Wales up to 44th in World Rankings

You are expected to stay up though. Look at the bookies odds. So to exceed expectations then Malky would have to do a lot better than just stay up. Yet if he only managed to stay up to say he failed would be ludicrous. Same principle here.

Who I support makes no difference at all. Ive been a long time outspoken poster regarding me supporting the football team and having no bias toward the city or its fans.

I have never seen Hartson coach so cant comment, nor I assume have you. Hes done his badges, had experience playing for top teams in England and Scotland, played in the Champions League and played international football and a great servent to Wales, im not sure why people are so adverse to him being a forwards coach. Ian Rush had a spell at forwards coach under Hughes and nobody batted an eye lid.

Coleman and Speed had very similar records indeed. Both got off to a bad start and then started picking up points at the back end of the group. Colemans managerial CV is a lot better than Speeds also.

At the start of season we were tipped to go down so I disagree,no never seen him coach obviously,and even though not the same his comments when he's commentating do make me laugh,may be it is the Swansea v Cardiff issue,but I always say it as I see it,and I say the same about Jason perry another ex who slags the jacks off to please fans,as for cvs weren't the wales job Gary speeds first,so a bit of an unfair comparison

Until you spent £30 million. there is nothing to disagree about. You were not favourites for relegation come first kick of the season. Also we as play off winners finished 11th so going by your iceland thing, isnt anything other than a top 10 finish a failure? We probed it can be done after all?

No, Speed took Sheff Utd to the bottom the the championship.

My Iceland example ,is the same what u mentioned about Bradford,a team with no real quality, can achieve success with the right manager leading them,can you see my point?

Iceland had a ridiculously easy group. Cyprus Albania Slovenia, Norway & Switzerland. You dont really get a nicer group than that.

Im still not sure what you are getting at however. Surely its common sense that bad teams can do something on the odd occasion, we did it in the 50's. However that is the exception and not the rule. To suggest a team should emulate another just isnt how things work. Would you say Doncaster will have failed of they dont make the League Cup final because Bradford proved it was possible?

Iceland had a ridiculously easy group. Cyprus Albania Slovenia, Norway & Switzerland. You dont really get a nicer group than that.

Im still not sure what you are getting at however. Surely its common sense that bad teams can do something on the odd occasion, we did it in the 50's. However that is the exception and not the rule. To suggest a team should emulate another just isnt how things work. Would you say Doncaster will have failed of they dont make the League Cup final because Bradford proved it was possible?

What I'm saying is anything is possible in football with the right man in charge,icelands and wales group are very similar in quality,but I doubt very much wales would have picked up any points against Slovenia and Switzerland and I very much doubt it against norway

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

I already said about belguim,if they needed anything from that game the score line would have been different,Croatia,honestly if Scotland beat them wales should have been able to,you keep on about player to player stats,that ain't relevant,out of icelands group,who do u believe we would have beaten?

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

I already said about belguim,if they needed anything from that game the score line would have been different,Croatia,honestly if Scotland beat them wales should have been able to,you keep on about player to player stats,that ain't relevant,out of icelands group,who do u believe we would have beaten?

But your argument is completely flawed. You are stating our result against Belgium doesnt really count because they didnt need the points and then using Scotland beating Croatia (in a match were Croatia didnt need the points) as a reason why we should beat them.... Completely ignoring the fact however that Scotland are higher ranked and have a bigger pool of players.

Just makes no sense.

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

I already said about belguim,if they needed anything from that game the score line would have been different,Croatia,honestly if Scotland beat them wales should have been able to,you keep on about player to player stats,that ain't relevant,out of icelands group,who do u believe we would have beaten?

But your argument is completely flawed. You are stating our result against Belgium doesnt really count because they didnt need the points and then using Scotland beating Croatia (in a match were Croatia didnt need the points) as a reason why we should beat them.... Completely ignoring the fact however that Scotland are higher ranked and have a bigger pool of players.

Just makes no sense.

My argument is flawed roathie ,you yourself said about Bradford,did they have a massive squad ?,did they have same financial clout as teams they beat,on way to final?,same applies to international football,anything is possible-next

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

I already said about belguim,if they needed anything from that game the score line would have been different,Croatia,honestly if Scotland beat them wales should have been able to,you keep on about player to player stats,that ain't relevant,out of icelands group,who do u believe we would have beaten?

But your argument is completely flawed. You are stating our result against Belgium doesnt really count because they didnt need the points and then using Scotland beating Croatia (in a match were Croatia didnt need the points) as a reason why we should beat them.... Completely ignoring the fact however that Scotland are higher ranked and have a bigger pool of players.

Just makes no sense.

My argument is flawed roathie ,you yourself said about Bradford,did they have a massive squad ?,did they have same financial clout as teams they beat,on way to final?,same applies to international football,anything is possible-next

Yes completely flawed. You are saying our "dead rubbers" dont count but other teams "dead rubbers" do.

We have never disagreed on what is possible. You seem to be of the opinion that if you dont achieve whats possible no matter how slim the chances then you have failed and are clueless. I am of the opinion that if you achieve what is expected of you and you dont do the almost impossible then we cant really demand much more.

If everybody took your stance then every club of Bradfords standard would be sacking their manager if they didnt reach the final or every team Greeces standard would be sacking their managers if they dont win the Euros. Its possible for you to beat Chelsea 3-0 tomorrow, however will you be calling for malkys clueless head if you lose?

Complete and utter nonsense.

What? How are they similar? We have just spoken about Belgium being the most expensive international side on the planet 5th best team in the world and 3rd best team in Europe and Croatia are another super power in the top 20. They were one of the hardest 1 and 2 seeds possible. Norway are ranked 47th, below us and Slovenia are ranked 30th.

You are confusing what is possible and what is expected. Just because something is possible it doesnt mean its a failure if it isnt achieved. Its possible for Rudy Gestede to score 30 prem goals, Kevin Phillips did it. Yet it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was a failure and should be sacked solely based on him not attaining that goal.

I already said about belguim,if they needed anything from that game the score line would have been different,Croatia,honestly if Scotland beat them wales should have been able to,you keep on about player to player stats,that ain't relevant,out of icelands group,who do u believe we would have beaten?

But your argument is completely flawed. You are stating our result against Belgium doesnt really count because they didnt need the points and then using Scotland beating Croatia (in a match were Croatia didnt need the points) as a reason why we should beat them.... Completely ignoring the fact however that Scotland are higher ranked and have a bigger pool of players.

Just makes no sense.

My argument is flawed roathie ,you yourself said about Bradford,did they have a massive squad ?,did they have same financial clout as teams they beat,on way to final?,same applies to international football,anything is possible-next

Yes completely flawed. You are saying our "dead rubbers" dont count but other teams "dead rubbers" do.

We have never disagreed on what is possible. You seem to be of the opinion that if you dont achieve whats possible no matter how slim the chances then you have failed and are clueless. I am of the opinion that if you achieve what is expected of you and you dont do the almost impossible then we cant really demand much more.

If everybody took your stance then every club of Bradfords standard would be sacking their manager if they didnt reach the final or every team Greeces standard would be sacking their managers if they dont win the Euros. Its possible for you to beat Chelsea 3-0 tomorrow, however will you be calling for malkys clueless head if you lose?

Complete and utter nonsense.

Your debate is coming from both ends now ,direct questions I ask u don't answer,it's all ifs and may bes,I said in numerous post the belguim result,covered up the cracks,if we lost Coleman would have been sacked,simple really

My debate has not moved an inch. You are saying Scotlands result against Croatia was good, even though it was meaningless and ours didnt count because it was meaningless.

You make no sense what so ever.

My debate has not moved an inch. You are saying Scotlands result against Croatia was good, even though it was meaningless and ours didnt count because it was meaningless.

You make no sense what so ever.

Let's just say in your head alone it don't

My debate has not moved an inch. You are saying Scotlands result against Croatia was good, even though it was meaningless and ours didnt count because it was meaningless.

You make no sense what so ever.

Let's just say in your head alone it don't

So why does Scotland's result count as a benchmark yet our doesnt? Neither Croatia or Belgium needed the points.

I think its safe to say thats baffling in anyones head.

My debate has not moved an inch. You are saying Scotlands result against Croatia was good, even though it was meaningless and ours didnt count because it was meaningless.

You make no sense what so ever.

Let's just say in your head alone it don't

So why does Scotland's result count as a benchmark yet our doesnt? Neither Croatia or Belgium needed the points.

I think its safe to say thats baffling in anyones head.

I could keep on giving my replies,I think I ve answered myself enough times,for someone to understand why I think Coleman is useless,and my opinion will never change,I ve found some of your stats interesting,the Belgium one alone,I'm sure will win me a few quid in the pub Saturday,but on this topic,I'm bored cheers for the debate,and I must say I haven't found u to be a c**t like many on here have implied ,if u need to have the last say feel free, until we cross on another topic,all that's needed is for me to say

You havent really. You have said you think Coleman is rubbish yes, however your reasoning is flawed. Fro, what i can gather it seems to be that Iceland qualified so we should have. Where in reality if that were the case then every minnow in europe also would have and there would be no big teams left.

But thhere you go. Many have an inexplicable dislike for Coleman, i can only assume its because where he was born which is a bit sad really.

Im glad you dont think im a c**t however. I also dont think you are one.

Until next time

You havent really. You have said you think Coleman is rubbish yes, however your reasoning is flawed. Fro, what i can gather it seems to be that Iceland qualified so we should have. Where in reality if that were the case then every minnow in europe also would have and there would be no big teams left.

But thhere you go. Many have an inexplicable dislike for Coleman, i can only assume its because where he was born which is a bit sad really.

Im glad you dont think im a c**t however. I also dont think you are one.

Until next time

It has f**k all to do with where he has come from, it could be the same said for you being biased towards him because of where he's from.

You havent really. You have said you think Coleman is rubbish yes, however your reasoning is flawed. Fro, what i can gather it seems to be that Iceland qualified so we should have. Where in reality if that were the case then every minnow in europe also would have and there would be no big teams left.

But thhere you go. Many have an inexplicable dislike for Coleman, i can only assume its because where he was born which is a bit sad really.

Im glad you dont think im a c**t however. I also dont think you are one.

Until next time

It has f**k all to do with where he has come from, it could be the same said for you being biased towards him because of where he's from.

I am not biased towards him. Ive just dealt in facts. We havent qualified for 20 campaigns in a row and have had another campaign that was just like most of the others. We have an awfully paper thin squad and we always will have and towards the end of the campaign results improved.

Thats all ive said. Coleman has lead Wales to finish where the seeding suggested we should.