SHAKROThis argument keeps coming up. Just to clarify did Rosenior run things when they won but Rooney did when they lost?mjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
Yes.and McLaren when they drew.
Rab C NesbittSHAKROThis argument keeps coming up. Just to clarify did Rosenior run things when they won but Rooney did when they lost?mjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
i only joined this site the other day so i didnt realise it was previously a hot topic of conversation.
i generally believe rosenior was the main driving force regardless if they won or not.
he has proved this by being at the least a very competent manager and most neutrals would agree he didnt deserve to get the sack from hull.
reports are describing hull are going to go down next season like birmingham as it has the hallmarks of ambitious owners sacking a stable safe pair of hands but wanting more by running before they can walk.
slightly different situation imo, as hull have sacked rosenior end of season where as the timing with eustace and the manner in which it was done was all wrong and disrespectful
Rab C NesbittSHAKROThis argument keeps coming up. Just to clarify did Rosenior run things when they won but Rooney did when they lost?mjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
They had a pretty weak squad, yet they almost overturned a 21 point deduction to beat the drop. Since the 2 parted company, think it's pretty obvious who was decent and who wasn't.
FWIW people at work who had access to training ground chatter said none of them respected Rooney and it was Rosenior who almost had them do the impossible.
He ain't done too bad at Hull either and comes across as an intelligent lad.
None of that is definitive, but I know who I think is the better of the two.
All irrelevant really, they’ve both been managers in their own right, one’s been decent and the other has been terrible
Bluesince62 F.E.A.Rab C NesbittSHAKROThis argument keeps coming up. Just to clarify did Rosenior run things when they won but Rooney did when they lost?mjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
They had a pretty weak squad, yet they almost overturned a 21 point deduction to beat the drop. Since the 2 parted company, think it's pretty obvious who was decent and who wasn't.
FWIW people at work who had access to training ground chatter said none of them respected Rooney and it was Rosenior who almost had them do the impossible.
He ain't done too bad at Hull either and comes across as an intelligent lad.
None of that is definitive, but I know who I think is the better of the two.
This is my take on it too but of course i aint no VIP special inside man. its just conclusions over the last few years
True, I'm not arguing.
Still hope it's a moot point anyway and TM takes up his position again.
I'm sure if there is any doubt the powers that be will have back up names and none of them will start with Wayne and end with Rooney.
SHAKROmjd2505SHAKROmjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
Exactly. We can look back and see it was Rosenior coaching and setting the team up, but with Rooney sort of building the siege mentality.
It's one thing to want to change from a defensive style to a more front footed attacking style. But changing between attacking styles when you've just had a very successful season is... much less understandable, to me.
the fact that rooney wanted the title manager and not head coach just shows him to be incompetent and lazy and delegated all training to rosenior and the other coaches.
most people that take over the playing side of the club are desperate to be recognised as a head coach and not a manager and make that distinction early on but rooney wanted to make the distinction that he was the manager not head coach. says it all really
Eh? Where do you get that conclusion from?
People want to be managers because it gives them overall control of the club so they can have a voice on transfers, youth department etc. Plenty of managers get involved on the training ground.
Pep is the manager of Man City and he's definitely on the training ground each day.
I was interested in the part of the interview where the owners mentions that Rosenior is popular wit the players. I think our squad needs that kind of manager.
Le ModI just like clarity over gobbledygookAll irrelevant really, they’ve both been managers in their own right, one’s been decent and the other has been terrible
bluer than bluesSHAKROmjd2505SHAKROmjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
Exactly. We can look back and see it was Rosenior coaching and setting the team up, but with Rooney sort of building the siege mentality.
It's one thing to want to change from a defensive style to a more front footed attacking style. But changing between attacking styles when you've just had a very successful season is... much less understandable, to me.
the fact that rooney wanted the title manager and not head coach just shows him to be incompetent and lazy and delegated all training to rosenior and the other coaches.
most people that take over the playing side of the club are desperate to be recognised as a head coach and not a manager and make that distinction early on but rooney wanted to make the distinction that he was the manager not head coach. says it all really
Eh? Where do you get that conclusion from?
People want to be managers because it gives them overall control of the club so they can have a voice on transfers, youth department etc. Plenty of managers get involved on the training ground.
Pep is the manager of Man City and he's definitely on the training ground each day.
youve said the same thing another person said but in a different way and i agreed with the other person or at least I didnt disagree with that person.
so what i said is an observation not a conclusion. i thought it striking that rooney wanted to make the distinction himself.
yes pep is manager of man city but if you asked him i bet he would prefer head coach but then again being as laid back as he comes across sometimes he would probably say i dont care as long as we win.
anyway its kind of irrelevant, rooney gone, rosenior sacked and hopefully mowbray will be back
Fat Buddha CBE FEACompetent clarity.SHAKROThis argument keeps coming up. Just to clarify did Rosenior run things when they won but Rooney did when they lost?mjd2505He does have a bit of a point. As much as I would love Rosenior if Mowbray steps down.
I think of the 2 archetypes for attacking sides being Pep's Man City and Klopp's Liverpool. One is very slow and intricate, focused on controlling the game, creating big openings. The other is very high tempo, focused on getting the ball into dangerous areas and shooting as soon as possible.
Rosenior certainly falls under the Pep-ball bracket. Coaches his sides incredibly well, his Hull side played some of the best possession based football in the championship last year.
But I also think it can be incredibly boring in it's own way sometimes. If you give me a choice of watching a Pep side or a Klopp side, I'm choosing the latter every day of the week
we all know who was the real manager at derby when they were doing well and it wasnt rooney
Yes.and McLaren when they drew.
Ta
Good lad, a continent delinquent 👍
I listened to Hully City Owner's interview on talksport and he was just rambling utter nonsense.
Wouldn't feel confident if I was a hull fan, although anything is better than their previous lot from what I hear.