Why was McLeish sacked?

[PeterWithesShin]

Like what? Pointing out I didn't ignore the negatives?

[tomd2103]

Why do I have to come on? I've said "spectacularly shit at times" and "amongst the dross". I'm hardly ignoring the negatives and lavishing endless praise on Lambert.

Although my confidence in Paul Lambert has been severely tested at times in these past two seasons, I find it hard to condemn him when we are totally in the dark regarding the constraints he is working under.     

[bertlambshank]

Like what? Pointing out I didn't ignore the negatives?

I think you need to grow up a bit.

[Ger Regan]

That's actually made me laugh out loud.

[Monty]

Like what? Pointing out I didn't ignore the negatives?

I think you need to grow up a bit.

I love when the person on the wrong side of an argument starts to wag their finger and patronise the person on the right side.

[PeterWithesShin]

Like what? Pointing out I didn't ignore the negatives?

I think you need to grow up a bit.

Yes dad.

[bertlambshank]

Like what? Pointing out I didn't ignore the negatives?

I think you need to grow up a bit.

I love when the person on the wrong side of an argument starts to wag their finger and patronise the person on the right side.

It's the way I have been pulled up for saying 'come on'
I have no problem with his Argument,but it is typical PWS.

[Monty]

I must say, his objecting to being told to 'come on' seemed pretty reasonable to me. You say 'come on' when someone is, say, claiming the moon landing was hoaxed to cover up Hitler killing JFK, not on a small distinction over Villa performances.

[bertlambshank]

I must say, his objecting to being told to 'come on' seemed pretty reasonable to me. You say 'come on' when someone is, say, claiming the moon landing was hoaxed to cover up Hitler killing JFK, not on a small distinction over Villa performances.

First of all the moon landing was real,JFK lives at the bottom of my garden and Bagpuss was real and comes for scraps every day.
Come on is a term used by people every day honest.

[Monty]

Thought it seemed a bit patronising and strange, to be honest.

Anyway, has a thread ever had more posts wasted on useless details? I'll restart it: McLeish's main problem was that he was a tactical and managerial coward. Discuss.

[bertlambshank]

Thought it seemed a bit patronising and strange, to be honest.

Anyway, has a thread ever had more posts wasted on useless details? I'll restart it: McLeish's main problem was that he was a tactical and managerial coward. Discuss.

It wasn't meant as patronising.Jesus some thin skinned people on tonight.

[Isa]

Thought it seemed a bit patronising and strange, to be honest.

Anyway, has a thread ever had more posts wasted on useless details? I'll restart it: McLeish's main problem was that he was a tactical and managerial coward. Discuss.

The one thing I will give him is that at least is that he at least had the courage to give some of the youngsters a chance. Something that cannot be said for his successor.

[Monty]

Thought it seemed a bit patronising and strange, to be honest.

Anyway, has a thread ever had more posts wasted on useless details? I'll restart it: McLeish's main problem was that he was a tactical and managerial coward. Discuss.

The one thing I will give him is that at least is that he at least had the courage to give some of the youngsters a chance. Something that cannot be said for his successor.

He had to play them because of injuries, spent every post-match interview blaming them and then pulled them out of the team again as soon as any of the overpaid jobbing pros winched themselves off the treatment table.

[Isa]

Thought it seemed a bit patronising and strange, to be honest.

Anyway, has a thread ever had more posts wasted on useless details? I'll restart it: McLeish's main problem was that he was a tactical and managerial coward. Discuss.

The one thing I will give him is that at least is that he at least had the courage to give some of the youngsters a chance. Something that cannot be said for his successor.

He had to play them because of injuries, spent every post-match interview blaming them and then pulled them out of the team again as soon as any of the overpaid jobbing pros winched themselves off the treatment table.

To an extent yes but in comparison we had three centre-backs out when we were to face League One opposition and Lambert still preferred to play a guy who can't even defend properly at right-back to Donacien. We now have both Benteke and Kozak out but you can bet your bottom dollar that he will be going with Grant Holt instead of the likes of Helenius or Robinson.

[Monty]

Oh true, Lambert is not anywhere near trusting enough of the younger players. Just McLeish was as untrusting.