[Albion] The Mike Bailey Principle

[Perry Milkins]

The Mike Bailey Principle

This is a very interesting debate and worthy of a standalone thread.

I am old enough to remember when MB was in charge and was at Southampton (Alan Ball, Kevin Keegan and Mick Channon no less) when we sucked up all their effort and scored two great goals to win 2-0. I think we went up to 5th in the league.

At the time there was rancour and displeasure on the terraces around me about the ‘entertainment’ value and attendances did start to dip. It seemed to me that it was the older brigade who were not happy. MB was handed his cards and the rest is history via Melia, the Cup Final etc, etc.

Personally I was angered by it all as I want to follow success at my football club primarily and if it was entertaining that was the icing on the cake. To me (and I respect this) others will have their own views and want to watch their local team and want entertainment before the result. All well and good under Archie Macaulay et al.

My view is that being a fan of a club drives more deeply into the human psyche and the reward and feel good factor comes from a triumph over the adversary no matter how it was achieved. This leaves plenty of room for the ‘phew’ we were lucky exchanges without denting the feeling of euphoria.

So is Chris entering into the realms of the ‘Mike Bailey Principle?

What say you my brethren?

 

[timbha]

Spot on. In some ways saturdays win over Wolves was one of my favourite matches at the Amex (excluding that st Patrick’s day massacre of palace). Other great days were beating Man U and West Ham.
I have never enjoyed a defeat.

Mike Bailey was treated badly and the club suffered for it. Appointing Melia was a joke and getting to the cup final was a damaging distraction from which we have only just recovered.

 

[northstandsteve]

Mike Bailey should have been given more time, which Chris will get. Winning games at this level is all that matters at the moment as far as I am concerned. Not paying well and winning is good thing.

Falling attendances while winning would be a worry ...

Lets enjoy the ride.

Personally great rear guards are a fantastic spectacle.

Forest away in 1979 springs to mind...

 

[The Large One]

The Mike Bailey Principle

This is a very interesting debate and worthy of a standalone thread.

I am old enough to remember when MB was in charge and was at Southampton (Alan Ball, Kevin Keegan and Mick Channon no less) when we sucked up all their effort and scored two great goals to win 2-0. I think we went up to 5th in the league.

At the time there was rancour and displeasure on the terraces around me about the ‘entertainment’ value and attendances did start to dip. It seemed to me that it was the older brigade who were not happy. MB was handed his cards and the rest is history via Melia, the Cup Final etc, etc.

Personally I was angered by it all as I want to follow success at my football club primarily and if it was entertaining that was the icing on the cake. To me (and I respect this) others will have their own views and want to watch their local team and want entertainment before the result. All well and good under Archie Macaulay et al.

My view is that being a fan of a club drives more deeply into the human psyche and the reward and feel good factor comes from a triumph over the adversary no matter how it was achieved. This leaves plenty of room for the ‘phew’ we were lucky exchanges without denting the feeling of euphoria.

So is Chris entering into the realms of the ‘Mike Bailey Principle?

What say you my brethren?

Mike Bailey was building - and it was a work in progress - a team which would have probably been more successful if those who demanded to be 'entertained' hadn't held sway.

Hughton is also building, as a work in progress, a team for improved results and performances, and more success. In both cases, both managers had to deal with what they had - Bailey inherited a team being torn apart and slowly re-built bit by bit; Hughton's team is his own, and being improved incrementally. Both are/were pragmatists.

However, for me, there are two main differences. Firstly, Hughton is not happy with the way the team is playing at the moment, and knows he can get a lot more out of them; Bailey was largely working at capacity, albeit building his 'success' on making sure the defence worked well in the first place - but this was hardly at the cost of sacrificing the forwards.

But the second, more crucial, point of whether the club decides to become trigger-happy is that the Amex currently has full houses, every home match. Bailey, on the other hand, was more a hostage to fortune of declining attendances which Mike Bamber saw as being down to Bailey's style of play (though they were falling all over England at the time), making his position far more precarious. For examples of that, listen to Don Shanks' take on it on the Roar from a couple of weeks ago. https://audioboom.com/posts/7043921...sts-don-shanks-jared-evans-and-russell-guiver

 

[Ernest]

It's like comparing apples and coconuts, the Premier League now is nothing like it was in Division 1 then. Bloom would never sack Hughton if he keeps us in the PL no matter what style of football and the vast majority of fans won't complain either, back in 1982 it was just a very vocal minority of fans at a fans forum who started the myth of Bailey's football being boring and keeping the crowds away when it was a shite ground and facilities , crowd trouble and crap like that and we were in the middle of Thatcher's recession so people didn't have money to spend

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But the second, more crucial, point of whether the club decides to become trigger-happy is that the Amex currently has full houses, every home match. Bailey, on the other hand, was more a hostage to fortune of declining attendances which Mike Bamber saw as being down to Bailey's style of play (though they were falling all over England at the time), making his position far more precarious. For examples of that, listen to Don Shanks' take on it on the Roar from a couple of weeks ago. https://audioboom.com/posts/7043921...sts-don-shanks-jared-evans-and-russell-guiver

And of course the riches of the PL mean that attendences are pretty much an insignificance from the view of the club finances which wasn't the case when Bailey was in charge.

 

[studio150]

The problem was that Mike Bailey was instructed to change tactics to get the fans back into the ground, so after winning at Liverpool in the league we promptly fell backwards. The start of the 82/3 season saw a new style of play with the rotating front line which didn't work, resulting in our first 3 away games ending 0-5, 0-4, 0-5 but no doubt those that wanted to see attacking forward and goals went home happy.

As others have stated this result in the clown Melia being appointed and relegation. If only Mike Bailey had been left alone to manage the team to get the best out of them as a unit, we would have a different history.

I however have full confidence in Tony Bloom to let Chris manage his way, to achieve the clubs stated ambition of establishing itself as a PL team. Once we have achieved this and have more financial resources we will look to bring in better (and more expensive) flair players to play an more expansive game when we are dominating games. Until then just enjoy the results and defensive displays.

 

[Dr. No]

So is Chris entering into the realms of the ‘Mike Bailey Principle?

No.

 

[timbha]

In bailey’s days the majority of revenue came through the turnstiles and Bamber panicked at the first signs of discontent amongst the fans.

Nowadays most money comes from Sky and it doesn’t matter how boring you are, if you’re in the PL you get the dough!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Good thread. Good replies. But....soon the moaning minnies will be 'don't get me wrong, but'ting all over it.

Can anyone recall how the Argus (a force back then) handled this? Were they stirring about 'crowd displeasure'? I was living overseas at the time so this all passed me by.

Disturbing to read some nobbers in the North tried to chant down Hughton on Saturday, albeit pleased they failed miserably. However.....

My view is I am loving this and am more than happy to see CH carry on. My view would change only if we entered a long run of hapless folly, with players bickering and looking like they didn't care, AND Hughton did nothing (nobody dropped, just mid-match sadface and shoulder shruggery, week after weak).....not all that likely IMV!

Anyway we can rest assured that The Lizard would be ruthless if necessary.

 

[Perry Milkins]

It's like comparing apples and coconuts, the Premier League now is nothing like it was in Division 1 then. Bloom would never sack Hughton if he keeps us in the PL no matter what style of football and the vast majority of fans won't complain either, back in 1982 it was just a very vocal minority of fans at a fans forum who started the myth of Bailey's football being boring and keeping the crowds away when it was a shite ground and facilities , crowd trouble and crap like that and we were in the middle of Thatcher's recession so people didn't have money to spend

Sorry, no. The principle is entirely worthy of comparison.

Entertainment before results. Myth? What myth?

I was at the ground and the 'old boys' just kept chuntering on and on...

 

[Peter Grummit]

It's like comparing apples and coconuts, the Premier League now is nothing like it was in Division 1 then. Bloom would never sack Hughton if he keeps us in the PL no matter what style of football and the vast majority of fans won't complain either, back in 1982 it was just a very vocal minority of fans at a fans forum who started the myth of Bailey's football being boring and keeping the crowds away when it was a shite ground and facilities , crowd trouble and crap like that and we were in the middle of Thatcher's recession so people didn't have money to spend

Spot on, [MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION]. I was at that fans' forum too and it was a farce led by a handful of moaning minnies. To the OP, we won at Saints in December 81 and Bailey was manager for a further 12 months after that, so things not quite as you infer. Crowds dropped below 10,000, and in those days they were the primary source of income. I didn't agree with Bailey's sacking but the context was entirely different.

PG

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Some of the most successful managers in history have built their success on solid defensive foundations. You don't win anything conceding lots of goals and all the time its 0-0, you are in the game. Defence is as important as attack.
If you go to football to be entertained, most of the time you will be disappointed. I have always gone to see my side win, irrespective of performance. Give me an ugly 1-0 win over an entertaining 2-4 defeat all the time.
We were spoilt in the Bailey era. After two struggling seasons, suddenly we were nearer the top than the bottom. Fans raised on mediocrity, felt uneasy and reacted in the way they had done all their lives. They started to moan. They couldn't have little ol' Brighton in the upper reaches of Div 1. Naively, they targetted the style of football and the Board ( getting ahead of themselves, took notice ) A longer spell for Mike Bailey could well have seen us enjoy an extended period in the top flight but we never recovered from his sacking and the slide was inevitable.
As Charlton will testify, be careful what you wish for. Curbishley had them established in the PL but it wasn't enough for the fans.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

It's a good problem to have - far too often in the past we've had shit results and shit football

 

[Perry Milkins]

Spot on, [MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION]. I was at that fans' forum too and it was a farce led by a handful of moaning minnies. To the OP, we won at Saints in December 81 and Bailey was manager for a further 12 months after that, so things not quite as you infer. Crowds dropped below 10,000, and in those days they were the primary source of income. I didn't agree with Bailey's sacking but the context was entirely different.

PG

OK I quoted that game as to me it was a high point. I was not inferring that despite us winning that evening some old boys immediately had a moan and we were leaking attendance figures so on and so forth.

Did crowds really drop below 10k??

If we strip this debate down to the bare bone. It is all about whether winning is enjoyable and sweetens that Saturday evening (you know what I mean, I know we have midweek games)) no matter how the victory came about. I used Bailey as an anchor as his case had many similarities to the arguments being thrown about then.

 

[Mackenzie]

The manager following Mullery had big shoes to fill.

 

[The Large One]

If Bailey and Hughton have a parallel or a comparison, it's more with Hughton's time at Norwich, rather than his time here.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The Mike Bailey Principle

This is a very interesting debate and worthy of a standalone thread.

I am old enough to remember when MB was in charge and was at Southampton (Alan Ball, Kevin Keegan and Mick Channon no less) when we sucked up all their effort and scored two great goals to win 2-0. I think we went up to 5th in the league.

At the time there was rancour and displeasure on the terraces around me about the ‘entertainment’ value and attendances did start to dip. It seemed to me that it was the older brigade who were not happy. MB was handed his cards and the rest is history via Melia, the Cup Final etc, etc.

Personally I was angered by it all as I want to follow success at my football club primarily and if it was entertaining that was the icing on the cake. To me (and I respect this) others will have their own views and want to watch their local team and want entertainment before the result. All well and good under Archie Macaulay et al.

My view is that being a fan of a club drives more deeply into the human psyche and the reward and feel good factor comes from a triumph over the adversary no matter how it was achieved. This leaves plenty of room for the ‘phew’ we were lucky exchanges without denting the feeling of euphoria.

So is Chris entering into the realms of the ‘Mike Bailey Principle?

What say you my brethren?

We never got higher than 8th which we were then having played 21 games, won 9 drawn 8 lost 4, after that it all went south and we won 4 drew 5 and lost 12 of the last 21 games to end up 13th

 

[The Large One]

Did crowds really drop below 10k??

They'd dropped by about 10,000 from 3-4 years previously. For Bamber, with his ambition and ridiculous contracts, that was always going to spell trouble.

If we strip this debate down to the bare bone. It is all about whether winning is enjoyable and sweetens that Saturday evening (you know what I mean, I know we have midweek games)) no matter how the victory came about. I used Bailey as an anchor as his case had many similarities to the arguments being thrown about then.

It's about perception too.

Additionally, Bailey came along in the third year of our time in the top division. While we were one of the smaller clubs again, expectations started to become unrealistic. We couldn't have open flair football AND good results - we don't have the resources. It's the Faustian pact smaller clubs have to sign up to when they play with the big boys. This time around, I believe expectations are more realistic, apart from a few wallies in the North Stand, it seems.

 

[Peter Grummit]

We never got higher than 8th which we were then having played 21 games, won 9 drawn 8 lost 4, after that it all went south and we won 4 drew 5 and lost 12 of the last 21 games to end up 13th

After the Saints game mentioned by the OP, we were 6th (source: Seagulls! The Story of Brighton and Hove Albion: Tim Carder and Roger Harris).