New England Manager

[BWFC_Insane]

whilst he sorted out the whole rotten mess from under 5's up

Because if there's one thing Allardyce knows, it's how to handle young talent. Just ask Vaz Te, Augustyn, Fojut, Sinclair . . .

I'm thinking there is some selective recollection going on in this thread . . .

Nolan, Hunt, O'Brien...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Wanderers have 12th choice on any available talent, and the fact that we have 3 players from our youth team regularly playing in the prem is a ringing endorsement of our youth set-up.

Not only that, but there are dozens of young professionals from our club plying their trade in the lower leagues (do I have to name them all?), far more than were ever produced under Rioch or Todd, and for a club of our stature, without the advantages of big club status, thats basically amazing.

Besides, you don't actually think that Allardyce would be teaching under 5's, do you?

As I re-iterate, his main strength is organisation, he would the kind of guy who be able to pick the appropriate people to undertake the tasks of implementing a root-and-branch change throughout the whole structure, a supremo if you will - its a model that works very well on the continent.

Sorry I can't agree with all this.

What you're saying is that Allardyce should essentially become the English National "Director of Football". A role that doesn't exist, but if it did, I'd shi.t myself if it went to Allardyce.

Such a role needs someone who understands football, administration, can handle themselves in a political environment and MOST CRUCIALLY has an understanding of what it takes to achieve success at international level.

Its about as bad as giving that job to Howard Wilkinson, who is very similar to Allardyce in terms of how he was regarded as forward thinking (though he's actually won something in the game).

Lets not get this out of perspective. Allardyce was great for us. He was an innovator.

BUT Mourinho is an innovator AND has managed top players and the top end of the game and won things.

Allardyce has to prove himself by actually winning some trophies before he gets anywhere near England.

[Lord Kangana]

whilst he sorted out the whole rotten mess from under 5's up

Because if there's one thing Allardyce knows, it's how to handle young talent. Just ask Vaz Te, Augustyn, Fojut, Sinclair . . .

I'm thinking there is some selective recollection going on in this thread . . .

Nolan, Hunt, O'Brien...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Wanderers have 12th choice on any available talent, and the fact that we have 3 players from our youth team regularly playing in the prem is a ringing endorsement of our youth set-up.

Not only that, but there are dozens of young professionals from our club plying their trade in the lower leagues (do I have to name them all?), far more than were ever produced under Rioch or Todd, and for a club of our stature, without the advantages of big club status, thats basically amazing.

Besides, you don't actually think that Allardyce would be teaching under 5's, do you?

As I re-iterate, his main strength is organisation, he would the kind of guy who be able to pick the appropriate people to undertake the tasks of implementing a root-and-branch change throughout the whole structure, a supremo if you will - its a model that works very well on the continent.

Sorry I can't agree with all this.

What you're saying is that Allardyce should essentially become the English National "Director of Football". A role that doesn't exist, but if it did, I'd shi.t myself if it went to Allardyce.

Such a role needs someone who understands football, administration, can handle themselves in a political environment and MOST CRUCIALLY has an understanding of what it takes to achieve success at international level.

Its about as bad as giving that job to Howard Wilkinson, who is very similar to Allardyce in terms of how he was regarded as forward thinking (though he's actually won something in the game).

Lets not get this out of perspective. Allardyce was great for us. He was an innovator.

BUT Mourinho is an innovator AND has managed top players and the top end of the game and won things.

Allardyce has to prove himself by actually winning some trophies before he gets anywhere near England.

I beg to differ on the similarities between Wilkinson and Allardyce.

Wilkinson is yesterdays man, wedded to old ideas of diet, fitness and training.

Not only did Allardyce assemble the largest (and most expensive) backroom staff, but within the fields of sports science, fitness, dietetics sports pschology and the like, we were lauded as pioneers and a force for good. Its no coincidence that when England won the Rugby World Cup, Sir Clive Woodward was in almost daily contact with Allardyce via e-mail(though never actually having met) exchanging ideas. I believe that Mike Ford was also involved with both set-ups.

This not only demonstrates that Allardyce is an innovator, but has the respect of the very people he would need, and he also knows who they are.

Its a little bit of a cheap shot to compare the two, simply because they are both gruff northerners, but the comparison just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny.

And if winning is the only or main criteria, then what was so wrong with McClaren? He won the Carling cup, but don't remember Middlesborough being a better league side than ourselves, which is surely the best guide to a managers credentials (being 38 games.)

[BWFC_Insane]

whilst he sorted out the whole rotten mess from under 5's up

Because if there's one thing Allardyce knows, it's how to handle young talent. Just ask Vaz Te, Augustyn, Fojut, Sinclair . . .

I'm thinking there is some selective recollection going on in this thread . . .

Nolan, Hunt, O'Brien...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Wanderers have 12th choice on any available talent, and the fact that we have 3 players from our youth team regularly playing in the prem is a ringing endorsement of our youth set-up.

Not only that, but there are dozens of young professionals from our club plying their trade in the lower leagues (do I have to name them all?), far more than were ever produced under Rioch or Todd, and for a club of our stature, without the advantages of big club status, thats basically amazing.

Besides, you don't actually think that Allardyce would be teaching under 5's, do you?

As I re-iterate, his main strength is organisation, he would the kind of guy who be able to pick the appropriate people to undertake the tasks of implementing a root-and-branch change throughout the whole structure, a supremo if you will - its a model that works very well on the continent.

Sorry I can't agree with all this.

What you're saying is that Allardyce should essentially become the English National "Director of Football". A role that doesn't exist, but if it did, I'd shi.t myself if it went to Allardyce.

Such a role needs someone who understands football, administration, can handle themselves in a political environment and MOST CRUCIALLY has an understanding of what it takes to achieve success at international level.

Its about as bad as giving that job to Howard Wilkinson, who is very similar to Allardyce in terms of how he was regarded as forward thinking (though he's actually won something in the game).

Lets not get this out of perspective. Allardyce was great for us. He was an innovator.

BUT Mourinho is an innovator AND has managed top players and the top end of the game and won things.

Allardyce has to prove himself by actually winning some trophies before he gets anywhere near England.

I beg to differ on the similarities between Wilkinson and Allardyce.

Wilkinson is yesterdays man, wedded to old ideas of diet, fitness and training.

Not only did Allardyce assemble the largest (and most expensive) backroom staff, but within the fields of sports science, fitness, dietetics sports pschology and the like, we were lauded as pioneers and a force for good. Its no coincidence that when England won the Rugby World Cup, Sir Clive Woodward was in almost daily contact with Allardyce via e-mail(though never actually having met) exchanging ideas. I believe that Mike Ford was also involved with both set-ups.

This not only demonstrates that Allardyce is an innovator, but has the respect of the very people he would need, and he also knows who they are.

Its a little bit of a cheap shot to compare the two, simply because they are both gruff northerners, but the comparison just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny.

And if winning is the only or main criteria, then what was so wrong with McClaren? He won the Carling cup, but don't remember Middlesborough being a better league side than ourselves, which is surely the best guide to a managers credentials (being 38 games.)

Aye you've missed the point. At his peak Wilkinson was seen as a great innovator in the game.

And he won the league.

Would I have made him England manager? NO.

Go and ask fans of other clubs for their opinion of Allardyce. He isn't popular. Part of that of course is because he's a rival manager but lets face it, the brand of football he played, his personality, demeanour and general attitude are not those of a potential England manager.

Can you imagine the next England manager refusing to talk to the BBC over a programme he has yet to take the threatened legal proceedings against?

Some people put things way out of perspective. Allardyce is the best manager probably that we've ever had. But it doesn't make him England potential.

He's got his chance now at a big club, and he must prove himself there (for a few seasons and actually win something) before he can be considered for England.

Your point about McClaren is sort of what I'm saying. McClaren won a cup, took his team to the UEFA cup final and did about as well as we did in the league over the time he was in charge. So his record was better than Allardyce's. But I always knew he'd be a bad choice for England manager. He didn't have the support of the fans, the media or the players. Three things you need. Three things Allardyce would be lacking as well.

[Lord Kangana]

Because if there's one thing Allardyce knows, it's how to handle young talent. Just ask Vaz Te, Augustyn, Fojut, Sinclair . . .

I'm thinking there is some selective recollection going on in this thread . . .

Nolan, Hunt, O'Brien...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Wanderers have 12th choice on any available talent, and the fact that we have 3 players from our youth team regularly playing in the prem is a ringing endorsement of our youth set-up.

Not only that, but there are dozens of young professionals from our club plying their trade in the lower leagues (do I have to name them all?), far more than were ever produced under Rioch or Todd, and for a club of our stature, without the advantages of big club status, thats basically amazing.

Besides, you don't actually think that Allardyce would be teaching under 5's, do you?

As I re-iterate, his main strength is organisation, he would the kind of guy who be able to pick the appropriate people to undertake the tasks of implementing a root-and-branch change throughout the whole structure, a supremo if you will - its a model that works very well on the continent.

Sorry I can't agree with all this.

What you're saying is that Allardyce should essentially become the English National "Director of Football". A role that doesn't exist, but if it did, I'd shi.t myself if it went to Allardyce.

Such a role needs someone who understands football, administration, can handle themselves in a political environment and MOST CRUCIALLY has an understanding of what it takes to achieve success at international level.

Its about as bad as giving that job to Howard Wilkinson, who is very similar to Allardyce in terms of how he was regarded as forward thinking (though he's actually won something in the game).

Lets not get this out of perspective. Allardyce was great for us. He was an innovator.

BUT Mourinho is an innovator AND has managed top players and the top end of the game and won things.

Allardyce has to prove himself by actually winning some trophies before he gets anywhere near England.

I beg to differ on the similarities between Wilkinson and Allardyce.

Wilkinson is yesterdays man, wedded to old ideas of diet, fitness and training.

Not only did Allardyce assemble the largest (and most expensive) backroom staff, but within the fields of sports science, fitness, dietetics sports pschology and the like, we were lauded as pioneers and a force for good. Its no coincidence that when England won the Rugby World Cup, Sir Clive Woodward was in almost daily contact with Allardyce via e-mail(though never actually having met) exchanging ideas. I believe that Mike Ford was also involved with both set-ups.

This not only demonstrates that Allardyce is an innovator, but has the respect of the very people he would need, and he also knows who they are.

Its a little bit of a cheap shot to compare the two, simply because they are both gruff northerners, but the comparison just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny.

And if winning is the only or main criteria, then what was so wrong with McClaren? He won the Carling cup, but don't remember Middlesborough being a better league side than ourselves, which is surely the best guide to a managers credentials (being 38 games.)

Aye you've missed the point. At his peak Wilkinson was seen as a great innovator in the game.

And he won the league.

Would I have made him England manager? NO.

Go and ask fans of other clubs for their opinion of Allardyce. He isn't popular. Part of that of course is because he's a rival manager but lets face it, the brand of football he played, his personality, demeanour and general attitude are not those of a potential England manager.

Can you imagine the next England manager refusing to talk to the BBC over a programme he has yet to take the threatened legal proceedings against?

Some people put things way out of perspective. Allardyce is the best manager probably that we've ever had. But it doesn't make him England potential.

He's got his chance now at a big club, and he must prove himself there (for a few seasons and actually win something) before he can be considered for England.

Your point about McClaren is sort of what I'm saying. McClaren won a cup, took his team to the UEFA cup final and did about as well as we did in the league over the time he was in charge. So his record was better than Allardyce's. But I always knew he'd be a bad choice for England manager. He didn't have the support of the fans, the media or the players. Three things you need. Three things Allardyce would be lacking as well.

Far from missing the point, I hit it squarely on the head.

For all the criticisms you've listed, replace Allardyces name with Ferguson. Guilty of the same, still a great manager.

As for McClaren, well I don't believe Middlesboroughs league form was anything like our own. Once we survived the inevitable initial relegation scares, our lowest position was 8th. That says consistency.

Allardyce also had few funds available to him. That says he's good at working with what he's got, and not buying his way out of mistakes - ideal prperation for a national managers post.

In fact, I wasn't even asking for Allardyce as manager to start with, but all the arguments against are convincing me more that he should, because they bare all based on rumour and conjecture.

[BWFC_Insane]

LK Ferguson would only be unpopular because he is Scottish.

BUT he would have instant respect of the players. Because he's already managed a lot of them and his history of trophies far exceeds that of most managers.

The simple argument against Allardyce is he's won nowt, plays a brand of uninspiring football that the majority of the English public would NOT accept from England, is probably the most unpopular manager with his own fans in the premiership right now, has some links to dodgy deals including a son who is being sued over a transfer currently, won't talk to one of the major broadcasters of England games, has no consistent track record of managing in Europe at the top level.......

I think to be honest thats more than enough reasons.

[H. Pedersen]

Allardyce wasn't very "forward thinking" at 1-0 down with 20 minutes to go and a striker on the bench. The bottom line is that he is extremely limited from a tactical point of view.