Re: Where's DAMUNK?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 4:26 pm
wanaj0 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 4:05 pmThe 'public' outcry concerning Amodu was about 'STYLE' and NOT about RESULT. Very few could really fault Amodu's result.Damunk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:52 pmaruako1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:22 amWell said! You have made a better case for his stay than Damunk who is arguing that he is being treated the same as Amodu. Of course, he is still the coach and I want to praise him after today's game (as I have done recently). And I will like to be yabbed next year if he wins the AFCON - no CE yabbis will eclipse my job (I won't run away like Vancity Eagle).wanaj0 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:34 am Football is firstly a result oriented business. Every other thing na jara. You don't see me complain about his selection. I will prefer him to scout the local leagu,e but since I will judge him by the RESULT, I will allow him to do it his way. I will not complain about his style, tactics etc. He is the coach and he should be left alone to achieve the results the best way he thought fit. What will not be allowed is to call a poor result a good one.
Amodu was sacked not because of 'result'. On the two occasions that he was sacked, it was not because he lost matches to teams that anyone would have being surprised that we lost too. Amodu actually over achieved. So his RESULT did not merit a sack. Which was why the sack was because of 'style' and not RESULT
Now to Rohr, there is no dodgy sentiments. This is all about RESULT. For a country like Nigeria his results has not matched expectation. I called for his sack AFTER the WC because a coach that cannot qualify for the 2nd round of the WC is not GOOD enough. All the coaches that did not qualify the SE for the 2nd round of the WC were sacked and I don't think anyone complained. Rohr is the only one to be retained! Pa Onigbinde was SACKED for same outcome.
I don't think Rohr should be sacked. However, if he is sacked it will not be because of 'silly sentiments'. It will be because of his RESULTS. Losing at home to CAR is a poor result. However since he can still qualify, he should be allowed to continue. However, once we get to the point of doing integration and differentiation plus permutation to know if we will qualify, he should be sacked immediately. Same way Bonfere was sacked and Amodu had to come on a rescue mission.
Coaches should be hired and fired based on RESULT and any illegal/ethical/criminal behaviour.
However, based on his 5 years so far, I do not think he is the one to take the SE forward.
Aruako, you know you be my guy and will always have your time but sometimes this your lawyer instinct dey make you distort argument small to sway judge.
Which time did I say or even imply that Rohr is being “treated the same as Amodu”?
By whom? The NFF?
They haven’t even sacked him yet!
I’ve mentioned several times and I doubt I could make it any clearer that my observation is on the public outcry AND I have mentioned the similarities in circumstances which, of course being the true lawyer that you are, you have quietly refused to acknowledge.
Those circumstances led to the eventual sack of Amodu which is the path we are currently on.
I’ve said that no two situations are identical but there are clear SIMILARITIES, and I further added “whether you like to acknowledge them or not”.
I guess it’s your prerogative NOT to acknowledge them and make your case accordingly.
But to summarise our lengthy exchange of views the way you have can only come from a legal mind that is intent on discrediting the opposition without it being personal.
It’s all good.
We shall meet over peppehsoup. I think you still owe me one bowl of nkwobi. Make that two.
The 'public' outcry concerning Rohr was about RESULT!
Chief, you are not following the discussion.
I have said what you have just repeated a dozen times and you make my very point.
Scroll back and you will realise it is the core of my case.
I even highlighted the fact in a few places.
Sorry.
I know y’all are stressed out but take a chill pill and stop finding points of disagreement where there are none.