Freedman out!

[Prufrock]

Do we really think Ed is that thick that he thinks DF is a good un, kudos of PG, coz he's still in a job, but would think he was a bad un, boo to PG wee he sacked. That he doesn't form an opinion based on watching us, or the league table.

[CrazyHorse]

I can't believe this is rumbling on, considering how it is so self-evidently groundless bollox.

He's just lifted his own mantra, and that of his experience at QPR (the article's on here about 3 days ago), and plonked it verbatim in an article about his circumstances now. Its classic sociopathic behaviour, tell them anything to get you off, but make it sound remotely plausible. Its becoming clearer as to how he got this job with every further utterance from his gob.

I know, I mean I can't believe a manager is making excuses. Nor that people are on here agreeing with some of those excuses. It is simply a disgrace and behaviour I know that you would never associate yourself with.

I can only imagine you'll be referring to him as c*nt Dougie very soon then. I won't be, but I'm sure you're looking for consistency.

I'll wait till we're twenty league places lower than we were when he took over.

So sometime in September this year then?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm guessing mid-August

[CrazyHorse]

I was trying to be fair. The table doesn't mean much for the first few games.....

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I dunno. I think the league table has been indicative of our shitness since around game one.

[Athers]

That draw at Burnley looks like it will turn out to be our best result of the season!

[SmokinFrazier]

Yeah because sacking managers every 10 minutes is clearly far more progressive and a better way?

A few weeks ago West Ham fans were clamouring for Allardyce to be sacked. Since then they've had a couple of decent results and their position has improved.

Christ for a few years many Arsenal fans have questioned Wenger. Most people questioned Wenger, me included. They are now top of the league.

There is no one exact rule. Sometimes even when things seem beyond bad sticking with a manager pays off. Sometimes binning a manager off when they're seemingly doing ok pays off. Sometimes neither does. But football is so short minded, so in the "moment" now it is like most of its followers need to take ADHD medicine or something.

And I'm speaking generally here, not specifically. Not about any one club or situation.

There are two points you're forgetting though.

1. All those managers had achieved a lot in their past and had shown enough reason to not be sacked. There's a big difference between them and someone like Muelensteen for that reason. When managers have shown enough over their entire careers that you know they're capable, then they obviously deserve more of a chance to turn things round. Granted, Freedman hasn't had the long careers they've had but he has been a manager for 160 games and yet has shown no sort of managerial ability at any stage in that career. Could he miraculously improve next week and go on to be a brilliant manager? Yeah, he could stumble across a winning formula but it's not very likely. Nothing in Freedman's past tells me that he is worth sticking with. He did, at best, an average job with Palace and he's done awful since taking over us.

2. The standards of football under Freedman have been terrible. I'm not bothered about what style we play, whether it's possession, long ball, counter attack or whatever, as long as it's effective but it simply isn't under Freedman. Defensively, we're a complete mess and make simple errors in every game. Why do we allow the opposition so much time outside our box and when it costs us so many goals, why doesn't that change? Why can we not create chances for our strikers? Why do we continue to lump the ball up to a lone striker? That's the difference between Freedman and a manager like Allardyce. When results are poor for Allardyce, there's a reason for it, whether it's injury, suspension or whatever but when we perform poorly with Freedman, it's because we're set up in the wrong way. Freedman is awful tactically, much worse than Coyle. Regardless of how the results are for Arsenal, West Ham or whoever else, you can at least some structure in their side but when our results are poor, it's we're getting what we deserve for hiring a manager who is well out of his depth.

That's the difference between a manager who deserves time and another who should be sacked, and it's why we shouldn't stick with Freedman. He's obviously nowhere near good enough tactically for the Championship, I don't think his man management skills are up to much and he's not done anything too impressive in the transfer window...so rather than resort to an incredibly weak argument like the one above, tell me why he should remain our manager? If you were a manager, would you continue to play a keeper who let shots go through his arms as long as he talked a good game off the pitch?

[Norpig]

Yeah because sacking managers every 10 minutes is clearly far more progressive and a better way?

A few weeks ago West Ham fans were clamouring for Allardyce to be sacked. Since then they've had a couple of decent results and their position has improved.

Christ for a few years many Arsenal fans have questioned Wenger. Most people questioned Wenger, me included. They are now top of the league.

There is no one exact rule. Sometimes even when things seem beyond bad sticking with a manager pays off. Sometimes binning a manager off when they're seemingly doing ok pays off. Sometimes neither does. But football is so short minded, so in the "moment" now it is like most of its followers need to take ADHD medicine or something.

And I'm speaking generally here, not specifically. Not about any one club or situation.

There are two points you're forgetting though.

1. All those managers had achieved a lot in their past and had shown enough reason to not be sacked. There's a big difference between them and someone like Muelensteen for that reason. When managers have shown enough over their entire careers that you know they're capable, then they obviously deserve more of a chance to turn things round. Granted, Freedman hasn't had the long careers they've had but he has been a manager for 160 games and yet has shown no sort of managerial ability at any stage in that career. Could he miraculously improve next week and go on to be a brilliant manager? Yeah, he could stumble across a winning formula but it's not very likely. Nothing in Freedman's past tells me that he is worth sticking with. He did, at best, an average job with Palace and he's done awful since taking over us.

2. The standards of football under Freedman have been terrible. I'm not bothered about what style we play, whether it's possession, long ball, counter attack or whatever, as long as it's effective but it simply isn't under Freedman. Defensively, we're a complete mess and make simple errors in every game. Why do we allow the opposition so much time outside our box and when it costs us so many goals, why doesn't that change? Why can we not create chances for our strikers? Why do we continue to lump the ball up to a lone striker? That's the difference between Freedman and a manager like Allardyce. When results are poor for Allardyce, there's a reason for it, whether it's injury, suspension or whatever but when we perform poorly with Freedman, it's because we're set up in the wrong way. Freedman is awful tactically, much worse than Coyle. Regardless of how the results are for Arsenal, West Ham or whoever else, you can at least some structure in their side but when our results are poor, it's we're getting what we deserve for hiring a manager who is well out of his depth.

That's the difference between a manager who deserves time and another who should be sacked, and it's why we shouldn't stick with Freedman. He's obviously nowhere near good enough tactically for the Championship, I don't think his man management skills are up to much and he's not done anything too impressive in the transfer window...so rather than resort to an incredibly weak argument like the one above, tell me why he should remain our manager? If you were a manager, would you continue to play a keeper who let shots go through his arms as long as he talked a good game off the pitch?

Smokin the world must have turned on its axis, because for the first time I actually agree with your argument. I have been an advocate of sticking with DF mainly because there were no credible alternatives (I think we need someone in quickly if we get rid of DF). However, since the turn of the year I have seen some awful football. I cannot see where we are going there is no structure, closing down the opposition is non existent.

I feel we need to be blooding the kids (as they will be all we have next season) so that at least they have some sort of experience. I fear for the future over the next few years and I now agree that DF is not the answer.

It comes down to finances, Dougie (can we afford to pay him off), a credible alternative (can we afford anybody decent), and finally keep investing in the youth (can we afford this to fail?)

[BWFC_Insane]

He did, at best, an average job with Palace and he's done awful since taking over us.

You keep saying this and I wonder what basis you have for saying it?

As far as I can see he took over a club that were in a mess, without a penny to their name, selling all their experienced players, and second from bottom in the championship.

When he left they were what? Top? Second?

I can absolutely take people saying he wasn't there that long. And is unproven. But I really don't see how you can describe what he did as "an average job at best"???

[Prufrock]

And a league cup semi. Short, but better than average.

[LeverEnd]

He did, at best, an average job with Palace and he's done awful since taking over us.

You keep saying this and I wonder what basis you have for saying it?

As far as I can see he took over a club that were in a mess, without a penny to their name, selling all their experienced players, and second from bottom in the championship.

When he left they were what? Top? Second?

I can absolutely take people saying he wasn't there that long. And is unproven. But I really don't see how you can describe what he did as "an average job at best"???

True. I'd say he did a good job at Palace whichever way you look at it, although there are caveats to that, length of tenure being the main one.
Come on SF, he's bad enough here to want him gone without rewriting history.

[SmokinFrazier]

He did, at best, an average job with Palace and he's done awful since taking over us.

You keep saying this and I wonder what basis you have for saying it?

As far as I can see he took over a club that were in a mess, without a penny to their name, selling all their experienced players, and second from bottom in the championship.

When he left they were what? Top? Second?

I can absolutely take people saying he wasn't there that long. And is unproven. But I really don't see how you can describe what he did as "an average job at best"???

In his first season, Palace finished 20th, which you could excuse by talking about what Burley had done, but then in his full season in charge, Freedman only managed to take them to 17th. This was a team who had Clyne, Ambrose, Zaha, Jedinak, Murray amonsgt others, so it was a good side who should have been much higher in the table. They underachieved by finishing 17th in Freedman's only full season with Palace, but if you think I'm wrong in saying that, surely that must make Holloway a managerial God for getting the same group of players promoted? And yeah, they were doing well before he joined us but, as I mentioned before, that was after a decent run of a mere 8 games, so it's not like he left them after 35 games in the season when they were 19 points in front of everyone else. Prior to that good run, Palace had lost 10 from 12 games under Freedman, so lets not pretend that it was anything more than it was. You can't argue that it was anything other than a flash in the pan. Maybe Palace would have maintained that form over the course of the season or maybe they'd have reverted back to mediocrity. Looking at the result of Freedman's career, I know which is the most likely outcome.

Saying things like 'Freedman avoided relegation with Palace, rebuilt and left when they were near (or at) the top of the league' is being very generous to him. The reality is, he didn't make them into a good side. They were inconsistent, then they were awful and finally, they went on a small successful run before he left. That's it.

It's all hypothetical, of course, but I highly doubt Palace would have been promoted with Freedman in charge. Holloway is a better manager than he is and did a much better job with the same group of players. There won't be any Palace fans thinking "I wish Freedman had stayed because he'd have got us promoted and made us a solid Premier League side" but I suspect there'll be plenty thinking "Thank God the inept prick had no loyalty, otherwise we'd still be an inconsistent Championship side now".

As I said, the job Freedman did with Palace was nothing more than average.

[LeverEnd]

Didn't Freedman do much better with us than Holloway with them in the 2nd half of the season? I bet there aren't many Palace fans who agree with you. Their view of Holloway seemed to be pretty dim, though I could be wrong. Where's that peaceful Eagle chap? I'm sure they wouldn't have him back now, don't get me wrong, but when they were limping to the playoffs under Holloway I bet they would have.
He'll get another job after we bin him as he's young and has his failure excuses lined up, but if he fails again he'll be in Coyle's boat.

[jonnycooper]

I'm getting very close to being of the same opinion as smokin! I was hoping and praying that results would change soon'and Dougie would prove his doubters wrong and go on to be a top top Manager.However his tactics and decision making over the last few months have virtually killed any hopes I had

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Can you please refrain from top top?

Ta

[a1]

Can you please refrain from top top?

Ta

remember 'tip top' ?, you dont see that anymore.

i'm sure thats the better phrase for a "'good' manager" rather than the redknappese , too.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Can you please refrain from top top?

Ta

remember 'tip top' ?, you dont see that anymore.

i'm sure thats the better phrase for a "'good' manager" rather than the redknappese , too.

I do

When I hear top top I hear it in Redknappese and feel the need to punch something!

[SmokinFrazier]

Didn't Freedman do much better with us than Holloway with them in the 2nd half of the season? I bet there aren't many Palace fans who agree with you. Their view of Holloway seemed to be pretty dim, though I could be wrong. Where's that peaceful Eagle chap? I'm sure they wouldn't have him back now, don't get me wrong, but when they were limping to the playoffs under Holloway I bet they would have.
He'll get another job after we bin him as he's young and has his failure excuses lined up, but if he fails again he'll be in Coyle's boat.

Yeah Freedman did do better with us than Holloway did with Palace, on average about 0.2 ppg better, though that's probably not a fair comparison because we had a better team than they did. With Palace in the Championship, Holloway's ppg was higher than Freedman's was.

I'm not a fan of Holloway either, by the way

[jaffka]

Palace went up, we didn't.

This year we won't go up either.

Might go down though, that wasn't part of the deal.

[boltonboris]

I judge a manager on what he's presently doing, not what he's done in the past.

I couldn't give a fvck if he got Palace to a champions league final. I DO give a fvck that he's clearly not the right person for BWFC.