Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Huh?
I did justify my option, by saying that the pool of available people that could reasonably assumed to be in line with a chance of getting the job, is not that wide, or deep, so whomever The FA decide will be a disappointment to a large sway of the public.”
I asked you why you'd have Laudrup when you previously said giving the job to Hiddink would be rewarding failure.
Saying we have a poor pool to select from is not justifying your opinion. It is not explaining why Laudrup is a better candidate than Hiddink. It's giving a separate opinion. There's a difference.
Quote:
“As for the Laudrup v Hiddink bit you are referring to, well both would yes be coming off of not too successful a time, however on a purely personal level, Laudrup I believe has more going for him then Hiddink, who is getting on in years.
But this is purely my opinion, you or others may disagree and think Hiddink is a better option, and fair enough then, I have no quibbles about that being the case.”
Why didn't you say that in the first place? When asking why Laudrup would be a better choice than Hiddink, all I was asking is for you to tell me why Laudrup would be a better choice than Hiddink.
Wanting Laudrup is fine, wanting him for the way he coaches, his style of football or his age is fine. Wanting him over Hiddink is fine. It's when you suggest him after shooting down other people's suggestions of Hiddink, saying it's rewarding failure that it causes an issue when your suggestion is no different in that sense, except for the fact that Hiddink has actually won stuff that matters, even if it hasn't been recently.