I think he's gotten a bad rap.
As an outsider, I thnk his reputation in England is a lot worse than it really should be.
You can't really blame him for what happened at Euro 2004. Not his fault his captain booted it over the bar on the first penalty kick. And I thnk the English have always overestimates the talent of their "golden generation." 2006 was disappointing, I will grant, but losing Rooney and Owen was a tough situation, and it's not really like there was much of anyone else to step up and fill their shoes... Yeah Walcott was a mistake. But the options weren't great. Crouch and Defoe are better players now than they were then. Heskey was still mediocre.
He seemed like he did well at Man City, taking the team from relegation zone to the top half of the table without TOO many big money buys (and frankly, they were kind of needed). Petrov and Elano were unknown talents. Samaras... Ok, that was a mistake but it certainly could have been corrected. Basically it seems like he was done in again by unrealistic expectations and personality clashes...
Mexico was not great, but I think the country was unhappy with a) his team selection (especially selecting naturalized, non-Mexican born players) and b) his being a European outsider. Yes if the team had succeeded they would have been more forgiving, but I think soccer/football (compromise with "futbol") is so political in that country (and they, like England, overestimate the quality of their team) that he was going to have to exceed expectations to
succeed there.
Notts County the worst decision seems like was going there at all, but the owners were the ones who screwed that up, not him. And convincing Campbell to drop down and play there was a brilliant move. Can't see how you can really fault him there.
Doesn't seem too easy to blame him much for what went on with Ivory Coast either, considering that he came in so late. And Drogba's injury was a HUGE blow. The team revolves around him. He is not just the heart and soul, but the gameplan. Without Drogba, in a group that had the number 1 and 3 ranked teams in the world (at the time) that was always a tough shout, and I think he did reasonably well.
In summation, I think Sven has gotten a bad rap in recent years. I think he is the best candidate for the job (that we know of). He has my full backing, and maybe you should reconsider what you know about him... His recent history is not as bad as you think!
Great post.
Quote from: mattiesafer on July 23, 2010, 11:11:30 AM
I think he's gotten a bad rap.
As an outsider, I thnk his reputation in England is a lot worse than it really should be.
You can't really blame him for what happened at Euro 2004. Not his fault his captain booted it over the bar on the first penalty kick. And I thnk the English have always overestimates the talent of their "golden generation." 2006 was disappointing, I will grant, but losing Rooney and Owen was a tough situation, and it's not really like there was much of anyone else to step up and fill their shoes... Yeah Walcott was a mistake. But the options weren't great. Crouch and Defoe are better players now than they were then. Heskey was still mediocre.
He seemed like he did well at Man City, taking the team from relegation zone to the top half of the table without TOO many big money buys (and frankly, they were kind of needed). Petrov and Elano were unknown talents. Samaras... Ok, that was a mistake but it certainly could have been corrected. Basically it seems like he was done in again by unrealistic expectations and personality clashes...
Mexico was not great, but I think the country was unhappy with a) his team selection (especially selecting naturalized, non-Mexican born players) and b) his being a European outsider. Yes if the team had succeeded they would have been more forgiving, but I think soccer/football (compromise with "futbol") is so political in that country (and they, like England, overestimate the quality of their team) that he was going to have to exceed expectations to
succeed there.
Notts County the worst decision seems like was going there at all, but the owners were the ones who screwed that up, not him. And convincing Campbell to drop down and play there was a brilliant move. Can't see how you can really fault him there.
Doesn't seem too easy to blame him much for what went on with Ivory Coast either, considering that he came in so late. And Drogba's injury was a HUGE blow. The team revolves around him. He is not just the heart and soul, but the gameplan. Without Drogba, in a group that had the number 1 and 3 ranked teams in the world (at the time) that was always a tough shout, and I think he did reasonably well.
In summation, I think Sven has gotten a bad rap in recent years. I think he is the best candidate for the job (that we know of). He has my full backing, and maybe you should reconsider what you know about him... His recent history is not as bad as you think!
Tord? Is that you?
Top post Mattie.
I really like Sven as a manager/coach and think it would be extremely cool if the principal exponent of Roy's 'Swedish model' were to follow him at Fulham. I know he likes the cash but he is/was one of the worlds top managers and the price tag is not excessive when weighed against some of the worlds other top managers. I liked the job he did with England and I kind of admire his ability to shag beautiful women when he is a balding, toothy, bespectacled dwarf.
I genuinely think he would be great for Fulham and him and MAF out on the pull together would be a sight to :58: see.
if it mattered to him he could rebuild his footballing reputation with us,which has suffered unjustly because of the English press,I do think it COULD be a great move for both of us,it could also blow up in our faces as well,it's a risk,we will find out soon enough if it's a risk MAF feels is worth taking.
I am extremely hopeful that MAF won't touch Eriksson with a barge-pole as I believe he would be a disaster for us.
As England manager there was no evidence of system in his teams - if he was a disciple of Roy's he seemed to have learnt very little. At Man City he acknowledges he bought players he had never seen play and spent quite a lot of money to only limited effect. I do not see him (or in fact Jol) as the sort of manager who is capable of working with decent but not exceptional Premiership players and doing what Roy did - getting them to gel and play to the limits of their capabilities. The most likely outcome, had Jol been appointed or if Erickson is, is that there would be one or two "star" buys who might or might not come off, but would certainly upset the current players in terms of wages, and given our relatively modest income stream keeping some control on wages is vital to our long term health. Better to stay a decent mid table Premiership side than over-extend and do a Leeds or Portsmouth.
The bottom line is that even with MAF's subsidies, we are a relatively lowly funded Premiership club and we need another Roy, not someone who is used to buying success. Thus someone like Jones or Curbishley is attractive as they have relevant experience, or someone like Lee or Steve Clark(e) or Sean O'Driscoll who may yet become top class managers, would be a better choice. The former type would be the safer option but the latter the more interesting. What we don't need is someone whose managerial history has been at markedly bigger spending clubs than us.
And of course quite apart from his managerial unsuitability for a club like ours, Eriksson is a replusive individual who oozes greed and sleaze.
I think "Svennis" (as he is called over here) still got what it takes, but I have a feeling he wouldn't stay for the long run. As soon as a bigger club/bigger pay-check comes his way he'd be off. I don't dubt his footballing brain or capability, but the greed shown over the past 8-10 years scares the living daylight out of me.
Think the greed is something that has rubbed of on him from his agent who is a genuine asshole judging by the way he comes across in interviews. :014:
If we should consider a Swede or someone with Swedish links my vote goes to Mr. Tony Gustafsson or Stuart Baxter...
Quote from: Oakeshott on July 23, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
I am extremely hopeful that MAF won't touch Eriksson with a barge-pole as I believe he would be a disaster for us.
As England manager there was no evidence of system in his teams - if he was a disciple of Roy's he seemed to have learnt very little. At Man City he acknowledges he bought players he had never seen play and spent quite a lot of money to only limited effect. I do not see him (or in fact Jol) as the sort of manager who is capable of working with decent but not exceptional Premiership players and doing what Roy did - getting them to gel and play to the limits of their capabilities. The most likely outcome, had Jol been appointed or if Erickson is, is that there would be one or two "star" buys who might or might not come off, but would certainly upset the current players in terms of wages, and given our relatively modest income stream keeping some control on wages is vital to our long term health. Better to stay a decent mid table Premiership side than over-extend and do a Leeds or Portsmouth.
The bottom line is that even with MAF's subsidies, we are a relatively lowly funded Premiership club and we need another Roy, not someone who is used to buying success. Thus someone like Jones or Curbishley is attractive as they have relevant experience, or someone like Lee or Steve Clark(e) or Sean O'Driscoll who may yet become top class managers, would be a better choice. The former type would be the safer option but the latter the more interesting. What we don't need is someone whose managerial history has been at markedly bigger spending clubs than us.
And of course quite apart from his managerial unsuitability for a club like ours, Eriksson is a replusive individual who oozes greed and sleaze.
I fundamentally disagree with your position. If you are judging SGE's coaching style on his England teams then that is rather idiotic - look at Capello, he is a man renound for his systems yet the England team made him look like an incompetent fool.
The idea that Sven is can be at clubs where there is lots of money is also a red herring. At man city he brought in Elano and Petrov, amongst others, for good fees. Yes his success in the past has been based around money but at Fulham we are not asking him to deliver us titles. The most he will be asked to do is get us into the Europa League.
I agree that Curbishly would be the 'safe' pick but the other managers that you mention are unproven at the top level. Lee Clarke? Don't make me laugh. If he was appointed then I would expect Fulham to be relegated.
Fulham are a premier league team who needs a tried and trusted manager. When Roy came in his experience was what kept us in the league. Appointing inexperienced manager is the fastest way back down the divisions.
As for Sven being a money grabbing 'repulsive individual who oozes sleaze' I refer you to the original poster. The british media love to target Sven because he did not win England a WC. All this brouhaha about Notts County was rubbish, he waived any money he was owed after being conned by the people who took over. For the Ivory coast it has emerged he was not paid £2m for 3 months work a figure closer to £400k.
Sven has a point to prove, much like Hodgson, and I think would relish this challenge. He would attract high caliber players and help continue the transformation that Hodgson started.
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on July 23, 2010, 12:14:37 PMYes his success in the past has been based around money but at Fulham we are not asking him to deliver us titles.
All in all a very good post, but the quote above is not 100% true, he achieved wonders with extremely limited resources in Sweden, Portugal and at Sampdoria.
Quote from: Oakeshott on July 23, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
I am extremely hopeful that MAF won't touch Eriksson with a barge-pole as I believe he would be a disaster for us.
As England manager there was no evidence of system in his teams - if he was a disciple of Roy's he seemed to have learnt very little. At Man City he acknowledges he bought players he had never seen play and spent quite a lot of money to only limited effect. I do not see him (or in fact Jol) as the sort of manager who is capable of working with decent but not exceptional Premiership players and doing what Roy did - getting them to gel and play to the limits of their capabilities. The most likely outcome, had Jol been appointed or if Erickson is, is that there would be one or two "star" buys who might or might not come off, but would certainly upset the current players in terms of wages, and given our relatively modest income stream keeping some control on wages is vital to our long term health. Better to stay a decent mid table Premiership side than over-extend and do a Leeds or Portsmouth.
The bottom line is that even with MAF's subsidies, we are a relatively lowly funded Premiership club and we need another Roy, not someone who is used to buying success. Thus someone like Jones or Curbishley is attractive as they have relevant experience, or someone like Lee or Steve Clark(e) or Sean O'Driscoll who may yet become top class managers, would be a better choice. The former type would be the safer option but the latter the more interesting. What we don't need is someone whose managerial history has been at markedly bigger spending clubs than us.
And of course quite apart from his managerial unsuitability for a club like ours, Eriksson is a replusive individual who oozes greed and sleaze.
it is a good point about not overextending ourselves financially. But I think that can be accomplished with Sven. The buys he made at city were fairly shrewd an they were consistent with what the owner and support could accomodate.
As for England, the biggest and most consistent knock i've read is that lampard and gerrard were played together when they shouldn't have been. Ok, but who should have been played instead? A great holding midfielder would have done well, but unfortunately there was none. So he did whT he could with the pieces he was given. The problem with the "golden" generation wasn't the quality of it's strengths but it's weaknesses: no holding mid, no goalkeeper, not much of a bench, and a poor captain. I suppose you can in hindsight blame Sven for his choice of captain but at the time can you REALLY imagine anyone other than England's most gifted footballer wearingthe armband?
A
Failing to win the WC for England is neither here nor there in this context and has no bearing on the reasons why in my view Erikkson is both greedy and sleazy. If he came to Fulham and did ok, and a year later a bigger club came in for him he'd leave us with not a second thought.
Roy's achievements with us did not really include keeping us up, which was something of a fluke, and indeed we might have done better with LS: by his own admission it took Roy some months to get the team playing as he wished, and if LS had stayed who is to say for certain that we wouldn't have survived? No, Roy's achievements really started after we survived - making sure we played to the method he instilled into the squad during the second half of the 2007/8 season and thus giving us two excellent seasons in 2008/9 and 2009/10.
The point about the likes of Clark and O'Driscoll is that they may prove excellent managers - both have got off to a good start - and if so we might get three seasons from them before they moved on, rather as we tend to with better players like Saha. The downside is obvious - they may flop badly in the Premiership - and it is a more risky venture than appointing say Curbishley. But it could work out well and be more interesting. But if it were my money at risk, I'd probably be conservative and go for what should be a safe pair of hands with Jones or Curbishley.
Quote from: Oakeshott on July 23, 2010, 12:51:55 PM
A
Failing to win the WC for England is neither here nor there in this context and has no bearing on the reasons why in my view Erikkson is both greedy and sleazy. If he came to Fulham and did ok, and a year later a bigger club came in for him he'd leave us with not a second thought.
Just like Roy did? you can't hit Sven with the "moving for money thing" and not apply it to Roy as well-he didn't go for his love of Liverpool did he?
His hair is sandy,
Demeanour randy,
And as far as I can see,
He don't get many mpg
from his chosen typical arm candy...
So to invite him in
Would be a sin
He'd say he'll stay for ages
Then quit to chase higher wages
To keep his girls in pearls and furs and gin......
Some interesting arguments for and against. However, as I've got £20 down at 4-1 on him becoming manager, I believe that I get the final say in that I do hope it's him.
And it'll be my round in The Brick in a couple of weeks. :beer:
You are forgetting he was the manager who took Walcott to the world cup without ever seeing him play!
Quote from: epsomraver on July 23, 2010, 02:05:03 PM
You are forgetting he was the manager who took Walcott to the world cup without ever seeing him play!
Whilst that is true he is the second most successful England manager of all time. He also brought Hargreaves into the squad when he played in Germany and the media labelled him 'sh1t' as they had no idea who he was!
well,it's been said on SSN that he would be interested if asked,and I for one would welcome him as the next manager of Fulham FC :clap_hands:
When we first started this poll, I voted for SGE and stated my preference for him. In addition to everything said in the first post on this thread, it also follows that he's had success with club sides before -- naturally, or the FA wouldn't have hired him to run England. A couple of things need about his personality merit discussing further:
1. He's in it for the money. Well, of course he is. If managers WEREN'T in it for the money, there'd be a gigantic clog at the airports when Tenerife United's job came open.
2. He'll do well with us and then use us as a stepping stone to a bigger club. Good! I hope he does. It'll mean he has ambition. Nobody with real ambition sees Fulham as the pinnacle of football managership -- I mean, WE all do, but we're only professional fans. The only way he's going to realize that ambition is to improve on the past two seasons. I'm all for that. This, as has been pointed out, is basically what Roy did. If the job does go to Sven and he does piss off after 2 seasons, hopefully he'll leave us with a squad a bit younger and fitter than the one Roy left us with. Besides, he's 62. How long did you figure him to stay as boss?
3. He's got an eye for the ladies. Well, which of us hasn't? How exactly does that damage Fulham? I certainly prefer that over hiring a thug like Wide Boy 'arry. Besides that, to my knowledge the last top-flight manager who didn't have a yen for the ladies was Cheri Lunghi.
So, is Sven wants us and we want Sven, and if he still has the legendary "three players" in his pocket, and if MAF offers him the 20-25m that he was going to give Jol, and if the deal can be done QUICKLY, then I say "hells yeah!"
its Ulrika Johnson or Faria Allam masquerading as a bloke poster ,they want Sven back in town dont they ?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gUvnbm6BhwR_y3Hh4Q1-P7rGbPbw (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gUvnbm6BhwR_y3Hh4Q1-P7rGbPbw)
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/fulham-yet-to-contact-eriksson-or-jones-20100723-10ot0.html (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/fulham-yet-to-contact-eriksson-or-jones-20100723-10ot0.html)
Sven's agent's name is Athole Still? Huh, pretty close to right for an agent.
Quote from: HatterDon on July 23, 2010, 04:46:42 PM
When we first started this poll, I voted for SGE and stated my preference for him. In addition to everything said in the first post on this thread, it also follows that he's had success with club sides before -- naturally, or the FA wouldn't have hired him to run England. A couple of things need about his personality merit discussing further:
1. He's in it for the money. Well, of course he is. If managers WEREN'T in it for the money, there'd be a gigantic clog at the airports when Tenerife United's job came open.
2. He'll do well with us and then use us as a stepping stone to a bigger club. Good! I hope he does. It'll mean he has ambition. Nobody with real ambition sees Fulham as the pinnacle of football managership -- I mean, WE all do, but we're only professional fans. The only way he's going to realize that ambition is to improve on the past two seasons. I'm all for that. This, as has been pointed out, is basically what Roy did. If the job does go to Sven and he does piss off after 2 seasons, hopefully he'll leave us with a squad a bit younger and fitter than the one Roy left us with. Besides, he's 62. How long did you figure him to stay as boss?
3. He's got an eye for the ladies. Well, which of us hasn't? How exactly does that damage Fulham? I certainly prefer that over hiring a thug like Wide Boy 'arry. Besides that, to my knowledge the last top-flight manager who didn't have a yen for the ladies was Cheri Lunghi.
So, is Sven wants us and we want Sven, and if he still has the legendary "three players" in his pocket, and if MAF offers him the 20-25m that he was going to give Jol, and if the deal can be done QUICKLY, then I say "hells yeah!"
there are many reasons Mr Don that I class you as a friend and a genius and this post is just another reason :clap_hands: :clap_hands: :clap_hands:
Quote from: Oakeshott on July 23, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
I am extremely hopeful that MAF won't touch Eriksson with a barge-pole as I believe he would be a disaster for us.
As England manager there was no evidence of system in his teams - if he was a disciple of Roy's he seemed to have learnt very little. At Man City he acknowledges he bought players he had never seen play and spent quite a lot of money to only limited effect. I do not see him (or in fact Jol) as the sort of manager who is capable of working with decent but not exceptional Premiership players and doing what Roy did - getting them to gel and play to the limits of their capabilities. The most likely outcome, had Jol been appointed or if Erickson is, is that there would be one or two "star" buys who might or might not come off, but would certainly upset the current players in terms of wages, and given our relatively modest income stream keeping some control on wages is vital to our long term health. Better to stay a decent mid table Premiership side than over-extend and do a Leeds or Portsmouth.
The bottom line is that even with MAF's subsidies, we are a relatively lowly funded Premiership club and we need another Roy, not someone who is used to buying success. Thus someone like Jones or Curbishley is attractive as they have relevant experience, or someone like Lee or Steve Clark(e) or Sean O'Driscoll who may yet become top class managers, would be a better choice. The former type would be the safer option but the latter the more interesting. What we don't need is someone whose managerial history has been at markedly bigger spending clubs than us.
And of course quite apart from his managerial unsuitability for a club like ours, Eriksson is a replusive individual who oozes greed and sleaze.
Curbishley, you were doing so well, a balanced post even if I didn't echo your sentiments then I stumbled across that dirty route 1 boring word and you lost me! You've let yourself, your club and Danny Murphy down :011: :011:
