Jump to content

AA was a mistake says SOD


gdevoy

Recommended Posts

SOD has had a lot on his plate and he is a sensitive soul so I am just glad he is back to something like his best at last.

It was not all about AA, remember the 1-0 win at McDiarmid. It was about a lot of things, AA being one of them. It might be easiest for all if the revised narrative is that it was all about AA, but it wasn't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Sorry, 30% win ratio is superb.

 

In this league i'd imagine that's pretty much average especially for teams outwith the "bigger teams". 

In our time in premiership/spl Bobby had 36%, Jefferies 35% and they were top 6 regulars.

Only folk above 40% in premier league era for us were Mixu, Clarke and Burns although did he not have games in first division aswell.

Angelo had 36%. If Dyer wins the next game for example he'll jump to 36% aswell. Not amazing by any means but probably about right for our level. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever has been said about AA's time a manager needs his players behind him, particularly senior players, and it didn't happen. I honestly don't know why we brought that sh!t stirrer Broadfoot back. How the hell could Bowie sanction that move after praising Alessio, sacking him without any obvious reason, then re-employing the man that destroyed "the best manager in the league" in the press ? After all the praise at the start of the season Bowie was the man that caved to the players and then sh*t on AA from a great height. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrestersKtid said:

In this league i'd imagine that's pretty much average especially for teams outwith the "bigger teams". 

In our time in premiership/spl Bobby had 36%, Jefferies 35% and they were top 6 regulars.

Only folk above 40% in premier league era for us were Mixu, Clarke and Burns although did he not have games in first division aswell.

Angelo had 36%. If Dyer wins the next game for example he'll jump to 36% aswell. Not amazing by any means but probably about right for our level. 

 

 

Begone with you and your facts, doesn't fit the narrative!

There are folk on here who ripped Alessio to shreds and are now ripping the board to shreds for getting rid. Make up your minds FFS, you can't have it all ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gaz of the 20/20 said:

Haamelainen was very good in his first few games and fitted in well with the side. His performances have declined since then.

The lack of competition for his place in the team and disappointing team management leaving him exposed far too often, have contributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, superfan said:

We would have had an almost empty stadium and be on the verge of automatic relegation if AA had stayed. We all thought Lee Clarke was a charlatan AA was even more so. 

Charlatan? I don't see any of Italy's top clubs trying to bring Lee Clark into their coaching set up.

It will be interesting to see how many of the Killie squad who got AA sacked will go on to have coaching careers at the highest level in Europe.
Or perhaps they will end up in non-league football like Lee Clark and Gary Locke.

Edited by historyman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, historyman said:

Even the first sentence shows how ridiculous the article is:

Stephen O'Donnell has pointed the finger at the previous Kilmarnock regime that’s left them playing catch-up in the top-six race.

We WERE in the top six under the previous regime and have fallen out of it under the current regime.

Let's not let facts get in the way of the witch hunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

What's their excuse now? As our results have got a good bit worse since AD took over.

When AA was sacked were 5th. We are now joint 7th and have played a game more than St Johnstone (who were miles behind us when AA was sacked)

PS - Who appointed AA & GOH?

 

Looking at league position is a bit misleading though - loads of factors to take into account. 

Hibs, St Johnstone and St Mirren were absolute garbage in that period and are now all decent sides picking up points. Without that buffer below us the Alessio points tally would have had us much further down. 

Dyers first run of games was bad but performances since the break and Kabamba came in have been generally good. 

I don't get the SoD hate at all. Even in the period everyone says he had chucked it he was pretty much our only attacking outlet under Alessio. Drop in form for a while and has been putting in good performances recently. 

The fact that he now has attacking players in front of him, two strikers to aim at and a clearer plan of what to do on the ball might have more to do with his I upturn than attitude... 

Edited by mitch14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I wouldn't say SOD hate,

What I will say, is that a lot of the play at the turn of the year looked half hearted.

For example, check the attempts at Perth to stop crosses coming into the box which lead to goals.

Or you could go right back to ,, errr, last Wednesday and see how easy it is for Andrew Considine to get the cross in that deflects off Connor Johnson. SOD could and should have told The Sun he had no comment to make about the previous manager, let’s face it, that’s what Tge Board have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read the full articles and interview , SOD was pretty bang on in most aspects -- apart from saying out right that the players had to shoulder a lot of the blame - 

There were a number of games where the players dug in and got results under AA so widespread claims of downing tools is a bit misleading IMO ----there did appear various issues both with players and coaching staff under AA

Did wonder at the time of the sacking of AA how much Fowler's review of playing matters was taken into consideration ---he was asked when he joined to provide to the board such a review  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I wouldn't say SOD hate,

What I will say, is that a lot of the play at the turn of the year looked half hearted.

For example, check the attempts at Perth to stop crosses coming into the box which lead to goals.

Should have made clearer I didn't mean SoD hate from you personally. 

There's been voices on here and in the stadium which are way ott at times. 

I do think he's a player that needs managed and told what to do. His best periods under us with Clarke and I remember at Partick when it was him and Taylor Sinclair causing havoc were when he was playing clearly defined systems that played to his strengths. 

Him not taking to Alessio and Alessio not playing an overall system that suited him was a bad mix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing win percentages over such small periods of time is a total nothing statistic. 

It also doesn't take into consideration the undeniable fact that we were a team with an excellent defensive record under AA, and in Dyer's "interview spell" were beyond honking. 

I don't hate O'Donnell but I do think given he's been utter guff for quite some period of time - until quite recently, as mentioned - he's in absolutely no position to be commenting on anyone else. Focus on your own performance fella, you really need to.

Edited by aumgn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, carpetfitter said:

It is far too simplistic to say that SOD and other players ‘downed tools’. An alternative narrative, based on more than hearsay, is that AA’s methods, approach and attitude were quite disastrous. (Not having future opponents performances examined eg and there’s worse than that).  The fact that we went on a decent run under AA was more due to the players’ professionalism and commitment to the cause and their understanding of what had worked and would work than AA’s managerial competence. It is also far too simplistic to dub this player power.

Now having players and the manager at odds with each other is sub- optimal if not downright dysfunctional. Clearly players’ self organisation could only take the team so far. And when it went bad it went really bad. Of course there were other factors - Brophy never a lone striker, terrible window, some disappointing signing, pitiful loanees (Sow, Jackson), small squad, big Stu injured, admin chaos, legacy of CQ, admin issues and Board errors but AA was a problem. The truth will out maybe but to attribute the problems mainly to the players downing tools, player power, arrogance etc is to misjudge developments and to underestimate just how ill suited was AA. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...