Modou Barrow

carrs wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

wanderlust wrote:DF signings and loans to date have been OK on balance seeing as we're scraping the barrel.

Absolutely spot on. I don't think some of his critics actually take the limited budget into account.

It don't excuse him being a crap manager though

You mean crap coach/tactician Carrs? 

Dougie is trying a different system this year so it'll be interesting to see how the players and fans respond to that.

Wanderlust
We didn't get the decent coach or tactician you know that. He decided to go and play with Skippy  away from the 2 faced DF where he could enjoy picking up the silverware without the slime ball.

If you hold out hope for a new system this time around hold your breath, it is subject to change of personnel and style during each match as he continues in his quest to keep his CV blank.

Why's Popovic a great tactician/coach?

carrs wrote:We didn't get the decent coach or tactician you know that. 

I agree that Dougie hasn't shown anything to suggest he's a coaching/tactical genius as yet but I genuinely don't think those were the aspects of the manager's job that were prioritised when he was appointed. 
I don't blame Dougie for that - he is what he is and he's taken on an impossible task IMO. 

It would be an incredible achievement if he gets us anywhere near the playoffs even if he gets Juke - let alone without him.

No sign of Barrow at the Vikings game then?

wanderlust wrote:

carrs wrote:We didn't get the decent coach or tactician you know that. 

I agree that Dougie hasn't shown anything to suggest he's a coaching/tactical genius as yet but I genuinely don't think those were the aspects of the manager's job that were prioritised when he was appointed. 

Are you seriously suggesting that Gartside set out to appoint a new manager and didn't care if he wasn't a decent coach / tactician...?

Gartside's a lot of things, but I doubt that even he would be stupid enough to do that......

Breadman wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

carrs wrote:We didn't get the decent coach or tactician you know that. 

I agree that Dougie hasn't shown anything to suggest he's a coaching/tactical genius as yet but I genuinely don't think those were the aspects of the manager's job that were prioritised when he was appointed. 

Are you seriously suggesting that Gartside set out to appoint a new manager and didn't care if he wasn't a decent coach / tactician...?

Gartside's a lot of things, but I doubt that even he would be stupid enough to do that......

No I don't do the "if it's not one thing then you must be saying the extreme diametrical opposite" thing.

I'm suggesting that of the various criteria involved in selecting a manager, the ability to operate on a reducing budget and handle/get rid of overpaid ponces were prioritised ahead of coaching ability alone - although one would assume a degree of coaching ability would be a prerequisite.

I.e. MUST save money, but can coach a bit/enough.

I'm not suggesting you do the "if it's not one thing then you must be saying the extreme diametrical opposite" thing for one minute.


You have subsequently clarified what you meant to say, but your initial comment was quite unequivocal - you quite clearly said that you didn't think that the ability to coach or have any tactical nous were considered priorities when Gartside appointed Freedman.


There is a difference.

Breadman wrote:I'm not suggesting you do the "if it's not one thing then you must be saying the extreme diametrical opposite" thing for one minute.


You have subsequently clarified what you meant to say, but your initial comment was quite unequivocal - you quite clearly said that you didn't think that the ability to coach or have any tactical nous were considered priorities when Gartside appointed Freedman.


There is a difference.

Steady on Bread - I at no point suggested coaching ability or tactical nous weren't considered. Just said they weren't priority considerations.

The joy of semantics eh?

Yeah, take out the semantics and I've got nothing left....  

But you did say what I said you said, so nerr!

Breadman wrote:Yeah, take out the semantics and I've got nothing left....  

But you did say what I said you said, so nerr!

Just to clear this up once and for all...

I said what I said but I didn't say what you said I said or I would have said what you said I said and not what I said instead.

 what he said

That said it all now.