Freedman out!

[jaffka]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts. When Freedman did leave, many Palace fans were annoyed because he betrayed them but they weren't annoyed that they'd lost a great manager and despite him being a club legend, many of their fans wanted him to be sacked because of their awful end to 11/12 and similar start to 12/13. In 12 games - with a very good squad - they managed a mere 3 points which is why Palace fans wanted him sacked, and rightly so too. In his only full season in charge, Palace undeniably underachieved given the quality they had by finishing 17th and when Freedman left Palace after this supposed brilliant start that certain people want to always bring up, their record was 6 wins, 4 draws and 3 losses so it was hardly exceptional.

Freedman didn't do a good job at Palace. Take away the win over a terrible United side in the League Cup and that start to the season in 12/13 and what is left to boast about? Nothing. It's no wonder Freedman jumped at the chance to join us for big money, even if it did mean betraying Palace.

There is a lot of opinion there dressed up as "undeniable" fact.

The only fact is he took over a team in the bottom three and when he left they were top of the division.

There are subtleties and nuances to everything. He may well have just struck lucky. But you are taking an incredibly one sided view.

I could easily say "any manager in the world would promote a side with Ings and Vokes in it". Quite possibly that is the case. But certainly isn't close to being factual or "undeniable".

Now that is fecking rich.

[Lord Kangana]

. Perhaps we shouldn't go near anyone Parish has decided "he doesn't like"?

Indeed, because Tony Pulis and Dougie Freedman are almost identical managers.

[thebish]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts.

why is it deceptive to say they were near the relegation zone when he took over?

why is it deceptive to say that when he left, they were near the top?

[Prufrock]

The key players when they went up were Murray, Bolasie, Zaha, Delaney and Jedinak.

Guess who signed 4 of them?

Pathetic not to give him credit for building that team. He doesn't need to have been shit at Palace to be shit here.

[StaffsTrotter]

Dougie might be a really nice guy, a really good manager/ coach with an eye for emerging talent; might work really hard; might have been right in his dealings with senior professionals he inherited; might have done a good job reducing 'the budget'; might have laid the foundations for phoenix palace; but the bottom line is, for whatever reason his tenure is just not working at Bolton and has shown no signs of working either on or off the pitch - performances and results are pish, enterrtainment is zero, and crowds and interest are waning. He might go somewhere else and turn into this decent manager we hoped he would be for us. Thank you, goodbye and good luck

[Tombwfc]

The key players when they went up were Murray, Bolasie, Zaha, Delaney and Jedinak.

Guess who signed 4 of them?

Pathetic not to give him credit for building that team. He doesn't need to have been shit at Palace to be shit here.

Indeed, he's his own proof that having no money doesn't mean you have to sign a load of utterly average Championship players.

With that being said, he had good players at Palace he still played (by most accounts) shit, safety first football and only won 30odd% of the games he was in charge for.

[SmokinFrazier]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts.

why is it deceptive to say they were near the relegation zone when he took over?

why is it deceptive to say that when he left, they were near the top?

Because it doesn't tell the true story. If a team like Norwich had won their first game 4-0 and were top of the table last season, would their fans look back on Hughton and say "he made us the best team in England"? Of course not. It'd be factually true that they were the best team in the league but it's deceptive because it doesn't tell the full story.

Palace were down near the bottom but they were underachieving, so it wasn't anything spectacular for Freedman to get them out of that predicament, just like it wasn't when Redknapp took over a lowly Spurs team. Freedman took Palace to 4th in the table but the division was tight at that point and they were 4 points away from the top of the league and 5 points away from being outside the top 10, so their standing after 13 games is irrelevant.

So yeah, it's true to say 'Freedman took them from near the bottom and left them near the top', but it doesn't entirely reflect the job he did. When people repeat it that simplistically, they're being disingenuous to exaggerate the job he did. In his one full season, despite having a strong team, they finished 17th and there were calls from many fans for him to be sacked. That's more telling than this line being repeated by some, which makes it seem like Freedman worked wonders at Palace. He didn't. His win percentage alone tells you that.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe he just got lucky at Palace?

[Puskas]

Maybe he just got lucky at Palace?

Maybe he just got unlucky at Wanderers?

[thebish]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts.

why is it deceptive to say they were near the relegation zone when he took over?

why is it deceptive to say that when he left, they were near the top?

Because it doesn't tell the true story.

except that it does. neither statement attributes any managerial genius to dougie - they simply state where Palace were at the beginning and end of his tenure.

the statements are not in the least bit "deceptive" - they are entirely factual.

[Hoboh]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts.

why is it deceptive to say they were near the relegation zone when he took over?

why is it deceptive to say that when he left, they were near the top?

Because it doesn't tell the true story.

except that it does. neither statement attributes any managerial genius to dougie - they simply state where Palace were at the beginning and end of his tenure.

the statements are not in the least bit "deceptive" - they are entirely factual.

Freedman makes me begin to question if Santa and the tooth fairy really exist!

[Prufrock]

Freedman's time at Crystal Palace does not stand up to scrutiny. I's factually true that he took over the club when they were near the relegation zone and when he left, they were near the top, but this is deceptive on both counts.

why is it deceptive to say they were near the relegation zone when he took over?

why is it deceptive to say that when he left, they were near the top?

Because it doesn't tell the true story. If a team like Norwich had won their first game 4-0 and were top of the table last season, would their fans look back on Hughton and say "he made us the best team in England"? Of course not. It'd be factually true that they were the best team in the league but it's deceptive because it doesn't tell the full story.

Palace were down near the bottom but they were underachieving, so it wasn't anything spectacular for Freedman to get them out of that predicament, just like it wasn't when Redknapp took over a lowly Spurs team. Freedman took Palace to 4th in the table but the division was tight at that point and they were 4 points away from the top of the league and 5 points away from being outside the top 10, so their standing after 13 games is irrelevant.

So yeah, it's true to say 'Freedman took them from near the bottom and left them near the top', but it doesn't entirely reflect the job he did. When people repeat it that simplistically, they're being disingenuous to exaggerate the job he did. In his one full season, despite having a strong team, they finished 17th and there were calls from many fans for him to be sacked. That's more telling than this line being repeated by some, which makes it seem like Freedman worked wonders at Palace. He didn't. His win percentage alone tells you that.

[jaffka]

Comes across as quite reasonable to me.

I think some people's views of the post alter when they see who the poster is.

[Prufrock]

'Palace were underachieving'.

The season before he took over they finished 21st and the season before that 15th, so bullshit. He took that team, kept them up ended up a penalty shootout away from a League Cup final in his first full season, then had them flying at the start of his next.

To try to twist things not only to deny that he did a good job there, but to make it look like he did a bad job is laughable.

Again, he doesn't need to have been shit at Palace to be shit here.

[Harry Genshaw]

Comes across as quite reasonable to me.

I think some people's views of the post alter when they see who the poster is.

I agree with the point SF is making here. Once Dougie's time here started to unravel I thought perhaps he'd just got lucky at Palace. Proper scrutiny of his Palace record, particularly the time when he left them 'near the top', shows he wasn't doing as good a job as we'd been led to believe. Hard to see what made him and Michael Appleton front runners for the post at the time

[bobo the clown]

... and our "great run" to 6th, before he blew it in the Blackpool game .... and it was directly his choices which blew it that day .... we got the results but we're never convincing. Similarly last year. We had a good run of point fathering but only v Blackburn and Leeds were we actually good and in those occasions he was forced to play a style against his instincts.

He's just no fckg good.

[thebish]

I think it's perfectly possible to maintain that Dougie appears to be no fecking good at Bolton whilst also acknowledging that he did a fairly decent job at Palace. I don't think it is necessary to make out that Palace's rise from bottom to top under dougie was some kind of a mirage that we are all misremembering in order to back up an opinion about him being pretty shoite at Bolton.

sometimes that's the way the world works - we could all name players who were ace at one club and shoite at the next. we don't need to pretend that they were shoite everywhere to support the view that they were shoite at one club.

sometimes the world is complex, and that's fine!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Was the rise an 8 game period? i seem to remember that Palace fan saying so. If so, I don't think anything can be concluded from it other than it was a good 8 game spell. Take that spell away and at best the record is ordinary. All that matters is that we haven't progressed on the pitch, which given the resources and time he has had is poor IMO.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe he just got lucky at Palace?

Maybe he just got unlucky at Wanderers?

Which was precisely my point.

[BWFC_Insane]

Was the rise an 8 game period? i seem to remember that Palace fan saying so. If so, I don't think anything can be concluded from it other than it was a good 8 game spell. Take that spell away and at best the record is ordinary. All that matters is that we haven't progressed on the pitch, which given the resources and time he has had is poor IMO.

So you're saying that you expect progression against a backdrop of a footballing budget cut of around £40M over two years?

I expect us to be doing better than we are. But the conditions to succeed here are probably tougher than most other clubs in the league right now.

The money was primarily spent before Freedman arrived. And it is increasingly clear that we had nowt. Not one of those players has made a profit, several of them are without a club and most went on frees.

There was no chance to sell a couple and re-invest. We've been broadly limited to free transfers and even loans have been limited. All against a club where expectations have been raised higher than that of clubs of similar size in this division.

I will say again, we aren't under any circumstances doing well enough. But we have huge problems that can't just be brushed under the carpet by changing a manager.

That doesn't mean don't change, but people aren't living in reality for me. We don't have one of the top ten squads in this division. We don't have one of the top budgets. We don't have the financial muscle NOW that half the league and more does. We don't have sellable assets. We are an also ran at best. No manager has a magic wand to change that.

As it stands things are absolutely desperate and I'd agree that a change would not be unwarranted. But we are in a state and the state is only going to get worse, whoever the manager is.