The RDM era: was it all that bad?

M

McParlandTheGreat

Vital Champions League
With the season nearly at an end, I've been taking a look at how it started. Interesting conclusion; in almost all respects the RDM era isn't that different to where we've ended up. Here's a few stats. Bare in mind RDM had 11 matches and we've had 33 matches, 3 times that, since.

GD: RDM -2; Since +2.......................................................................not much in it
Goals for: RDM 10 ( 0.9 per game); Since 36 (1.1 per game).......... not much in it (not very good)
Goals against RDM 12 (1.1 per game); Since 34 (1 per game).......not much in it (pretty good)
Results: RDM w1 d7 l3 ; Since W16 d6 l15..............................RDM nowhere near enough wins
Points: RDM 10 (0.9 per game); Since 51 (1.5 per game)........better since, still not good enough

Obviously the last two are where the differences lie, RDM drew 7 games and we've only drawn 6 since. Draws are effectively wins thrown away.

However, look a bit more deeply. 5 of RDM's games were before Kodjia joined, and even after that he took time to bed in. But, other players were contributing. McCormack scored goals (even if some wondered about his fitness), so did others. Again, 4 of RDM's games were before Jedinak joined, and he definitely took time to get up to speed, yet as the figures above show our goal leakage was on par with the rest of the season.

Re our losses, Wednesday in the first game was teething troubles. Bristol City was probably complacency, after all it was only Bristol; it happens, we should have learnt from it. Maybe only Preston was a big minus, because the performance as a whole wasn't good, as well as the loss.

Scoring goals was the critical bit. Ayew above all was hugely wasteful, he had chances; if he hadn't been, things could have been different. Maybe Adomah could have done more.

So I'm inclined not to judge RDM too harshly. My biggest doubt was about whether he could influence things during games. Part of that was that he was shocked by how competitive the Championship had become; he said so himself. But it has to be said Bruce isn't known for tactical genius (Gabby apart) during games either.

Maybe he could have pulled it around. I think with our current squad he could well have done a good job. Would he have us playing better, more effective football? Maybe.
 
McParlandTheGreat - 28/4/2017 00:29

Bruce isn't known for tactical genius (Gabby apart) during games either.
Click to expand...

It was going so well....

Maybe he could have pulled it around. I think with our current squad he could well have done a good job. Would he have us playing better, more effective football? Maybe.
Click to expand...

He may well have done with our current squad. Except a number of our current squad were signed by Steve Bruce whereas one or two of RDM's signings are not currently playing for us (e.g. Gollini, McCormack, Tshibola).

You don't like Steve Bruce - we get it. But at least try and offer some decent justification :13:
 
Yeah, it was pretty bad and I was glad he was sacked. It was just getting worse by the week.

I won't judge Bruce until next season, that's where he'll sink or swim.

 
You can analyze as many stats as you like, but whether we like it or not, winning is the objective and under DiMatteo we couldn't win, and most notably, we were throwing games in the last ten minutes. Purely and simply that's a fitness issue. It really does my head in when I read about playing "expansive" or "attacking" football. Take a long hard look at the best teams in England and you see a solid defensive team who keep their shape without the ball. The stupid argument about being too reliant on Kodjia could be repeated by ManU (Zlatan), Chelsea (Hazard), Spurs (Kane), and the list goes on. Crystal Palace learned the hard way that trying to be more "expansive" didn't work and they luckily brought in Allardyce at the right time to get back to playing proper football.
 
RDM was very unlucky I think that's obvious. He was about 2 minutes away from turning 4 or 5 of those draws into wins, but they kept on giving away late goals. Not his fault as such, but he didn't seem to know how to fix the fragile mentality within the squad.

Bruce has at least done that.
 
Oh and I disagree with the previous poster saying it was a fitness issue, it was definitely a mentality issue for me, the players all looked terrified going into the closing stages of games.
 
I shudder at RDM's 4 - 0 - 6 formations.

I think we would have been in a relegation battle had he stayed.
 
I agree Sirden but I also think the same would be the case with SB if it wasn't for codger.
 
So much of this is about perception.
Many of us never really warmed to RDM whereas most seem to like SB. That may or may not be fair, of course.
I think that everyone's confidence was shot by the time the RDM era (if eleven games can be so described) and that SB started fixing that.
The football is of course pretty scrappy but I suspect we'd be several points worse off if RDM were still at the controls.
 
McParlandTheGreat comparing the Roberto Di Matteo era with the current one.


<br><br><a href ="http://www.vitalfootball.co.uk/router.asp?7522890">Click here to read the article</a><br><br>
 
I don't think he, RDM, would have made much, if any, difference as the season has worn on.
I do think that Mr Bruce will be our best chance of regaining premiership status, probably in season 18/19.
I think there is still too much that needs to be put right, for promotion in season 17/18, to be more than an outside possibility.
 
There's no way he will still be here if he fails to get us up next season.

In fact he won't last beyond xmas if we are not top 6.
 
RDM was a clueless , inept manager who should never have been hired .
Playing the likes of Westwood and Ayew even Okore and Richards. Just a joke .
His only positives were signing Kodija , Jedinak and Chester .
 
Trouble with this article is it is pretty much one sided. If you are going to say that players like Kodjia and Jedinak had not settled in under RDM then you have to balance it up and say that the new signings under Bruce had not settled in during that Jan/Feb period.

From the stats that have been produced it evidently shows Bruce being better. However, its not by much so therefore it's portrayed that its pretty equal. Just a tad contradictory.

We lost against Bristol city because of complacency did we?. Errr ok. What about Luton ?. Sheff Wed was teething troubles. What about one win in 11?. Still teething?. Was jan/ Feb teething troubles for the new signings?. No mention again.

And Bruce isn't known for his tactics?. No clearly not he has winged it for years and years as a manager getting away with it week after week. RDM as Sir Dennis has eluded to was shocking with his tactics.

Bruce is open to criticism of course but when assessing RDM it means you are making comparisons with Bruce. If you compare with Bruce you have to produce the positive aspects of Bruce's tenure aswell of which there are some. This article fails to.

 
MD - this was intended to be an article about RDM, not about Bruce. It's possible to talk about RDM without making comparisons with Bruce. That's why I didn't touch upon the highs and lows of Bruce's tenure. I think it's valid to point out that Kodjia and Jedinak, now seen as critical to having a decent chance of winning a game, weren't available to RDM for a good part of his time.

I did, I confess, make one reference to Bruce, re his tactics. The way I see it is that some managers put a lot of thought into who they are facing, adapt their tactics accordingly, and have alternative tactics lined up if needed. Other managers concentrate on having their team play a particular way regardless of the opposition. Either approach has pluses and minuses. I think both RDM and Bruce instinctively incline towards the latter.

If there's a lesson from the two parts to the season, I think it's the obvious one that winning and losing the same number of games is a lot better than drawing those games. Which could mean that an adventurous approach, even if risky, pays dividends.
 
I think both eras are poor - we have only scored more goals than Rotherham, Wigan and the noses. Only 4 teams have conceded less goals - Geordies, Brighton, Wednesday & Leeds. With 2 games to go, only the top six have lost less games. This shows that there is indeed a negative mentality, a do not lose attitude, a 'we get a goal, then we will sit on it' mindset. An inability to kill a game off.
This has got to change and it never will until we can keep the ball and pass to our team mates.
 
I would say the RDM era was no worse than what we are seeing now. There has been no improvement and our standout player was signed by RDM.
 
I think by the time he went he had to go. He's the type of manager who can't turn things around if they're going wrong, which they had been for a few games by the time he got the chop. With a tiny bit more luck we'd have beaten Huddersfield and forest at home, hit the woodwork a couple of times in both and their keepers both had excellent days. Huddersfield turned it up in the second half, we didn't know at that point what a good team they were going to be this season. Sometimes I think back to their equaliser, 99% of the time it would have ballooned out for a goal kick but it arrowed into the net.
Perhaps if that hadn't gone in and Lansbury hadn't scored a cracker for forest things might have been different for RDM, perhaps not though. What is certain is that he hadn't a clue how to turn a bad run around. I don't think we'd have gone down but it would have been a lot closer.
 
Yes it was.

I have been to all home games and 9 away games. I know how bad we were yesterday, I have said it, worse than anything served up since the ONeil era ended.

However, dont rewrite hustory.

We werent just crap under RDM

We were crap , rudderless and a shambles on and off the pitch
 
RDM was rubbish but his signings were better than Bruce's imo. I think Bruce should've tried to work with them some more rather than bringing in average tat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.