Roeder vs Adams

[The Great Mass Debater]

Glenn Roeder famously said of Neil Adams (in response to criticism) that Adams would never manage more than an under 10s team.

We all know that proved to be factually incorrect.

They both had very different jobs, with Roeder inheriting the bones of a squad in terminal decline and charged with stopping the rot, and few resources to do so. He did a good job in the first instance, definitely saving us from relegation that season, only for inevitibility to crash through the following season. That said, he left us in a pretty sorry state. Adams by contrast inherited one of the most talented crop of players the club have had. He managed to (or was allowed to) keep the bulk of that, but arguably made some poor decisions, and definitely the team underachieved - but he'd still done a decent job when he decided resign.

So, considering the spat between the two - who do you think had the last laugh? Was Roeder right and Adams' 'failure' merely proved it? Or did Adams do the better job and its Roeder with egg on his face?

 

[KeiranShikari]

On a related note Roedent got himself a decent job recently. He's an advisor to Sheffield Wednesday's loaded new owner. Not sure how he got it either.

 

[Suffolk Canary]

On a related note Roedent got himself a decent job recently. He's an advisor to Sheffield Wednesday's loaded new owner. 

So he's basically getting paid to tell a rich bloke how to splash his cash?  alright for some...

 

[Wiz]

Don't get me started on Rodent, a right nasty character.

 

[splutcho]

Roeder was proved right to an extent, Adams was totally inept. That said, he's a City legend and Roeder is a twunt, so Adams wins by default.

 

[Din]

Pretty much what Splutcho said. Adams is a nice guy, Roeder is a twat.