no amount of hypocritical forum defence is going to change that, particularly when results are pretty much unchanged, signings poor and performances maybe even trending downward.

None of the opinions about the manager affect the support shown for the team however, so where you get the idea of shame from I don't know.

I think the outcome hinges on whether Farage is allowed to make things up or not.

One of the many reasons I was horrified by the appointment of Cotterill is that he's got a long habit of saying moronic things in the press that piss the fans off and cause disruption. He's really not very bright at all.

I hope we scrape by this season, but I wouldn't bet on it sadly.

Great result, well done!

Worst first half performance I've seen for years.

The reality is that what you're defining as "gilt edged" and "clear cut" are merely decent chances, and if there were 22 of those plus the 14 he scored that's slightly better than most strikers do. The standard you're trying to hold him to is absurd and nobody would meet it.

Only as embarrassing as your overly simplistic theory.

What theory?

They've scored and created lots of goals, that's not a theory.

We've scored 36 league goals. That's enough to be comfortably top half. That's not a theory either.

Both you and Ians posts rely too heavily on stats. You have to be qualitative in your assessment as well as quantatitive. People can use their eyes to make sound judgement.

They can also fall victim to confirmation bias. Stats help you to apply some objectivity.

You don't need stats or particularly sound judgement to realise that complaining about our strikers when they're both scoring and creating more regularly than any we've had since before Brooker and Lita, and that the rest of the team is frankly a complete shambles, is churlish to say the least. It's embarrassing.