O/t bmj

[Harry_Perkins]

Go and take a look at our league positions for the 13-14 seasons or so before he arrived......might provide a bit of a clue.

Go and have a look at how much we spent circa 2003-2006 compared to 1992-2003! He was still better than the four that preceded him but lets get things into perspective. We blew the competition out of the water in the market and still only just finished above Blackburn in 2006 and Bolton and Reading in 2007. We did challenge Arsenal at least in 2006 though but that was his high water mark. Compare with the likes of Hughes, Moyes, Redknapp (not at Spurs but West Ham), Allardyce, Curbishley, Hodgson in the same era who achieved similar on a fraction of the resources he had available at Spurs. Again, not a bad manager but just hopelessly overrated because we hadn't had anyone decent at Spurs since Venables.

 

[Robspur12]

I loved BMJ when he were with us . As others have already said, from the position we were when he took over, he did great for us .

However the flak he's getting at the Cottage is warranted as far as I'm concerned . If I were a Fulham fan I'd be a little bit more than concerned about a manager that sets the team up to include a midfield central pairing of, Steve Sidwell and Scotty Parker.

Yes I agree but then it's not like at Spurs where there are lots of options at Fulham there are few alternatives. I felt the new owner and the outgoing one did not back BMJ in the transfer market except for a few freebies this summer. I cannot see any manager doing better with the resources they have currently at Fulham.

 

[Robspur12]

Go and have a look at how much we spent circa 2003-2006 compared to 1992-2003! He was still better than the four that preceded him but lets get things into perspective. We blew the competition out of the water in the market and still only just finished above Blackburn in 2006 and Bolton and Reading in 2007. We did challenge Arsenal at least in 2006 though but that was his high water mark. Compare with the likes of Hughes, Moyes, Redknapp (not at Spurs but West Ham), Allardyce, Curbishley, Hodgson in the same era who achieved similar on a fraction of the resources he had available at Spurs. Again, not a bad manager but just hopelessly overrated because we hadn't had anyone decent at Spurs since Venables.

Sorry don't buy that. I agree with Jurgen, BMJ had taken us as far as he could by the time he was sacked but to belittle his achievements before that is simply unfair. As for spending I remember Spurs always signing players even in the bad days of the 90s. It's just we had Sugar in charge with no particular buying policy.

By the time of Jol we had a new structure in place and it looked like there was some strategy to our buying. That said initially there was a more scattergun approach in terms of numbers of players coming in which would account for the bigger spend. We did not however, unlike Chelsea, buy finished articles for Jol but rather players he would have to work and improve which he did very well initially. If amount of money spent correlated precisely with success on the pitch then both Hughes and Redknapp would have succeeded at QPR and Dagliesh at Liverpool 2 seasons ago. Therefore I felt Jol did very well to give us back some respectability and to play attractive football.

 

[braineclipse]

Sorry don't buy that. I agree with Jurgen, BMJ had taken us as far as he could by the time he was sacked but to belittle his achievements before that is simply unfair. As for spending I remember Spurs always signing players even in the bad days of the 90s. It's just we had Sugar in charge with no particular buying policy.

By the time of Jol we had a new structure in place and it looked like there was some strategy to our buying. That said initially there was a more scattergun approach in terms of numbers of players coming in which would account for the bigger spend. We did not however, unlike Chelsea, buy finished articles for Jol but rather players he would have to work and improve which he did very well initially. If amount of money spent correlated precisely with success on the pitch then both Hughes and Redknapp would have succeeded at QPR and Dagliesh at Liverpool 2 seasons ago. Therefore I felt Jol did very well to give us back some respectability and to play attractive football.

Who is claiming that it does?

 

[Robspur12]

Who is claiming that it does?

Harry Perkins, read the first line of his post.

 

[braineclipse]

Harry Perkins, read the first line of his post.

I did. And I re-read it now. He really didn't claim that.

Saying that there is a correlation (which there is), isn't the same as saying that there's a precise correlation to the point where each individual example should be expected to line up according to that correlation.

 

[Robspur12]

I did. And I re-read it now. He really didn't claim that.

Saying that there is a correlation (which there is), isn't the same as saying that there's a precise correlation to the point where each individual example should be expected to line up according to that correlation.

Oh Dear I think you are trying to be too clever for me. So lets agree to disagree.

 

[braineclipse]

Oh Dear I think you are trying to be too clever for me. So lets agree to disagree.

Not so clever version:

A: "There is a correlation"

B: "There is a precise correlation"

A is not the same as B. Harry Perkins claimed A, you argued against B.

--------------------

Agreed to disagree...

 

[Robspur12]

Mate that's far to much analysis of a small point. The thrust of the HP's argument is that BMJ was successful because, in part more money was spent than by his predecessors. My Counter point was money spent does not necessarily mean performance of team improves so it is unfair to draw any inference from that - simples. Any way that's the last I will say on this.

 

[Spursalot]

Not so clever version:

A: "There is a correlation"

B: "There is a precise correlation"

A is not the same as B. Harry Perkins claimed A, you argued against B.

--------------------

Agreed to disagree...

Is a pretty clear distinction..


Anyway, Fulham were pretty **** yesterday, and that was against what was a pretty poor Chelsea team on the night.


It's odd, no one team has really stamped down their mark on this season yet. Though the Manchester derby could be the first..

 

[braineclipse]

Is a pretty clear distinction..


Anyway, Fulham were pretty **** yesterday, and that was against what was a pretty poor Chelsea team on the night.


It's odd, no one team has really stamped down their mark on this season yet. Though the Manchester derby could be the first..

I thought so too.

---------------------

I didn't watch the game yesterday, but I could have guessed before the game that Fulham would be pretty **** and I would have felt quite confident about my prediction.

That's part of what I thought Jol's weakness was, a lack of improvement in areas where there was a clear room for improvement. Of course playing Chelsea will always be difficult for Fulham, but they always seem to be a bit clueless and without a good plan against better teams. Could be just my impression.

For us another problem remained during his time with us. We kept coming out and performing poorly in the first halves, "Martin Jol half time talk" became a frequently used phrase, at least for me. Made for entertaining games, but the problem of us underperforming in first halves remained and lasted much longer than it should have. Compare that to what AVB did when we struggled towards the end of games at the start of last season and that highlights a big difference between the two managers for me.

Makes me very happy that Jol is at Fulham and AVB is with us. Even though I'll always have fond memories of the big man and be grateful for what he did for us.

 

[Spaceman]

Just a bang average manager

 

[Joesh]

As others have said, fans have fond memories of him here as it was an exciting time for our club after years of mediocrity. He was great for interviews and in fairness, compared to Fergie and Wenger etc behaved really well as a manager. He had a good connection with the fans and having his own song helped. Even the "Martin Jols blue and white army" chant really helped our atmosphere in some games. Since leaving, he hasnt really had too many bad things to say about us which isnt that common for sacked managers.

 

[Mosquito_Coasting]

Sorry don't buy that. I agree with Jurgen, BMJ had taken us as far as he could by the time he was sacked but to belittle his achievements before that is simply unfair. As for spending I remember Spurs always signing players even in the bad days of the 90s. It's just we had Sugar in charge with no particular buying policy.

By the time of Jol we had a new structure in place and it looked like there was some strategy to our buying. That said initially there was a more scattergun approach in terms of numbers of players coming in which would account for the bigger spend. We did not however, unlike Chelsea, buy finished articles for Jol but rather players he would have to work and improve which he did very well initially. If amount of money spent correlated precisely with success on the pitch then both Hughes and Redknapp would have succeeded at QPR and Dagliesh at Liverpool 2 seasons ago. Therefore I felt Jol did very well to give us back some respectability and to play attractive football.

The ONLY time HP posts on this forum is to belittle Jol. It's his only concern here.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Sorry don't buy that. I agree with Jurgen, BMJ had taken us as far as he could by the time he was sacked but to belittle his achievements before that is simply unfair. As for spending I remember Spurs always signing players even in the bad days of the 90s. It's just we had Sugar in charge with no particular buying policy.

By the time of Jol we had a new structure in place and it looked like there was some strategy to our buying. That said initially there was a more scattergun approach in terms of numbers of players coming in which would account for the bigger spend. We did not however, unlike Chelsea, buy finished articles for Jol but rather players he would have to work and improve which he did very well initially. If amount of money spent correlated precisely with success on the pitch then both Hughes and Redknapp would have succeeded at QPR and Dagliesh at Liverpool 2 seasons ago. Therefore I felt Jol did very well to give us back some respectability and to play attractive football.

Sure it doesn't correlate exactly but generally speaking, over the long term especially, it makes a huge difference these days. I think what has happened at Emirates Marketing Project has largely ended this debate. Money over the long term does buy success. At least at domestic level. All that spending hasn't done much for them in the CL!

I'm not sure the two examples you give really convince. Liverpool still finished 8th despite Dalglish's undoubtedly poor buys. QPR only just avoided relegation in their first season back up - sure they then spent a relatively decent amount and should probably have been looking at midtable but it is far more competitive from the top 6 down.

Sure we signed players under Sugar but there was no extra investment for transfer spending. That only came in 2003 for the first time in maybe 15 years. I think it undoubtedly made a big impact. I'm not saying Jol still wouldn't have got better results than those who'd gone before without that extra investment but I do think it was the difference between maybe top 8 and top 6. Just 5 points separated us Reading, Bolton and Everton between 5th and 8th in 2006 and 9 points between us, Bolton, Blackburn and Saudi Sportswashing Machine in 2005. All but maybe one or two of those clubs can be really talked about as spending any serious money at all during that period. And even Blackburn and Saudi Sportswashing Machine were still outspent by considerable margins.

And I don't think saying any of this is to belittle Jol. It is just to put things in context. I think he was our Bruce Rioch, to an extent. He did relatively well but undoubtedly more talented people were likely to come along and take it on much further. And so proved.

 

[milo]

And I don't think saying any of this is to belittle Jol. It is just to put things in context. I think he was our Bruce Rioch, to an extent. He did relatively well but undoubtedly more talented people were likely to come along and take it on much further. And so proved.

I don't think that is an accurate comparison because Rioch inherited a strong team that had been successful. Jol had next to nothing to build on.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

[/B]

Yes I agree but then it's not like at Spurs where there are lots of options at Fulham there are few alternatives. I felt the new owner and the outgoing one did not back BMJ in the transfer market except for a few freebies this summer. I cannot see any manager doing better with the resources they have currently at Fulham.

Disagree with this. Fulham are the forgotten billionaire bankrolled club in this division! Al Fayed backed every manager quite strongly. Not only in terms of transfer fees but by having a wage structure in place that is simply beyond the means of a club that was in the 3rd division when he took over and averaging crowds of about 4,000. He had loaned Fulham £250 million interest free by the time he sold up in the summer. They should be solid top 10 team IMO. Roy Hodgson just a few years back took over Fulham midway through the season with them in 18th. He kept them up, they then finished in 7th in his first full season and then he got them to a European final the following season. Mark Hughes followed that up with an 8th place finish 2011. Jol then finished 9th and 12th. So Hughes and Hodgson did better for my money. Again, I think this puts Jol's abilities in perspective.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

I don't think that is an accurate comparison because Rioch inherited a strong team that had been successful. Jol had next to nothing to build on.

It WAS a strong team that had been successful. They were very poor by the time he took over. They avoided relegation by just 6 points the previous year. By then they'd found extra investment so they could go out and sign Dennis Bergkamp and David Platt. We were in much the same circumstance.

 

[milo]

It WAS a strong team that had been successful. They were very poor by the time he took over. They avoided relegation by just 6 points the previous year. By then they'd found extra investment so they could go out and sign Dennis Bergkamp and David Platt. We were in much the same circumstance.

Martin Jol did not inherit a team with players of the calibre of Ian Wright, Tony Adams, David Seaman, Lee Dixon, Martin Keown, Nigel Winterburn, Steve Bould, Paul Merson and then add players of the quality of Bergkamp and Platt.

 

[Robspur12]

Disagree with this. Fulham are the forgotten billionaire bankrolled club in this division! Al Fayed backed every manager quite strongly. Not only in terms of transfer fees but by having a wage structure in place that is simply beyond the means of a club that was in the 3rd division when he took over and averaging crowds of about 4,000. He had loaned Fulham £250 million interest free by the time he sold up in the summer. They should be solid top 10 team IMO. Roy Hodgson just a few years back took over Fulham midway through the season with them in 18th. He kept them up, they then finished in 7th in his first full season and then he got them to a European final the following season. Mark Hughes followed that up with an 8th place finish 2011. Jol then finished 9th and 12th. So Hughes and Hodgson did better for my money. Again, I think this puts Jol's abilities in perspective.

You make some very good points but I think you are being a bit unfair. Hodgson did well at Fulham but then crashed and burned at Liverpool (i.e. failed at a big club compared to Jol who had a degree of success at a big club) Hughes inherited a cup final team and built on it thereby continuing the success of Hodgson. Went on to crash and burn at QPR. Jol inherited a side from Hughes with already old players a year older and basically achieved a similar finish to his predecessors. Then he lost his 2 biggest players in Dembele and Dempsey and did not and has not replaced them. While Berba is world class the team around him is as mediocre (apart from Sasha Riether and poss Brede Hangerlaand) as I have seen at Fulham. Berba can blow hot and cold as we all know. Basically Jol now has a team devoid of quality and will struggle when their star player is out. Khan will have to back him - all I saw in the summer were freebies, loans and Parker.