You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Vieira vs Roy V2.0
June 4 2023 5.05am

Vieira vs Roy V2.0

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

 

View taylors lovechild's Profile taylors lovechild Flag 27 Apr 23 11.50am Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

Originally posted by Steveoxon

I often thought before he came to Palace that his performance as a pundit was often quite weak, what he said never really seemed to amount to much. I thought then perhaps it was a language issue, but his pre and post match performances when manager were often quite wishy-washy in my opinion. I also thought his interview with Rio Ferdinand re social media was a bit disappointing.

Do you mean this one? [Link]

What is it that was disappointing for you? He seemed to say what you'd expect of any decent human being, unless I missed something in my skimming of the transcript?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 27 Apr 23 11.58am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I think a lot of what you say makes sense and the board did let him down. However I expect most managers will tell you that their board makes promises they don't keep.

The burden of being a manager is to make the best of what you got and PV didn't do that.

A good manager would have got those players going and then quit for a better job.

PV has not helped himself there.

Roy was attacked on all sides in his last stint here, but he soldiered on with an ageing, makeweight team... yet still kept us mid table for 4 seasons on a relative shoestring. An example set but not followed.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 27 Apr 23 12.09pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by taylors lovechild

Do you mean this one? [Link]

What is it that was disappointing for you? He seemed to say what you'd expect of any decent human being, unless I missed something in my skimming of the transcript?

Also, if you are really going to attack a man based on his punditry, remember the dullest most lifeless pundit in history. Step forward Sir Steve Coppell! After he spoke, his voice was so monotone and soporific I had no clue what he had just said. Simply didn't register. I wonder how he was perhaps our best ever manager who led the team to 3rd in the table and a cup final.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Steveoxon's Profile Steveoxon Flag Oxford 27 Apr 23 1.24pm Send a Private Message to Steveoxon Add Steveoxon as a friend

Fair enough, although I was basing what i said on PV's pressers and post match stuff as well. As for the interview with Ferdinand, the transcript reads ok, I just felt watching the video that Ferdinand was having to feed PV quite a lot keep him going. I'm not saying I dislike PV, far from it, and I thought he was great at many of the club events, for example with the Down's syndrome kids, I just often felt his answers to questions re games were a bit superficial and like he was going through the motions. Maybe's he's just shy or it's that English is not his first language. Roy's recent press conferences have been on a different level.

Originally posted by silvertop

Also, if you are really going to attack a man based on his punditry, remember the dullest most lifeless pundit in history. Step forward Sir Steve Coppell! After he spoke, his voice was so monotone and soporific I had no clue what he had just said. Simply didn't register. I wonder how he was perhaps our best ever manager who led the team to 3rd in the table and a cup final.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View taylors lovechild's Profile taylors lovechild Flag 27 Apr 23 1.46pm Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

Originally posted by Steveoxon

Fair enough, although I was basing what i said on PV's pressers and post match stuff as well. As for the interview with Ferdinand, the transcript reads ok, I just felt watching the video that Ferdinand was having to feed PV quite a lot keep him going. I'm not saying I dislike PV, far from it, and I thought he was great at many of the club events, for example with the Down's syndrome kids, I just often felt his answers to questions re games were a bit superficial and like he was going through the motions. Maybe's he's just shy or it's that English is not his first language. Roy's recent press conferences have been on a different level.

I can get that, I took it that he's just a really laid back guy, which is fine when you're playing well, but maybe doesn't play so well when your team is losing. The shape of his head and his size makes me think of the Honey Monster. He was struggling to get a tune out of the team by the end, but I think he'll bounce back. Maybe with a better coaching setup next time.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Painter's Profile Painter Flag Croydon 27 Apr 23 2.05pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I think a lot of what you say makes sense and the board did let him down. However I expect most managers will tell you that their board makes promises they don't keep.

The burden of being a manager is to make the best of what you got and PV didn't do that.

A good manager would have got those players going and then quit for a better job.

This board letting him down over transfers is nonsense, he had 120m spent on his squad, more than any previous manager.

He basically couldnít use his squad correctly and tactically seemed lacking. Not playing Eze has shown to be a big error.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 27 Apr 23 2.09pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Painter

This board letting him down over transfers is nonsense, he had 120m spent on his squad, more than any previous manager.

He basically couldnít use his squad correctly and tactically seemed lacking. Not playing Eze has shown to be a big error.

Harsh but I am inclined to believe there is a lot of truth in there.

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View taylors lovechild's Profile taylors lovechild Flag 27 Apr 23 2.27pm Send a Private Message to taylors lovechild Add taylors lovechild as a friend

Originally posted by Painter

This board letting him down over transfers is nonsense, he had 120m spent on his squad, more than any previous manager.

He basically couldnít use his squad correctly and tactically seemed lacking. Not playing Eze has shown to be a big error.

Regardless of who is manager next season, they are likely going to be asked to turn water into wine as financially we continue to struggle to match pretty much every other club. Ward, Schlupp and Ayew are not going to suddenly get better at this stage of their career, Wilf is probably off, and we may well lose one of our other stars like Guehi or Olise. When Vieira was sacked his points per pound spend put him in the top three managers in the PL (only behind Brighton and Brentford). That is not to say we were playing well, because we weren't, and the decision to sack him in retrospect was probably the right one...but...it does highlight how incredibly tough the job is. It does also show what a good job Freedman does.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View southnorwoodhill's Profile southnorwoodhill Flag 27 Apr 23 6.30pm Send a Private Message to southnorwoodhill Add southnorwoodhill as a friend

Some posters keep on mentioning the £120m spent, but as I have explained elsewhere this sum had to be spent anyhow no matter who was manager, owing to that fact that the squad was depleted after Roy's first stint due to contracts being concluded and a number of players not of PL standard any longer. Some have managed to linger and are still here and one would expect that they won't be here next season.
Incidentally we did well with the acquisitions of Vieira's first season - Andersen, Guehi, Olise, Doucoure, and of course the loan of Gallagher was the icing on the cake. We didn't do so well with striker acquisition and this has been an ongoing problem since the departure of Murray.
I'd also add that the rebuild is only half complete, we'll have a few leaving and a few staying just to keep up numbers, until / unless the Academy players are ready for PL football.
To summarize: Vieira had £120 spent, it was a necessary expenditure, and we have acquired a number of decent players that should hold us in good stead.

Edited by southnorwoodhill (27 Apr 2023 7.03pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View sydtheeagle's Profile sydtheeagle Flag England 27 Apr 23 9.29pm Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

How do you measure a good manager? Beyond results and goals, I think it's "do they improve their players"? From his first day to his last, I'd say:

Guita was Guaita
Ward declined, albeit partly due to age
Mitchell, if anything, went backwards this season
Andersson and Guehi were consistently good
Eze declined
Edouard declined
Mateta declined
Ayew declined
Olise certainly didn't improve at the rate we might have expected
Hughes was misused
Wilf was Wilf
...and so on through the squad.

In short, the vast majority of players failed to improve in any measurable way and most went backwards under Vieira's management/coaching. I'd say Schlupp was probably the only player you could argue improved, and even then marginally at best. I loved PV but...he wasn't a very good manager and he was an even worse coach. Perhaps, by January, the board had concluded he wasn't worth investing any more money in and they'd wait until they had a manager they could trust to improve players before spending any more.

 


Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PatrickA's Profile PatrickA Flag London 28 Apr 23 7.40am Send a Private Message to PatrickA Add PatrickA as a friend

Agree with much of this.

For much of this season I was preferred to give Vieira the benefit of the doubt based on last season which was good.
I did have reservations about whether we had the players to play his preferred 433 system with one number 6 and two number 8s in midfield and also the lack of apparent fitness of the team.
Like many others I wanted to see two holding midfielders to give us a platform to play and to help the continually booked Doucoure.

However, it appears my analysis was incorrect and the problem may not have related to the system or lack of fitness but instead the poor coaching and man management under Vieira .

It is evident that Roy has kept the 433 system but Schlupp and Eze have been given a new lease of life in the two number 8 roles and Doucoure has not even looked like getting a booking in the holding role.
There is no evidence of a lack of fitness and we appear more dynamic getting more players forward and having more efforts on goal.
Itís early days, but some of the flaws demonstrated and seemingly baked in under Vieira have seemingly disappeared.
Some may argue that we have an easier fixture list under Roy than Vieira, but I would counter that with some of our worst performances under Vieira were against Bournemouth, Fulham, Villa and the away game v Everton.


Originally posted by sydtheeagle

How do you measure a good manager? Beyond results and goals, I think it's "do they improve their players"? From his first day to his last, I'd say:

Guita was Guaita
Ward declined, albeit partly due to age
Mitchell, if anything, went backwards this season
Andersson and Guehi were consistently good
Eze declined
Edouard declined
Mateta declined
Ayew declined
Olise certainly didn't improve at the rate we might have expected
Hughes was misused
Wilf was Wilf
...and so on through the squad.

In short, the vast majority of players failed to improve in any measurable way and most went backwards under Vieira's management/coaching. I'd say Schlupp was probably the only player you could argue improved, and even then marginally at best. I loved PV but...he wasn't a very good manager and he was an even worse coach. Perhaps, by January, the board had concluded he wasn't worth investing any more money in and they'd wait until they had a manager they could trust to improve players before spending any more.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Painter's Profile Painter Flag Croydon 28 Apr 23 1.14pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

Originally posted by southnorwoodhill

Some posters keep on mentioning the £120m spent, but as I have explained elsewhere this sum had to be spent anyhow no matter who was manager, owing to that fact that the squad was depleted after Roy's first stint due to contracts being concluded and a number of players not of PL standard any longer. Some have managed to linger and are still here and one would expect that they won't be here next season.
Incidentally we did well with the acquisitions of Vieira's first season - Andersen, Guehi, Olise, Doucoure, and of course the loan of Gallagher was the icing on the cake. We didn't do so well with striker acquisition and this has been an ongoing problem since the departure of Murray.
I'd also add that the rebuild is only half complete, we'll have a few leaving and a few staying just to keep up numbers, until / unless the Academy players are ready for PL football.
To summarize: Vieira had £120 spent, it was a necessary expenditure, and we have acquired a number of decent players that should hold us in good stead.

Edited by southnorwoodhill (27 Apr 2023 7.03pm)

The £120m point was made, as counter to the board didnít support Vieira, when they obviously did. Whether it was needed or not is irrelevant, as the value of players that left were nowhere near that value.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Vieira vs Roy V2.0