I also liked him as a bloke, but he was just a crap manager and should never have been here in the first place. Couple of things in that article that grate a bit - Sky still can't get past the fact that for most people he was not "met with a frosty reception due to his connections with fierce rivals Birmingham City" - he was met with a frosty reception because of his brand of football with a history of relegation. And averaging a point and a goal a game, coupled with the worst home record in our entire history vindicated that perception. Also McLeish states he played every game with 4 attacking players. I was obviously watching a different team to the one he sent out
Having players on the pitch who are "attacking" by nature means sod all if you send them out to be defensive, or, when losing, to keep the score down.
I don't think he even started with 4 players who were attacking by nature
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on August 22, 2012, 11:57:28 AMHaving players on the pitch who are "attacking" by nature means sod all if you send them out to be defensive, or, when losing, to keep the score down.I don't think he even started with 4 players who were attacking by nature, Paulie. Remember Spurs away (*shudder*). And IIRC the last few games of the season I'm sure he started with 7 out and out defenders - Hutton (or Collins), Warnock, Clark, Dunne, Cuellar, Lichaj and Herd. The fact that he played some of them in midfield doesn't make them attacking players, in the same way, as you say, attacking players ended up being negative anyway. He seems to come from the same delusional standpopint as DOL.
Quote from: KevinGage on August 22, 2012, 11:39:56 AMEven with Bent in the team we looked dismal as an attacking unit, so I wouldn't have banked on us winning more games. We were comfortably mid table until the last third of the season so I don't think Dave is saying anything controversial.
Even with Bent in the team we looked dismal as an attacking unit, so I wouldn't have banked on us winning more games.