I am talking about finals.....important finals....not the league, but one off games which need the side to be up for it from the start because the certainty is that the opponents will. And I am attempting to balance the nonsense..... understandable maybe...of giving credit to a manager instead of his luck. Do you really think the side did itself justice in the first 30 mins of either game?
If a game which goes to penalties comes down to good fortune ( and what sensible person would deny it) how can you say that Bunter won them for Pool?
FACT....both could easily been lost when they should have been won. Making a lottery of finals because of lack of inspiration and direction early in the match is poor. The manager has no input for the type of wonderful, but always chancy long, range goals from Steve G, but he does have influence on getting the team ready to impose themselves and matching the opponents efforts from the start. He has failed to do this in both finals, which makes your comment that HE won both a bit flat.
Weather Alert ** 82Ahhhh here we go, the Liverpool fans were out for revenge, revenge for when they were attacked...
He has had a decent season in the league, but like the double champions, might have benefited from a slump year from two of his main rivals. Time will tell, but the fact remains, and it is undeniable, that in the two most important games of his time at Pool his side have started cold, flat footed and outplayed , a shortcoming which led to penalties and therefore, luck.
Hardly the inspired leadership your original post suggests. It is a very strange logic chum. Seems that Steve's goals can be attributed to Raffa but the need for Pool to, once again, come from behind to force a lottery because of problems created by themselves has nothing to do with him??
LC
