Ange Postecoglou

With the Mad * calling the shots, anything is possible. I guess the Greek connection may help but I doubt it !

 

Ange for me much better performances consistently, you felt under Ange we'd never lose a domestic game and probably win every single game home and away for about 18 months. Teams hardly troubled us at all and the odd times we never wrapped games up you always felt we would score in the end to win as it was near on total domination of entire games.

In Ange's first season we won by 4+ goals 7 times and then in his 2nd season done it 12 times.

In total 19 times in 113 games, under Rodgers been 16 times in 116 games since he returned.

Ange also got his football working really quick, he won his first 4 home League games a combined 17-0.

Those two games you mentioned Livingston and Dundee Utd even we had 37 shots, 14 on target and against us 9 shots 0 on target. Had 20 corners and 5 against us, an average of over 80% possession. Had absolutley no chance of losing really and were complete domination.

The Dundee Utd 1-0 was in the middle of a run of 17 games where we won 16 out of 17 with one draw. The Livingston game was in a run of 9 games where we won 8 out of 9.





They weren't even the best runs we went on under Ange either, in his 2nd season from the 5th of November till the 13th of May we won 23 out of 25 games, drawing the other two. Even from the 15th of October till 13th of May we won 27 out of 31 games, 3 draws and 1 single defeat was to Real Madrid away.

 

What's the point in winning games by 4 goals plus more frequently?

For me it boils down to the domestic records being very very similar but Rodgers has got us performing at a higher level in Europe.

 

I love Ange (certainly more than Rodgers); but I have to say in Rodgers' defence that Ange had way better backing than Rodgers did on 2 scores.

Firstly, not every. Single. Window. Under Ange was a 7-figure negative net spend. I'm not arguing that Ange was backed with amazing money or that he didn't face his fair share of heavy negative net spends and I'm not arguing that we don't need to make a hefty profit on player trading in some windows; but not every single one! Every single window under Rodgers has seen around £10 million pounds more quality leaving than arriving. That makes it very difficult for Rodgers to build up to anything and Ange didn't have to face that constant headwind. People might want to counter that Ange inherited a weaker squad than Rodgers, and he did; but people vastly overestimate how much weaker it was, because they seriously underestimate how much weaker the squad Rodgers inherited was than peak Ange.

Secondly, Ange actually got quite a lot of players he wanted. Obviously, a lot of that is due to his knowledge of the Asian market, which typically sells players at prices our board likes; but regardless of the reason, if you don't give a manager the players he needs, what chance does he have of building a team that plays his way? That first window was unbelievable: I genuinely don't believe a single one of those (mostly terrible) signings was someone Rodgers actually wanted.

Even in this restricted sense, we only backed Rodgers in one out of 5 windows (in the sense that for once, we actually got him some of the players he asked for) and he delivered major improvement in Europe in return. Note that even in that one "good" window, we didn't back him financially- giving him the usual (or obligatory?) 7-figure negative net spend that Rodgers always seems to get. Yes, there's a sense in which getting Engels was "backing" Rodgers for once; but who wouldn't rather have O'Riley, who we sold for more than double Engels' fee?

This stuff matters for the football. The football we were playing last season before we sold O'Riley is up there with anything I can remember at Celtic.

None of this is a slight on Ange. I think Ange is a fabulous manager and I'd love to see him back here. It's just to say that people judge Rodgers' teams too harshly, given the circumstances he built them under.

 

Calling it now. Ange is COOKED in this job.

 

He’ll get sacked there and that’ll be him done in English football.

His record since about December 2023 is a disgrace.

 

He just isn't cut out for managing in the EPL. It's quite sad to see

 

Forest were always going to go * up this season I felt, they had a purple patch and the squad was built for Nuno. Putting attack attack attack on that squad is suicide. There also isn't a clear bottom three like last season to save him. He's 60 I suppose he probably knows he wouldn't have had much time anyway.

 

For me it's a bit of a strange choice tbh. A brilliant season for them would be where they ended up last season, Nuno had them massively overachieving so effectively the only was was down. Maybe he's banking on another Euro run.

 

Tactically limited, not surprised.

 

Not getting a win in 5 games is bad enough, but teams like West Ham, Burnley, Swansea and Sunderland being in there just makes it all worse. Hope he turns it around but it's hard to see.

 

Plenty time at Forest still but did feel he had to get off on the right foot. Seeds of doubt might make it spiral now.

Hope he recovers it.

 

Lost to Midtyland.

 

Guy's not even had a window yet.

Bad result tonight though granted

 

I think he's * tbh. They should be beating Midjtylland at home. I think Forest would have a * season anyhow but not this bad.

 

I've been one of those that said they wouldn't take him back but sweet * I've changed my mind, I'd take him in a heartbeat to try and get a bit of life outta this team

 

Yup me also, he'd quicken us up and get the spark back

 

His style of football is brilliant if you are the big fish or on a level playing field. We were the big fish up here as were Australia in Asia and I think the A and J leagues have salary caps keeping it relatively even.

 

He was never going to do well talking over from a manager like Nuno, was a daft move by him.

Think he will be gone by Christmas, could see him take some time off until next summer when he does leave.