Manager of the year

2ndcoming

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Surely comparing it to Newcastle getting 2nd next season is absolutely ridiculous or am I missing something

Newcastle's average league finish over the past 7 years is 14th place, Liverpool's is 5th despite them going through one of their worst periods

Madness making that comparison

Newcastle finished 5th two seasons ago, but fair enough, Spurs or Everton winning it is probably a better analogy.

Son Of A Vidic

Manager Of The Year: Pulis

Escape Artist of The Year: Poyet.

Morzadec

I tried to base my decision objectively by the way.

Rodgers was probably expected to achieve 70 points or so. Fans would have been satisfied with this, but not over the moon. With a probable 84 points that's a 14 point overachievement.

Pulis would probably have been expected to do his best, but the realistic expectation at the time couldn't have been much more than 25 points. To end on a probable 45 is a 20 point overachievement.

Both achieved their season goals (top 4 and staying up), but of the two Palace's one seemed more unlikely.

Of course, being lower down in the table gives you greater scope for overachieving a points tally. You also have to take into account the end result, and like I said if Liverpool somehow got a miracle on Saturdau it would be Rodgers hands down.

It's always difficult comparing a manager who is competing at the top end and playing to win every match, and a manager who is just trying to dig out results and safety. They're almost like 2 completely different 'fields' and the field Rodgers is in is obviously more prestigious.

But in the context of each managers' field, Pulis' achievement is probably just about more impressive, and there's no one I'd rather have managing my team as a newly promoted club on a budget

Augmerson

stiffler123 wrote: »

I'm leaning towards Pulis. Rodgers has Liverpool playing some beautiful stuff but he also has the best striker in the league and it took him two years to achieve this.

I'm not sure if you are saying that it took Rodgers 2 years to get Liverpool playing beautiful football or to get the club where it is now, I'll go for the later as it makes more sense. Suarez has been reborn under Rodgers. This season he has become the best striker in the league, and certainly one of the best in Europe. The season before he vastly improved. When he came in under Dalglish he managed just 11 league goals. That was the season when Liverpool hit the crossbar or post something like 30 times. Rodgers setup has a lot to do with how Suarez has performed.

Rodgers took over Liverpool with just one season under his belt in the EPL. Pulis was at Stoke and in the EPL since 2008? He has a lot of experience in the EPL and his setup now at Palace is not entirely unlike the one at Stoke.

It's mad. I remember previous seasons when threads like this would come up, or ones about who you would like to see relegated. Pulis always got loads of stick for how Stoke played. People really didn't like the hoofball. It was effective and did the job however. He comes in now this season, wins 11, loses 11 and draws 4 and Palace climb up a very close table and he is praised galore.

Morzadec

bucketybuck wrote: »

People need to think objectively about what they actually did though.

They took poorly performing players and make them very well organised and hard to beat, and as a result they picked up enough points to avoid relegation. Excellent work indeed, but there are lots of managers out there who can make their teams well organised and hard to beat. Roy Hodgson did it with Fulham, while Mark Hughes and Sam Allardyce have also taken poor squads and kept them in the Premier league. Its not mission impossible.

Mission impossible is taking a relatively weak squad without any sugar daddy billions and somehow finding the consistency to mount a genuine title challenge over an entire season. There are very few managers could have done that, so its a more impressive feat.

Good post and has me rethinking my decision, but we're not arguing who is the better manager, just who had the best performance. Different managers suit different clubs, but when we talk about the best we usually talk about those who win top trophies, and I don't think Pulis will ever be up there.

However, certain teams need certain types of managers and I'm not sure if there's many out there who could have done a better job with what they had at their disposal than Tony Pulis.

I think you're slightly underestimating how difficult it is to get a team of no hopers to stay in the premier league. Yes there's a couple of specialists at it, but I don't know if anyone has quite done what Pulis did at this level.

It's a different type of job, but would Guardiola have gotten Palace out of their scrape? Those at the top end will always get more credit, but I don't think what Pulis achieved could have been done by just anyone. Palace needed a miracle and Pulis delivered. The significance of that for a team of Palaces size is huge

aidan24326

Rodgers has done a great job but my vote would go to Pulis. Palace were a stone cold certainty to go down before he took over, and as much as there's too much hiring and firing these days there's no doubt that Pulis replacing Holloway when he did saved Palace's season and is the reason they'll be playing Premier League football net season.

stiffler123

Augmerson wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are saying that it took Rodgers 2 years to get Liverpool playing beautiful football or to get the club where it is now, I'll go for the later as it makes more sense.

No, I'm saying both. He tried to bring his Swansea possesion philosophy into the team last season and it had mixed results. He has adapted and changed things up this season and it has been a huge success. They still play out from the back but the attack is a lot quicker this season. Also Henderson and Steling have improved big time and Sturridge was an instant success.

Bottom line though Pulis took over the worst squad in the league, didn't have much time to get things right and they could finish tenth. That's why I picked him.

Agueroooo

aidan24326 wrote: »

Palace were a stone cold certainty to go down before he took over,

no they were not!

I really think people are overstating the above .

Pulis took over when there was only 13 games played, and only 6 points off safety.

He's had 24 games to turn things around, and Palace were one of the most active clubs in the Jan window.

bad2dabone

For me it was Rodgers all the way.
Until:
1) All that he had to do was set up for a draw against Chelsea. Recent results have shown that Chelsea find it hard to break down a well set up team, even lower table sides. This was a very costly error that let city back in.
2) Not changing the setup when palace scored the 2nd. Just close up shop. Settle things. The game was nearly over.
Two very costly mistakes. Pulis has done an amazing job and is manager of the season in my opinon.

Agueroooo

bad2dabone wrote: »

For me it was Rodgers all the way.
Until:
1) All that he had to do was set up for a draw against Chelsea. Recent results have shown that Chelsea find it hard to break down a well set up team, even lower table sides. This was a very costly error that let city back in.
2) Not changing the setup when palace scored the 2nd. Just close up shop. Settle things. The game was nearly over.
Two very costly mistakes. Pulis has done an amazing job and is manager of the season in my opinon.

you forgot Gerrads slip!

Your two reasons above translate into a total of 4 points dropped in what is already a +23 points total on last season.

Johner

Agueroooo wrote: »

I really think people are overstating the above - no they were not!

Pulis took over when there was only 13 games played, and only 6 points off safety.

He's had 24 games to turn things around, and Palace were one of the most active clubs in the Jan window.

They had 3 points from 8 games and looked like one of the worst teams to grace the Premier League. They were conceding goals for fun and they were 1/9 to go down. Pulis came in and turned them into a solid mid table club. Manager of the year for me.

bad2dabone

Agueroooo wrote: »

you forgot Gerrads slip!

Your two reasons above translate into a total of 4 points dropped in what is already a +23 points total on last season.

4 crucial points.

Don't get me wrong man, Rodgers has done a fantastic job, and I openly considered him a clown until this season where he's really proved me wrong. He's got a bright future ahead of him.

But this season I think pulis just pips him.

Agueroooo

Agueroooo wrote: »

you forgot Gerrads slip!

Your two reasons above translate into a total of 4 points dropped in what is already a +23 points total on last season.

4 points dropped at the most critical stage of the season. If poyet had four points dropped at this stage he wouldn't be even listed here.
To be honest this poll should have been run after Sunday.

Agueroooo

Johner wrote: »

They had 3 points from 8 games and looked like one of the worst teams to grace the Premier League. .

actually they had 3 points from 9 games not 8, but you'd want to be Mystic Meg to predict they would have got relegated with only 8 played.

besides my point was when Pulis took them over, not when 9 games in.

Agueroooo

bad2dabone wrote: »

4 crucial points.

Don't get me wrong man, Rodgers has done a fantastic job, and I openly considered him a clown until this season where he's really proved me wrong. He's got a bright future ahead of him.

But this season I think pulis just pips him.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

4 points dropped at the most critical stage of the season. If poyet had four points dropped at this stage he wouldn't be even listed here.
To be honest this poll should have been run after Sunday.

Oh I hear yis.

but you cannot just look at the 4 dropped and ignore the +23 gained on last season with the players and squad he has had to work with.

whilst also going into the last day still in contention (albeit very slim)

Agueroooo

Agueroooo wrote: »

Oh I hear yis.

but you cannot just look at the 4 dropped and ignore the +23 gained on last season with the players and squad he has had to work with.

whilst also going into the last day still in contention (albeit very slim)

And I have not ignored them, but not enough justification for #1 for me based on the 4 vital dropped. Rodgers showed his naive side in 2 massive games.

Iused2likebusts

bad2dabone wrote: »

For me it was Rodgers all the way.
Until:
1) All that he had to do was set up for a draw against Chelsea. Recent results have shown that Chelsea find it hard to break down a well set up team, even lower table sides. This was a very costly error that let city back in.
.

What exactly are you saying here? Is it that liverpool should have parked the bus aswell and totally changed the tactics that had been so successful in the previous 11 games. They should have stopped playing to their strengths and instead played to their weaknesses? How do you think the crowd would have reacted to liverpool sitting with everyone behind the ball. If this went wrong Im sure you would be on here saying why did rodgers change his tactics. Football is full of hindsight experts I agree with you on the palace game rodgers/ the team were very naive but the chelsea game is nonsense.

bad2dabone

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

If this went wrong Im sure you would be on here saying why did rodgers change his tactics.

I see your point, but I disagree, Chelsea had shown themselves to be a very solid pragmatic defensive unit. Not just this season either, it’s now part of how they play.
Ironically, their inability to break down teams cost them their own shot at the title.
Coming into that game Liverpool were in pole position in the league. With 2 winnable games – Palace and Newcastle – left after the Chelsea game, a point would have kept
Liverpool in the driving seat.
A more experienced manager would have played for the 0-0 draw, and backed the team to win the other 2 matches.

Again, don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Rodgers but he played that situation wrongly and that’s why I put him a close 2nd as manager of the season.

Johner

Agueroooo wrote: »

actually they had 3 points from 9 games not 8, but you'd want to be Mystic Meg to predict they would have got relegated with only 8 played.

besides my point was when Pulis took them over, not when 9 games in.

So do you not take into account how bad Crystal Palace were before he took over? It was a huge job to get Palace to stay up.

Under Holloway they had conceded at least two goals in every game apart from the 1 game they won. Now they have had something like 13 clean sheets since Pulis took over. They also had a run of 5 wins in a row in the Premier League and for a club like Crystal Palace that is an outstanding achievement. Rodgers has done a fantastic job but Pulis just edges it for me.

Agueroooo

I am not here trying to down play Pulis achievements, but what I am trying to do is show some daylight between Pulis and Rodgers (the two top candidates for me)

The way I see is it that Crystal Palace is the best of the bad bunch.

they have really only produced against those team around them - not an easy achievement, but not comparable to Rodgers doing it at the upper end of the table

(eg)
out of the 10 teams above Palace in the league they have only got results against Stoke, Everton, Chelsea. Liverpool

Johner

Agueroooo wrote: »

I am not here trying to down play Pulis achievements, but what I am trying to do is show some daylight between Pulis and Rodgers (the two top candidates for me)

The way I see is it that Crystal Palace is the best of the bad bunch.

they have really only produced against those team around them - not an easy achievement, but not comparable to Rodgers doing it at the upper end of the table

(eg)
out of the 10 teams above Palace in the league they have only got results against Stoke, Everton, Chelsea.

They got a result against Liverpool.

Agueroooo

Johner wrote: »

They got a result against Liverpool.

*now edited

I must have blanked that...doesn't take away from the point being made but.

Johner

Agueroooo wrote: »

*now edited

I must have blanked that...doesn't take away from the point being made but.

But it's Crystal Palace, huge favourites to go down at the start of the season and even more so when Pulis took over. They are on 44 points and 11 clear of safety, doesn't really matter where they got the points because before Pulis came they weren't getting any points.

Agueroooo

Johner wrote: »

But it's Crystal Palace, huge favourites to go down at the start of the season and even more so when Pulis took over. They are on 44 points and 11 clear of safety, doesn't really matter where they got the points.

WHAT?...have you forgotten what this thread is about?

of course it matters when you are trying to judge what manager has done the best with the resources at hand, and how they performed to get their respective teams the absolute best finishing position.

I think others are using this thread for other means.

Johner

Agueroooo wrote: »

WHAT?...have you forgotten what this thread is about?

So if Pulis had gotten Palace to beat all the big teams and lost to the teams in the bottom half and ended up on the same amount of points would he deserve manager of the year?

Like you said they went to Everton and won, beat Chelsea at home and drew at home to Liverpool. Three excellent results.

Agueroooo

Johner wrote: »

So if Pulis had gotten Palace to beat all the big teams and lost to the teams in the bottom half and ended up on the same amount of points would he deserve manager of the year?

no, you're being silly now.

I will leave it on this point...

Its (imo) doubly hard to do it at the top end of the table, whilst beating teams from up and down the league - than it is at the bottom of the table beating teams from just the lower end.

eagle eye

Agueroooo wrote: »

no, you're being silly now.

I will leave it on this point...

Its (imo) doubly hard to do it at the top end of the table, whilst beating teams from up and down the league - than it is at the bottom of the table beating teams from just the lower end.

He drew with Liverpool as well which you seem to have forgotten, he wasn't there when they played Arsenal and Tottenham at home. It hasn't been easy for any club playing against them.

This is a team that had 7 points after 12 games when he took over. Its incredible what he has done.

Agueroooo

eagle eye wrote: »

He drew with Liverpool as well which you seem to have forgotten, he wasn't there when they played Arsenal and Tottenham at home. It hasn't been easy for any club playing against them.

This is a team that had 7 points after 12 games when he took over. Its incredible what he has done.

next time before you parachute in have a read back. thanks

I have said on numerous occasions the what Pulis has achived is excellent, and my main point is trying to show the gap, and some light between the top two candidates for many (Pulis and Rodgers)

niallo27

No one is saying what Pullis did wasn't remarkable but Rodgers getting liverpool so close is nothing short of a miracle. People said if would be an incredible achievement to challenge for top 4.

bucketybuck

bad2dabone wrote: »

A more experienced manager would have played for the 0-0 draw, and backed the team to win the other 2 matches.

Liverpool were nailed on for a 0-0 draw in that match, then Gerard slipped and let Ba have a free run on goal. Tactics cannot legislate for something like that, I've little doubt that had Gerard not ****ed up the match would have fizzled out to a draw.

Johner wrote: »

So do you not take into account how bad Crystal Palace were before he took over? It was a huge job to get Palace to stay up.

Johner wrote: »

But it's Crystal Palace, huge favourites to go down at the start of the season and even more so when Pulis took over.

I think people are vastly overstating how poor Palace are. People label them a terrible side but don't forget that while Pulis has them playing well above their level, Holloway had them playing well below their level! They are and were no worse a side than Norwich, Cardiff, Sunderland or Fulham.

They weren't a junior B side that needed a miracle from day one, they were a Premier league team no worse than a few others.

EuropeanSon

Agueroooo wrote: »

I am not here trying to down play Pulis achievements, but what I am trying to do is show some daylight between Pulis and Rodgers (the two top candidates for me)

The way I see is it that Crystal Palace is the best of the bad bunch.

they have really only produced against those team around them - not an easy achievement, but not comparable to Rodgers doing it at the upper end of the table

(eg)
out of the 10 teams above Palace in the league they have only got results against Stoke, Everton, Chelsea. Liverpool

Results against Everton, Chelsea and Liverpool are amazing for that team. This point is ridiculous.

eagle eye

bucketybuck wrote: »

Liverpool were nailed on for a 0-0 draw in that match, then Gerard slipped and let Ba have a free run on goal. Tactics cannot legislate for something like that, I've little doubt that had Gerard not ****ed up the match would have fizzled out to a draw.



I think people are vastly overstating how poor Palace are. People label them a terrible side but don't forget that while Pulis has them playing well above their level, Holloway had them playing well below their level! They are and were no worse a side than Norwich, Cardiff, Sunderland or Fulham.

They weren't a junior B side that needed a miracle from day one, they were a Premier league team no worse than a few others.

They only came up last season and via the playoffs. They weren't a great side and were favourites before the season began to be relegated. They showed just a little less than what was expected of them under Holloway.

Now they are not only staying up but are guaranteed to finish 11th.

Rogers has done a very good job at Liverpool but he was clearly aided by early exits from both domestic cups and not being in Europe. He had plenty of money to spend and not many matches to play so its not a surprise that they have done well in the league.

v3ttel

Voted for Pulis.

Crystal Palace have never retained their Premier League status before. They looked absolutely certain to get relegated when he took over. They've conceded less, scored more, gained a lot more points, and have jumped from bottom at the end of November to 11th, and well clear of trouble. That is an absolutely brilliant achievement.

Rodgers has done incredibly well to bring Liverpool from 7th to what surely looks like 2nd. This will be the third time that Liverpool have finished second in the history of the Premier League, but this time around, they've played some great stuff.

I would put Pulis' achievements ahead of that, on the basis that he didn't have the previous season to lay the building blocks, or numerous transfer windows to adjust the squad to his liking, in order to achieve what he has.

That's not to say that both have done brilliantly.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

They only came up last season and via the playoffs. They weren't a great side and were favourites before the season began to be relegated. They showed just a little less than what was expected of them under Holloway.

Now they are not only staying up but are guaranteed to finish 11th.

Rogers has done a very good job at Liverpool but he was clearly aided by early exits from both domestic cups and not being in Europe. He had plenty of money to spend and not many matches to play so its not a surprise that they have done well in the league.

Forgot about cup exits and nearly a week to prepare for every game.
Another factor.

bad2dabone

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Forgot about cup exits and nearly a week to prepare for every game.
Another factor.

i wouldn't let that detract from Rodger’s achievements. Before the season if you’d have told me that Liverpool would be 3 points clear of the pack with 3 games to go I would have called the men in white coats.

That said though, Pulis still for me. I’m not sure he’ll be able to to it again next year though.

Washington Irving

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Forgot about cup exits and nearly a week to prepare for every game.
Another factor.

Don't forget the fact Liverpool had a significantly smaller and weaker squad than their rivals, having at best 2/3 in any way worthwhile options from the bench and through injuries usually not even that. Having to start Kolo Toure and play Jon Flanagan as an emergency LB.

bad2dabone

bad2dabone wrote: »

i wouldn't let that detract from Rodger’s achievements. Before the season if you’d have told me that Liverpool would be 3 points clear of the pack with 3 games to go I would have called the men in white coats.

That said though, Pulis still for me. I’m not sure he’ll be able to to it again next year though.

Washington Irving wrote: »

Don't forget the fact Liverpool had a significantly smaller and weaker squad than their rivals, having at best 2/3 in any way worthwhile options from the bench and through injuries usually not even that. Having to start Kolo Toure and play Jon Flanagan as an emergency LB.

Opinions in previous posts why Palace for me. Just stating I hadn't even taken it into consideration just helps my case.

Counter argument - Liverpool players much more time to recover from minor injuries. Less likely to get long term injuries due to non-aggravation.

Washington Irving

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Opinions in previous posts why Palace for me. Just stating I hadn't even taken it into consideration just helps my case.

Counter argument - Liverpool players much more time to recover from minor injuries. Less likely to get long term injuries due to non-aggravation.

Counter argument - Due to size of squad players with minor/recovering injuries can't afford to be rested (see Johnson, Allen, Coutinho, Sturridge, Lucas).

Lucas, Enrique and Aspas all missed majority of season through injury. Sakho, Agger, Sturridge, Allen and Coutinho all missed 2 months+ each.

We could go in circles all day so I'll leave it there.

niallo27

Washington Irving wrote: »

Counter argument - Due to size of squad players with minor/recovering injuries can't afford to be rested (see Johnson, Allen, Coutinho, Sturridge, Lucas).

Lucas, Enrique and Aspas all missed majority of season through injury. Sakho, Agger, Sturridge, Allen and Coutinho all missed 2 months+ each.

We could go in circles all day so I'll leave it there.

Rodgers could cure cancer win the superbowl, ashs and Wimbledon and he still would come with excuses why Pulis should be ahead of him.

Agueroooo

this thread has moved miles away from its main purpose.

chances are Pellegrini will be awarded it after Sunday.

Look at the below table and I am sure over the years there have been 'Pulis' type improvement to squads from November on, but they very rarely get the award (and rightly so imo)

2000-01 Arsène Wenger
2002–03 Alex Ferguson
2003–04 Arsène Wenger
2004–05 José Mourinho
2005–06 José Mourinho
2006–07 Alex Ferguson
2007–08 Alex Ferguson
2008–09 Alex Ferguson
2009–10 Harry Redknapp
2010–11 Alex Ferguson
2011–12 Alan Pardew
2012–13 Alex Ferguson

Agueroooo

niallo27 wrote: »

Rodgers could cure cancer win the superbowl, ashs and Wimbledon and he still would come with excuses why Pulis should be ahead of him.

as I said others are using this thread for a different purpose which is a pity.

Gavlor

Agueroooo wrote: »

Oh I hear yis.

but you cannot just look at the 4 dropped and ignore the +23 gained on last season with the players and squad he has had to work with.

whilst also going into the last day still in contention (albeit very slim)

I actually agree with you here.

I can't understand how Rogers is not bookies favourite. He's taken a team from 7th to bring top for a large chunk of the season and still in contention to win the league.

Not a dig at liverpool, but the squad he's working with are fairly average if you take out Suarez, Sturrridge, coutinho, Gerard and sterling.

He has done a tremendous job imo

bucketybuck

eagle eye wrote: »

He had plenty of money to spend and not many matches to play so its not a surprise that they have done well in the league.

Simply not true, only the most blind of die hard fans would have expected Liverpool to mount even a token title challenge this season.

If somebody says they are not surprised that Liverpool were able to bring the title challenge to the last day I simply don't believe them.

premierstone

Agueroooo wrote: »

I am sure over the years there have been 'Pulis' type improvement to squads from November on, but they very rarely get the award (and rightly so imo)

I honestly don't ever ever remember one that even comes close.

As a gooner it pains me to say it as I have a serious hatred for Pulis but what he has done is truely amazing and he just about deserves it ahead of Rodgers.

Pyjamarama

So Rodgers having a week to prepare for games is a knock on him... I must have missed all those European nights at palace.

CSF

Hard to call between Pulis and Rodgers. Edging Pulis because his task seemed almost impossible and because Rodgers will ultimately fall short of 1st (2nd is still obviously better than any Liverpool fan could have dreamed of.

Iused2likebusts

bad2dabone wrote: »

I see your point, but I disagree, Chelsea had shown themselves to be a very solid pragmatic defensive unit. Not just this season either, it’s now part of how they play.
Ironically, their inability to break down teams cost them their own shot at the title.
Coming into that game Liverpool were in pole position in the league. With 2 winnable games – Palace and Newcastle – left after the Chelsea game, a point would have kept
Liverpool in the driving seat.
A more experienced manager would have played for the 0-0 draw, and backed the team to win the other 2 matches.

Again, don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Rodgers but he played that situation wrongly and that’s why I put him a close 2nd as manager of the season.

Liverpool probably only have 14 players capable of doing a good job in the premiership so unlike most of the other big teams its not so easy to change to a system that will close out a game. Apart from the 11 that started that day agger, lucas and allen. I just dont see what else rodgers could have done. Play 5 at the back? Drop sturridge for an extra midfielder? Maybe play allen over coutinho/sterling was the only viable other option IMO. The cause of the first goal could well have happened no matter what the set up it was a freak occurence.
Rodgers has made positive selections and positive substitutions all season so what message do you think it wouldve given the players and fans if he decided to go all defensive against a weakened chelsea team. I reckon it wouldve affected the players and they would be thinking the manager has lost his nerve. With Chelsea having so many players behind the ball and not particularly breaking quickly it wasnt as if liverpool were over comitting in the game. For me he is in no way at fault for the chelsea game but takes a huge proportion of the blame for what happened against palace. Ill leave it at that as Im dragging the discussion off topic and personally I dont know who deserves manager of the season as 4/5 have great claims in their own way.

premierstone

Pyjamarama wrote: »

So Rodgers having a week to prepare for games is a knock on him... I must have missed all those European nights at palace.

No but you might have missed the fact that Palace's squad is infinitely weaker than Liverpools and they were a shambles pre Pulis, contenders for the worst Premiership team ever.

There is a case and a very valid one to be made for Rodgers, but petty defensive posts are'nt really going to achieve it.

RasTa

Pullis will win this, think Harry took his team from bottom to 5th or something when he won it so that's why I'm expecting Pullis to get the nod.

No great shock if Rodgers gets it but would be if Pelligrini does.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Rodgers could cure cancer win the superbowl, ashs and Wimbledon and he still would come with excuses why Pulis should be ahead of him.

Your unbelievable. It's like you purposely ignore previous posts. You can't except the fact I don't' believe that Rodgers was manager of the year. I have given any amount of reasons why but you refuse to let it go. Nothing got to do with Liverpool, I gave my honest assessment. If you don't agree you don't have to but don't assume I'm coming up with excuses just because you may have some IL-conceived opinion that I have something against the man.