collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Posts

Re: Jacob Ramsey by frank black
[Today at 04:18:07 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by brontebilly
[Today at 04:17:51 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by pelty
[Today at 04:17:23 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by Dave P
[Today at 04:10:53 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by enigma
[Today at 04:09:49 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by Somniloquism
[Today at 04:09:36 PM]


Re: Summer 2025 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc. by VinnieChase84
[Today at 04:07:36 PM]


Re: Jacob Ramsey by PeterWithesShin
[Today at 04:06:53 PM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: It's not Sherwood!  (Read 728883 times)

Offline conman

  • Member
  • Posts: 1465
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6345 on: May 28, 2016, 02:06:43 AM »
i think last summer  was a case of wrong place at the wrong time for Tim at the Villa
what if tony xia was chairman then , no paddy reilly , no  moneyball ,
but plenty of money for tim to bring in the likes of andros townsend and adebayor  for starters

Yes, if only we could have had Adebayor instead of him going to Palace. The 1 goal he's managed since January would have made a world of difference.
how many did he score and in how many games under sherwood at spurs
That is nonsense IMHO. Adebayor is a total fraud
so what you saying then , he never scored for spurs when sherwood was managing him

Offline lovejoy

  • Member
  • Posts: 9531
  • Location: Haywards Heath
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6346 on: May 28, 2016, 06:13:37 AM »
i think last summer  was a case of wrong place at the wrong time for Tim at the Villa
what if tony xia was chairman then , no paddy reilly , no  moneyball ,
but plenty of money for tim to bring in the likes of andros townsend and adebayor  for starters

Yes, if only we could have had Adebayor instead of him going to Palace. The 1 goal he's managed since January would have made a world of difference.
how many did he score and in how many games under sherwood at spurs
That is nonsense IMHO. Adebayor is a total fraud
so what you saying then , he never scored for spurs when sherwood was managing him

No, the point is Sherwood would have tried to buy the Crystal Palace version of Adebayor not the Spurs version. Sherwood doesn't own a time machine (as far as I know).

Offline lovejoy

  • Member
  • Posts: 9531
  • Location: Haywards Heath
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6347 on: May 28, 2016, 06:14:48 AM »
I would say yes, as we weren't routinely hammered under Sherwood, and we'd have saved a few million quid in compensation. We'd also have kept a bit of credibility for not going through 3 managers in a season. I would agree that he was an awful appointment though.

How many did Southampon get on the day we stayed up last season?

Online Dave P

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14644
  • Location: Redditch
  • GM : PCM
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6348 on: May 28, 2016, 07:02:43 AM »
I would say yes, as we weren't routinely hammered under Sherwood, and we'd have saved a few million quid in compensation. We'd also have kept a bit of credibility for not going through 3 managers in a season. I would agree that he was an awful appointment though.

How many did Southampon get on the day we stayed up last season?

Not to mention a game a few weeks later!

Offline Phil from the upper holte

  • Member
  • Posts: 10142
  • Location: B62
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6349 on: May 28, 2016, 07:04:18 AM »
i think last summer  was a case of wrong place at the wrong time for Tim at the Villa
what if tony xia was chairman then , no paddy reilly , no  moneyball ,
but plenty of money for tim to bring in the likes of andros townsend and adebayor  for starters

Yes, if only we could have had Adebayor instead of him going to Palace. The 1 goal he's managed since January would have made a world of difference.
how many did he score and in how many games under sherwood at spurs

Utterly irrelevant. We're talking about this season, the form and condition he is in now. With the supply line (or lack of) he would have had here, not at Tottenham.

Also, just to reiterate, for the millionth time, there was no 'moneyball'.

How was there no money ball in those players he brought?

Offline Phil from the upper holte

  • Member
  • Posts: 10142
  • Location: B62
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6350 on: May 28, 2016, 07:05:32 AM »
Money ball was the definitely the intention

Online Dave

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 47574
  • Location: Bath
  • GM : 16.09.2025
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6351 on: May 28, 2016, 07:52:09 AM »
Money ball was the definitely the intention

*cries*

Offline john e

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20526
  • GM : 28.06.2024
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6352 on: May 28, 2016, 08:26:10 AM »
say what you like about Sherwood, and I know he's not popular, but for a short window up and including the FA cup semi against Liverpool he got the team playing the best football I have seen in the last 5 or 6  years,

 the turnaround in confidence and style from Lambert was incredible in a very short space of time,
the swashbuckling style and getting Benteke, Delph and Grealish to play some startling stuff together was great to watch

he obviously wasn't a duracel battery and ran out of energy and ideas pretty quick, that little period is often played down or skipped over but it was the best we have seen in recent times
I was gratefull at the time

Offline Stirchley Villain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1033
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6353 on: May 28, 2016, 08:31:59 AM »
I would say yes, as we weren't routinely hammered under Sherwood, and we'd have saved a few million quid in compensation. We'd also have kept a bit of credibility for not going through 3 managers in a season. I would agree that he was an awful appointment though.

How many did Southampon get on the day we stayed up last season?

"Routinely" is the key word here. We were "routinely" hammered under Garde.

Offline LeeB

  • Member
  • Posts: 35533
  • Location: Standing in the Klix-O-Gum queue.
  • GM : May, 2014
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6354 on: May 28, 2016, 08:33:26 AM »
I would say yes, as we weren't routinely hammered under Sherwood, and we'd have saved a few million quid in compensation. We'd also have kept a bit of credibility for not going through 3 managers in a season. I would agree that he was an awful appointment though.

How many did Southampon get on the day we stayed up last season?

"Routinely" is the key word here. We were "routinely" hammered under Garde.

We weren't until the Liverpool game.

Offline Stirchley Villain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1033
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6355 on: May 28, 2016, 08:35:11 AM »
I would say yes, as we weren't routinely hammered under Sherwood, and we'd have saved a few million quid in compensation. We'd also have kept a bit of credibility for not going through 3 managers in a season. I would agree that he was an awful appointment though.

How many did Southampon get on the day we stayed up last season?

"Routinely" is the key word here. We were "routinely" hammered under Garde.

We weren't until the Liverpool game.

And then..?

Offline LeeB

  • Member
  • Posts: 35533
  • Location: Standing in the Klix-O-Gum queue.
  • GM : May, 2014
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6356 on: May 28, 2016, 08:37:31 AM »
Well everybody had given up by then.

Offline Phil from the upper holte

  • Member
  • Posts: 10142
  • Location: B62
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6357 on: May 28, 2016, 09:00:25 AM »

Online Dave

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 47574
  • Location: Bath
  • GM : 16.09.2025
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6358 on: May 28, 2016, 09:27:17 AM »
I'll let PWS take this one:

What's moneyball?

To simplify it as much as possible, signing players that are massively undervalued by other clubs that can do what you highly value. In Billy Beane's case, this was mainly the ability to get on base. It had little to nothing to do with signing a 21 year old full of promise to sell for more later, as highly promising players they weren't undervalued in the first place. He'd sign a 35 year old for a year if he could afford him and he got on base. He used sabermetrics to find these players. It's called moneyball as the Oakland annual budget was say $40m and he was trying to find a way to compete with teams like the Yankees spending $130m a year.

Paul McGrath was a "Moneyball" signing. Jordan Veretout and Adama Traore weren't.

Edit: if you want an example of a recent "Moneyball" signing - Robert Huth to Leicester would tick pretty much all the boxes.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 09:35:23 AM by Dave »

Offline brian green

  • Member
  • Posts: 18357
  • Age: 87
  • Location: Nice France
  • GM : 19.06.2020
Re: It's not Sherwood!
« Reply #6359 on: May 28, 2016, 09:41:15 AM »
And Marc Albrighton to Leicester because they worked out that he had fallen foul of Lambert, Culverhouse and Karsa and would not get a new contract with us for non footballing reasons.  Merson was a Moneyball signing for us.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal