[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]brilliant - lets quote from one of the men who made the biggest blunders in modern warfare, letting thousanda of our men die needlessly as cannon fodder for he germans in ww1
just about sums us up............lions led by donkeys
What blunders did Haig make then? A lot of historians now argue that Haig did a good job. Lead the only army to constantly stay in the field and not mutiny or collapse, had lower casualty rates than any of the other armies, was forced to make attacks he didn't want to prop up the French and, much as this is overlooked, WON THE WAR by defeating the German army.
And Lions lead by Donkeys. Alan Clarke admitted that he made that quote from General Hoffman up.
I have no problem with backing a manager for as long as possible, but it has to be the right man surely. We have won one league game under the current manager in about 12-13 games, I challenge anyone on here to find another manager that has a worse win ratio in all four divisions. Now when you have done that tell me we have the right man for the job.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]we should have backed dowie more(time wise not with money!!) we wouldn't be in this state IMO
I'm sure you'll get shouted down for that but I can see where you're coming from, you'll always wonder what might've been. Atat the time though the board were enjoying pretty much unanimous support and most backed their decisions. Not quite the case now.
Haig made huge errors at Loos and Neuve Chappelle and then went on to repeat the same mistakes in the Somme. Fortunately with Charlton, repeating past mistakes doesn't cost thousands of lives.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Haig made huge errors at Loos and Neuve Chappelle and then went on to repeat the same mistakes in the Somme. Fortunately with Charlton, repeating past mistakes doesn't cost thousands of lives.
Which errors did he make?
Loos was nearly a success but the BEF lacked the shells or re-inforcements to finish the job
Not sure Haig was in command at Neuve Chappelle and in both battles French was overall commander of the BEF.
Battles cost lives and none of the generals found a way to avoid that in WWI (or WWII) but British casualties were lower than the French, German or Russian Armies.
In WWII we lost a higher proportion of men per unit in the break out from Normandy than we did on the Somme, a battle that Haig was forced to fight and continue to take the pressure off the French Army at Verdun.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]brilliant - lets quote from one of the men who made the biggest blunders in modern warfare, letting thousanda of our men die needlessly as cannon fodder for he germans in ww1
just about sums us up............lions led by donkeys[/quote]
What blunders did Haig make then? A lot of historians now argue that Haig did a good job. Lead the only army to constantly stay in the field and not mutiny or collapse, had lower casualty rates than any of the other armies, was forced to make attacks he didn't want to prop up the French and, much as this is overlooked, WON THE WAR by defeating the German army.
And Lions lead by Donkeys. Alan Clarke admitted that he made that quote from General Hoffman up.[/quote]
I am sorry, it is completely wrong to claim that Haig did a good job, like Napoleon, he ruthlessly called for countless frontal assaults which led to the deaths of over 350,000 British casaulties, and a stalemate in Europe, the war was won due to the great industrial power of Britain and resources available thanks to her Empire and allies, hence the nickname the 'war of attrition', WW1 was a perfect example of a war that leadership had no part in its success, many historians would actually argue that General Ludendorff was perhaps the best general of WW1!!!
Then how did the British Army not only hold the Michael offensive in 1918 but then defeat the German army when the French army was on its knees after it's mass mutiny. Haig won the war, Napoleon lost.
Whatever way you look at it the British Army won the war. There was not a stalemate. The Germans were on the run for 100 days, their army was in tatters and deserting on mass so they signed the armistice. Of course economic power was a deciding factor but that is the case in all wars.
How can you say the leadership had nothing to do with it. If Ludendorff was so great why did the "contemptible little army" from Britain defeat him and why did his army loose far more men than Haig's despite having a much bigger and better trained army to start with.
And I ask again, what errors did Haig make that were not made by other generals on other side or were not forced on him by the French. he didn't want to attack on the Somme but the French did. The French then withdrew most of their divisions to defend Verdun and insisted that Haig keep up the attack for months.
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]Like the general tone Chizz, athough not quite sure where you "Charlton have achieved monumental success." from!
Jimmy Seed's achievements at Charlton can easily be described as "monumental". When he took over, Charlton were a financially crippled club, languishing in the lowest reaches of the Football League. He took Charlton from the Football League's lowest division, to runners up in the Football League; and South London's first two FA Cup Finals. Arguably, Jimmy Seed took a fast-failing, almost bankrupt football club to a position, for a fleeting few years at least, amongst the best teams in the world.
Lennie Lawrence's success can also be described as "monumental". If anything, Charlton's financial plight was even more ruinous in the early 1980s. But Lawrence's steadying influence and steady development of the team saw top flight football for a homeless club - surely without precedent at that time.
But Alan Curbishley's monumental success is perhaps harder to see as it is so recent. He simply took Charlton further than anyone could have imagined.
What I am arguing for is Parkinson to be given the same breathing-space, support and backing as Seed, Lawrence and Curbishley enjoyed. There are two uncertainties: first, we don't know if Parkinson's capable of working the miracles of these three predecessors; second, there's no guarantee that anyone else is capable either. But my point of view is this: let's not risk another new manager now - or even next year. Let's give Parkinson the chance to do it. After all, what's the up-side?
Phil Parkinson will only be remembered in Charlton history as one of the many inept managers who have helped to erode our status over the last 3 years. It is the stench of defeatism over our club and the lack of fighting spirit that has led to this farcical appointment lasting this long.
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite] It is the stench of defeatism over our club and the lack of fighting spirit that has led to this farcical appointment lasting this long.
That's the worrying bit.
"Stench of defeatism over our club....". That's not the stuff of legends.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite] I don't agree with you at all Chizz, but it is a well set out and reasoned post that i enjoyed reading.
...
if the rumour field is to be believed, and examples shown with Moo2 the other night, then it appears not all the squad is behind Parky. If that grows to the majority of the squad, then they will have no choice but to act again.
This is a really key point. Some individual players or groups of players can be de-stabilising, infectious influences to a team. But, by backing the manager unconditionally, Charlton demonstrate that any "bad apple" can be isolated and, if necessary, removed.
Would Charlton have been able to deal so strongly and decisively with players like Paul Miller, Andy Todd and, in a different scenario, Jamie Stuart, if Lennie Lawrence and Alan Curbishley had not had the full support and backing of the club's board?
Parkinson has started the process of clearing out the expensive flops (Faye) and bad influences (Varney); has started clearing the path to first team football for youngsters (Shelvey, Wagstaff, Elliott, Dickson) and has started building a team that can either compete in this division next season if we stay up or push for promotion if we go down.
We may not all agree that he's the best man for the job so far. But no-one can put forward the name of someone who would be guaranteed to do better.
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]It is the stench of defeatism over our club and the lack of fighting spirit that has led to this farcical appointment lasting this long.
That's the worrying bit.
"Stench of defeatism over our club....". That's not the stuff of legends.
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]Phil Parkinson will only be remembered in Charlton history as one of the many inept managers who have helped to erode our status over the last 3 years. It is the stench of defeatism over our club and the lack of fighting spirit that has led to this farcical appointment lasting this long.
OK, it's a very cheap and easy question to throw back at you, but I'll give it a go anyway...
Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract a manager with any kind of experience; and given the fact that any manager coming in to the club now would have no money to spend at all; who would you say would be the ideal candidate for the job, if we were to take the backward step of sacking the manager now?
"Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract....."
We do not have the finances to attract an experienced manager or players who we can sign and call my own. So it seems that we will have to settle with Parky leading a load of waif and strays. I dont think that position will change next season in Div 1 - which really concerns me!!
What I want to see is a fight and giving it a go, hence my quotation earlier in the thread.
I think some of the players have shown that fighting spirit Hudson/Fortune/Murty/Spring/Bailey and Holland. Dickson looks like he is trying to improve on his weaknesses. Jon Jo when fit is an athlete who adds something as well if not for 90 mins.
Some of the others though have been pretty miserable at times. With some players coming back from injury I just hope we give it a go and have the nucleus of a more committed team wherever we start next season.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]Phil Parkinson will only be remembered in Charlton history as one of the many inept managers who have helped to erode our status over the last 3 years. It is the stench of defeatism over our club and the lack of fighting spirit that has led to this farcical appointment lasting this long.[/quote]
OK, it's a very cheap and easy question to throw back at you, but I'll give it a go anyway...
Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract a manager with any kind of experience; and given the fact that any manager coming in to the club now would have no money to spend at all; who would you say would be the ideal candidate for the job, if we were to take the backward step of sacking the manager now?[/quote]
Most definitely not Phil parkinson imo. We have potential management heads at the club, an admittedly long shot would have been the temporary appointment of Keith Peacock as director of football overseeing Steve Gritt as manager until the end of the season. Both men love the club and would surely have a little passion to inject into our beleagured side. Gritt managed to inject some steel into Brighton when they were on the verge of slipping into non league, it's not beyond the realms of possibilty to suggest he would command considerable respect and if he had been installed post Pardew may have brought about a difference. Alternatively the cancelling of contracts for underachieving highly paid players (a more drastic move but drastic times call for drastic measures) and using the savings to enticing a manager who may have a clue to get us out of this. It's all academic now given that it appears relegation has been accepted.
It's galling that the club I love has the the stench of defeatism about it, the one quality I have always associated with this club is guts, pride and determination, this season give or take a few players these qualities are absent that is not the stuff of legends!
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]
OK, it's a very cheap and easy question to throw back at you, but I'll give it a go anyway...
Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract a manager with any kind of experience; and given the fact that any manager coming in to the club now would have no money to spend at all; who would you say would be the ideal candidate for the job, if we were to take the backward step of sacking the manager now?
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]the[b]one[/b]quality I have always associated with this club is guts, pride and determination...[/quote]
And the Aqueduct.
And sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--[/quote]
Beautifully put, truly mesmerizing in fact..
Breathe Muriel, breathe, no Muriel no..... not to mention.. blessed blackout........
[quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I spoke to Gritty at CA meeting once, he didn't seem to have any interest or ambition in that regard, nice guy though.[/quote]
Thats a pity.
Looks like we'll just have to wait for PP to bring us 2 consecutive promotions and 12 Premier league titles, it can happen!
I was thinking about lions led by donkeys...and it really doesn't apply, does it?
I pass no judgement on whether we are led by donkeys. But can you tell me where the lions are? We've seen very few of them on the field for CAFC this season.
The phrase predates Alan Clark's book - and WW1. It was first used in The Times (by William Howard Russell, I think) during the Crimean war and was in common usage thoughout WWI.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]I pass no judgement on whether we are led by donkeys. But can you tell me where the lions are? We've seen very few of them on the field for CAFC this season.
More like we have a mixture of all sorts of strange animals that were never designed to live and work together.
Comments
What blunders did Haig make then? A lot of historians now argue that Haig did a good job. Lead the only army to constantly stay in the field and not mutiny or collapse, had lower casualty rates than any of the other armies, was forced to make attacks he didn't want to prop up the French and, much as this is overlooked, WON THE WAR by defeating the German army.
And Lions lead by Donkeys. Alan Clarke admitted that he made that quote from General Hoffman up.
Which errors did he make?
Loos was nearly a success but the BEF lacked the shells or re-inforcements to finish the job
Not sure Haig was in command at Neuve Chappelle and in both battles French was overall commander of the BEF.
Battles cost lives and none of the generals found a way to avoid that in WWI (or WWII) but British casualties were lower than the French, German or Russian Armies.
In WWII we lost a higher proportion of men per unit in the break out from Normandy than we did on the Somme, a battle that Haig was forced to fight and continue to take the pressure off the French Army at Verdun.
just about sums us up............lions led by donkeys[/quote]
What blunders did Haig make then? A lot of historians now argue that Haig did a good job. Lead the only army to constantly stay in the field and not mutiny or collapse, had lower casualty rates than any of the other armies, was forced to make attacks he didn't want to prop up the French and, much as this is overlooked, WON THE WAR by defeating the German army.
And Lions lead by Donkeys. Alan Clarke admitted that he made that quote from General Hoffman up.[/quote]
I am sorry, it is completely wrong to claim that Haig did a good job, like Napoleon, he ruthlessly called for countless frontal assaults which led to the deaths of over 350,000 British casaulties, and a stalemate in Europe, the war was won due to the great industrial power of Britain and resources available thanks to her Empire and allies, hence the nickname the 'war of attrition', WW1 was a perfect example of a war that leadership had no part in its success, many historians would actually argue that General Ludendorff was perhaps the best general of WW1!!!
On a more mundane level, it does cost us plenty of points.
Whatever way you look at it the British Army won the war. There was not a stalemate. The Germans were on the run for 100 days, their army was in tatters and deserting on mass so they signed the armistice. Of course economic power was a deciding factor but that is the case in all wars.
How can you say the leadership had nothing to do with it. If Ludendorff was so great why did the "contemptible little army" from Britain defeat him and why did his army loose far more men than Haig's despite having a much bigger and better trained army to start with.
And I ask again, what errors did Haig make that were not made by other generals on other side or were not forced on him by the French. he didn't want to attack on the Somme but the French did. The French then withdrew most of their divisions to defend Verdun and insisted that Haig keep up the attack for months.
Jimmy Seed's achievements at Charlton can easily be described as "monumental". When he took over, Charlton were a financially crippled club, languishing in the lowest reaches of the Football League. He took Charlton from the Football League's lowest division, to runners up in the Football League; and South London's first two FA Cup Finals. Arguably, Jimmy Seed took a fast-failing, almost bankrupt football club to a position, for a fleeting few years at least, amongst the best teams in the world.
Lennie Lawrence's success can also be described as "monumental". If anything, Charlton's financial plight was even more ruinous in the early 1980s. But Lawrence's steadying influence and steady development of the team saw top flight football for a homeless club - surely without precedent at that time.
But Alan Curbishley's monumental success is perhaps harder to see as it is so recent. He simply took Charlton further than anyone could have imagined.
What I am arguing for is Parkinson to be given the same breathing-space, support and backing as Seed, Lawrence and Curbishley enjoyed. There are two uncertainties: first, we don't know if Parkinson's capable of working the miracles of these three predecessors; second, there's no guarantee that anyone else is capable either. But my point of view is this: let's not risk another new manager now - or even next year. Let's give Parkinson the chance to do it. After all, what's the up-side?
That's the worrying bit.
"Stench of defeatism over our club....". That's not the stuff of legends.
This is a really key point. Some individual players or groups of players can be de-stabilising, infectious influences to a team. But, by backing the manager unconditionally, Charlton demonstrate that any "bad apple" can be isolated and, if necessary, removed.
Would Charlton have been able to deal so strongly and decisively with players like Paul Miller, Andy Todd and, in a different scenario, Jamie Stuart, if Lennie Lawrence and Alan Curbishley had not had the full support and backing of the club's board?
Parkinson has started the process of clearing out the expensive flops (Faye) and bad influences (Varney); has started clearing the path to first team football for youngsters (Shelvey, Wagstaff, Elliott, Dickson) and has started building a team that can either compete in this division next season if we stay up or push for promotion if we go down.
We may not all agree that he's the best man for the job so far. But no-one can put forward the name of someone who would be guaranteed to do better.
No, it's a different stench from Legends.
OK, it's a very cheap and easy question to throw back at you, but I'll give it a go anyway...
Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract a manager with any kind of experience; and given the fact that any manager coming in to the club now would have no money to spend at all; who would you say would be the ideal candidate for the job, if we were to take the backward step of sacking the manager now?
We do not have the finances to attract an experienced manager or players who we can sign and call my own. So it seems that we will have to settle with Parky leading a load of waif and strays. I dont think that position will change next season in Div 1 - which really concerns me!!
I think some of the players have shown that fighting spirit Hudson/Fortune/Murty/Spring/Bailey and Holland. Dickson looks like he is trying to improve on his weaknesses. Jon Jo when fit is an athlete who adds something as well if not for 90 mins.
Some of the others though have been pretty miserable at times. With some players coming back from injury I just hope we give it a go and have the nucleus of a more committed team wherever we start next season.
OK, it's a very cheap and easy question to throw back at you, but I'll give it a go anyway...
Given the fact that Charlton do not have the finances to attract a manager with any kind of experience; and given the fact that any manager coming in to the club now would have no money to spend at all; who would you say would be the ideal candidate for the job, if we were to take the backward step of sacking the manager now?[/quote]
Most definitely not Phil parkinson imo. We have potential management heads at the club, an admittedly long shot would have been the temporary appointment of Keith Peacock as director of football overseeing Steve Gritt as manager until the end of the season. Both men love the club and would surely have a little passion to inject into our beleagured side. Gritt managed to inject some steel into Brighton when they were on the verge of slipping into non league, it's not beyond the realms of possibilty to suggest he would command considerable respect and if he had been installed post Pardew may have brought about a difference.
Alternatively the cancelling of contracts for underachieving highly paid players (a more drastic move but drastic times call for drastic measures) and using the savings to enticing a manager who may have a clue to get us out of this.
It's all academic now given that it appears relegation has been accepted.
It's galling that the club I love has the the stench of defeatism about it, the one quality I have always associated with this club is guts, pride and determination, this season give or take a few players these qualities are absent that is not the stuff of legends!
And the Aqueduct.
And sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
Ken Craggs
Lennie Lawrence.
- Cheap option
- Been out of the game too long
- Did nothing at Brighton after keeping them up
- was at Millwall and was sacked
- Got no hair
http://www.charltonlife.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=23673
And the Aqueduct.
And sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--[/quote]
Beautifully put, truly mesmerizing in fact..
Breathe Muriel, breathe, no Muriel no..... not to mention.. blessed blackout........
Thats a pity.
Looks like we'll just have to wait for PP to bring us 2 consecutive promotions and 12 Premier league titles, it can happen!
I pass no judgement on whether we are led by donkeys. But can you tell me where the lions are? We've seen very few of them on the field for CAFC this season.
The phrase predates Alan Clark's book - and WW1. It was first used in The Times (by William Howard Russell, I think) during the Crimean war and was in common usage thoughout WWI.
More like we have a mixture of all sorts of strange animals that were never designed to live and work together.