Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Filo on January 28, 2023, 09:01:25 pm
-
Wrong appointment, looks out of his depth, the half time changes should have been made when we were 2 down, it was plain as day it wasn’t working, leaves Miller isolated all the time, 9 games as a manager/ head coach before he came here, not what we needed at all
-
The 5 at the back does not work.
-
Wrong appointment, looks out of his depth, the half time changes should have been made when we were 2 down, it was plain as day it wasn’t working, leaves Miller isolated all the time, 9 games as a manager/ head coach before he came here, not what we needed at all
If we sack him and appoint another manager. What then if they lose their first couple of games? Do we just sack another manager again.
It will be a merry go around.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
-
I just don't get what we are supposed to be doing with the way we line up at 5-4-1.
We play with 2 wing-backs and 2 wingers. What in God's name is that formation supposed to achieve.
We looked far more potent for a while at 5-3-2 in the second half with two sitting midfielders, Hurst behind the front 2 and only the wing backs wide.
It's not bleeding rocket science. If you are going to play 5-4-1 with a wide 4, you're going to get overrun in central midfield. And if you're going to play that with Seaman and Molyneux on one wing, you might as well give up before you start.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
-
I just don't get what we are supposed to be doing with the way we line up at 5-4-1.
We play with 2 wing-backs and 2 wingers. What in God's name is that formation supposed to achieve.
We looked far more potent for a while at 5-3-2 in the second half with two sitting midfielders, Hurst behind the front 2 and only the wing backs wide.
It's not bleeding rocket science. If you are going to play 5-4-1 with a wide 4, you're going to get overrun in central midfield. And if you're going to play that with Seaman and Molyneux on one wing, you might as well give up before you start.
I've wondered this also. We appear to have solved it though by having two wing backs who don't actually attack. So we have a flat back 5 who as a collective are among the least convincing defensive line up we have had in living memory.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Miles better? Have you been watching the games recently?
-
I do think Schofield will come good if given time, however I do also agree that hiring yet another inexperienced manager was an unnecessary risk. The decision makers at our club seemingly never learn.
-
3 centre halves. The wide centre halves are invariably Anderson (or Williams) on one side whose lack of pace is liable to be exposed whenever the relevant wing back is up field and on the other side an inexperienced youngster for whom it's difficult enough making their way in senior football without taking them out of their flat back 4 comfort zone.
2 wing backs and 2 wingers which is overkill in terms of providing width.
Only 2 central midfielders when most teams play 3 or even 4 so we're continuously overrun in midfield and second best in terms of possession.
Which leaves 1 lonesome centre forward totally isolated as the wingers stay wide and the central midfielders are unable to get forward much given they're being overrun in the centre of the park.
Add to that the instructions to a) play out at a slow tempo from the back and b) to the goalkeeper to take his time in distributing the ball. Which both allow the opposition to regain their shape and negates any opportunity to use the pace on the wings to counter attack.
I really don't understand what the manager's trying to achieve with his formation and tactics.
-
Nothing is worse than under Mcsheffery.
I've been critical about Schofield tactically in games and changing things. Today he got it right at half time. He can't help his GK running out like a mad man at 2v1 whilst being all over them.
-
Since Schofield came in we haven't really played with wingers as such. Notice how narrow Hurst and Molyneux (or whoever it may be) tend to be positioned when we get the ball. It's the wingbacks who are supposed to be providing the width.
Doesn't f**king work like.
The way we play, when the ball goes out to the wingbacks they have a choice of two crap options;
a) Go backwards,
b) Punt the ball over the top for Miller to chase.
-
Add Olowu to todays 2nd half lineup and that will be Saturdays team I think. Surely he’s come to his senses.
-
We don’t keep the ball well, or in the opposition half, enough to let the wing backs get high enough up the pitch. So it becomes 541 which is a depressing way to play and not even keep clean sheets.
I like that DS has a way he wants to play but I hate this stubbornness to play it when we haven’t got the players to make it work. It’s like it’s the coaching mantra that you have a “philosophy” and have to die by it. Like playing short goal kicks no matter what or sticking to a formation no matter how isolated your forwards are.
McSheffery was a PE teacher I don’t think he knew what he wanted to do. DS does but we probably don’t have the players to do it justice.
Think we should go 442 or 433 keep it simple everyone knows where they stand get some good performances under our belts.
-
McSheffery was a PE teacher I don’t think he knew what he wanted to do. DS does but we probably don’t have the players to do it justice.
Think we should go 442 or 433 keep it simple everyone knows where they stand get some good performances under our belts.
Spot on. We need to go back to basics and play a bog standard back 4.
I always said McSheffrey's teams looked like a bunch of strangers who had only just met i.e. given no clear instructions on how to approach the game.
Schofield's team is playing under instruction but the instructions he gives are no good and wholly inappropriate for the ability of the players at his disposal.
-
Add Olowu to todays 2nd half lineup and that will be Saturdays team I think. Surely he’s come to his senses.
Totally agree with that. He's got to go from the off with the same line-up and players as started the second half, but with Olowu in for any one of the CBs who played today.
-
Nothing is worse than under Mcsheffery.
I've been critical about Schofield tactically in games and changing things. Today he got it right at half time. He can't help his GK running out like a mad man at 2v1 whilst being all over them.
well it is. As shite as the football was under GM, he had more points per game and a vastly superior goal difference than DS with largely the same players?
-
Nothing is worse than under Mcsheffery.
I've been critical about Schofield tactically in games and changing things. Today he got it right at half time. He can't help his GK running out like a mad man at 2v1 whilst being all over them.
well it is. As shite as the football was under GM, he had more points per game and a vastly superior goal difference than DS with largely the same players?
We going to overlook how undeserved the majority of the points were under GM.
When we win now we’ve normally been the better team and deserved it. We’d be on course for relegation under McSheffery imo
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Miles better? Have you been watching the games recently?
Yep
-
Nothing is worse than under Mcsheffery.
I've been critical about Schofield tactically in games and changing things. Today he got it right at half time. He can't help his GK running out like a mad man at 2v1 whilst being all over them.
well it is. As shite as the football was under GM, he had more points per game and a vastly superior goal difference than DS with largely the same players?
We going to overlook how undeserved the majority of the points were under GM.
When we win now we’ve normally been the better team and deserved it. We’d be on course for relegation under McSheffery imo
whilst I agree we got an odd lucky result. But that’s all down to opinion, and make no mistake, I thought GM was terrible. But facts are facts. We have less points per game now under DS. And are now shipping in way more goals than we’re scoring. And we’ve dropped like a stone further.
-
Add Olowu to todays 2nd half lineup and that will be Saturdays team I think. Surely he’s come to his senses.
Totally agree with that. He's got to go from the off with the same line-up and players as started the second half, but with Olowu in for any one of the CBs who played today.
Same here. For crying out loud get some support up to Miller too & let's have a go at teams. At least give supporters something to shout about, we've had next to nothing for two years now.
-
Nothing is worse than under Mcsheffery.
I've been critical about Schofield tactically in games and changing things. Today he got it right at half time. He can't help his GK running out like a mad man at 2v1 whilst being all over them.
well it is. As shite as the football was under GM, he had more points per game and a vastly superior goal difference than DS with largely the same players?
We going to overlook how undeserved the majority of the points were under GM.
When we win now we’ve normally been the better team and deserved it. We’d be on course for relegation under McSheffery imo
whilst I agree we got an odd lucky result. But that’s all down to opinion, and make no mistake, I thought GM was terrible. But facts are facts. We have less points per game now under DS. And are now shipping in way more goals than we’re scoring. And we’ve dropped like a stone further.
Under sods first dozen games our record was worse than the previous dozen games under Penney
That’s why you shouldn’t be thinking so rash,
Even the most successful sides in the country took time, look at arteta and pep
-
We had hope sod would get us playing like Bournemouth given time and his players. I hope he does sort it out but I just can't see it. We need a proper leader. Someone to turn the tide and get us set up properly.
-
DS needs time but also needs a bollocking. His insistence on the 5 at the back is a failure for him (especially given his players) he had the perfect wingback for his system in Knoyle and didn't play him there so his personnel selection is questionable too. He also IS restricted in his budget majorly - the fact he spoke today about our squad being too big was laughable!! Really? Just because we had 2 or 3 players that didn't make the match day squad (due to loan signings) doesn't mean our squad is too big! We are lacking in quality, experience and most important goals. Also the very best defender we had this season was let go to non league by far Faulkner has been our best defender this season and wasn't given a chance.
JC needs to really get DS to learn what this division needs and league one too (if that's ever relevant)
I do fear we are going to finish lower than our current low position and don't anticipate much improvement in performances or results.
We must suffer through this though as we can't keep changing managers like this. Keep DS but get him to see sense.
-
Game plan goes out of the window when your captain fails to pump ball out from the kick off and then your winger gets caught in position on the halfway line In the first 30 seconds. Can blame anyone you want after that but it set the tone. Absolutely powder puff in most things we do
-
We have definitely improved playing wise and today was down to errors yet again
-
Did anyone honestly think we would go to Mansfield today and win?
I didn’t.
We move on
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Before Schofield our record was:
P15 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.4
Since he came it has been:
P11 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.45
Marginal improvement on points (equivalent to 2.3 points over a season, so almost lost in the noise).
What is really worrying is that we are conceding goals at a frightening rate - averaging nearly 2 per game under Schofield. Whatever improvements there might arguably be in the overall play is being drowned by a simply shocking defensive record. It doesn't go matter in the long run if you play a bit more positively if your side shites itself every time a ball is put into the box.
-
We are conceding whilst playing 5 at the back. It does not work.
-
Doesn't matter what formation we play if our players have defensive calamities like today.
Already been said, but Seaman's abhoration running away from the ball and allowing their man a free run onto the ball was criminal. I thought he was improving but that is unforgivable.
Anderson had a mare too by the looks and as a coach, you can’t anticipate mistakes like that. It's basic football.
I think DS knows what he's doing and the players know individual errors cost us big time.
Sacking Schofield is definitely the wrong thing to do.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Before Schofield our record was:
P15 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.4
Since he came it has been:
P11 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.45
Marginal improvement on points (equivalent to 2.3 points over a season, so almost lost in the noise).
What is really worrying is that we are conceding goals at a frightening rate - averaging nearly 2 per game under Schofield. Whatever improvements there might arguably be in the overall play is being drowned by a simply shocking defensive record. It doesn't go matter in the long run if you play a bit more positively if your side shites itself every time a ball is put into the box.
I have to query your figures. I think Gm managed 14 league games winning 21 points which makes it 1.5 ppg.
And DS has managed 12 games winning 16 points at 1.3 ppg. Therefore no improvement to be had.
-
We don’t keep the ball well, or in the opposition half, enough to let the wing backs get high enough up the pitch. So it becomes 541 which is a depressing way to play and not even keep clean sheets.
I like that DS has a way he wants to play but I hate this stubbornness to play it when we haven’t got the players to make it work. It’s like it’s the coaching mantra that you have a “philosophy” and have to die by it. Like playing short goal kicks no matter what or sticking to a formation no matter how isolated your forwards are.
McSheffery was a PE teacher I don’t think he knew what he wanted to do. DS does but we probably don’t have the players to do it justice.
Think we should go 442 or 433 keep it simple everyone knows where they stand get some good performances under our belts.
I bet in his rigid “philosophy” there’s no room for a striker above 6 foot who can hold the ball up effectively either. A lower league must that is also needed in the next window.
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Before Schofield our record was:
P15 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.4
Since he came it has been:
P11 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.45
Marginal improvement on points (equivalent to 2.3 points over a season, so almost lost in the noise).
What is really worrying is that we are conceding goals at a frightening rate - averaging nearly 2 per game under Schofield. Whatever improvements there might arguably be in the overall play is being drowned by a simply shocking defensive record. It doesn't go matter in the long run if you play a bit more positively if your side shites itself every time a ball is put into the box.
I have to query your figures. I think Gm managed 14 league games winning 21 points which makes it 1.5 ppg.
And DS has managed 12 games winning 16 points at 1.3 ppg. Therefore no improvement to be had.
I worked these out on a separate thread yesterday. I also think in terms of league games at this early stage Schofield has a worse ppg record.
It is quite neat to do as McSheffrey was fired after the Carlisle game and Schofield was in charge for the next game, Crewe away. Only counting league games, which is all that matters. Although the FA Cup humiliation is worth remembering.
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
-
First paragraph, second line “at this early stage”.
-
The big difference fot me 2nd half was that Miller was supported by Lavery, Hurst was given licence to roam and finally we startrd playing balls into feet rather than a long hopefull punt over the top for Miller to chase. He won very few high balls against the 2 CBs but was turning them when he or Lavery got balls into feet.
-
The big difference fot me 2nd half was that Miller was supported by Lavery, Hurst was given licence to roam and finally we startrd playing balls into feet rather than a long hopefull punt over the top for Miller to chase. He won very few high balls against the 2 CBs but was turning them when he or Lavery got balls into feet.
There's a player in Hurst and he was more threatening playing more central. Would like to see him and Molyneux swap flanks during games. Helps having a decent fullback in Maxwell supporting on the left
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
-
I just don't get what we are supposed to be doing with the way we line up at 5-4-1.
We play with 2 wing-backs and 2 wingers. What in God's name is that formation supposed to achieve.
We looked far more potent for a while at 5-3-2 in the second half with two sitting midfielders, Hurst behind the front 2 and only the wing backs wide.
It's not bleeding rocket science. If you are going to play 5-4-1 with a wide 4, you're going to get overrun in central midfield. And if you're going to play that with Seaman and Molyneux on one wing, you might as well give up before you start.
Let’s see if he learns BST. I see it exactly as you obviously do.
2nd half worked brilliantly. It was just that 3rd goal calamity that killed it. We could seriously have won that game daft as it seems having lost 4-1.
DS needs to learn very quickly now from this game. If he can’t see what we can see then there is a serious problem.
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
talking of daft comparisons, you’re comparing 3 outstanding managers with previous success, experience and with money to spend and decent players already in the team with this chap of 9 games of bang average league experience, no money to spend and players not up to it?
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Before Schofield our record was:
P15 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.4
Since he came it has been:
P11 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.45
Marginal improvement on points (equivalent to 2.3 points over a season, so almost lost in the noise).
What is really worrying is that we are conceding goals at a frightening rate - averaging nearly 2 per game under Schofield. Whatever improvements there might arguably be in the overall play is being drowned by a simply shocking defensive record. It doesn't go matter in the long run if you play a bit more positively if your side shites itself every time a ball is put into the box.
I have to query your figures. I think Gm managed 14 league games winning 21 points which makes it 1.5 ppg.
And DS has managed 12 games winning 16 points at 1.3 ppg. Therefore no improvement to be had.
Absolutely right Cramby. My mistake. It was late and I thought 5+1+6=11.
Correct numbers are:
Before Schofield our record was:
P14 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.5
Since he came it has been:
P12 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.33
Dickos.
You can argue all you want. The numbers are what the numbers are.
For the record, I agree with you that we are generally playing better ATTACKING football. But you saying we are playing better FOOTBALL, while conceding over 2 goals per game is, like many of your claims, a bit of a stretch.
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
Most frustrating player we have, where's the guy who tore Stevenage to bits?
Would love him to come good, there's a great player in there,, like you say he needs to knuckle down first though.
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
talking of daft comparisons, you’re comparing 3 outstanding managers with previous success, experience and with money to spend and decent players already in the team with this chap of 9 games of bang average league experience, no money to spend and players not up to it?
No!
I’m comparing the fact that we had many fans moaning and complaining about sod in the first few months of his tenure.
If the moaners had got their wish we would’ve missed out on the most success we’ve ever had.
The managers aren’t being compared at all
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
talking of daft comparisons, you’re comparing 3 outstanding managers with previous success, experience and with money to spend and decent players already in the team with this chap of 9 games of bang average league experience, no money to spend and players not up to it?
the problem you have is we are told he has money to spend, if that is true then some of his signings are suspect to say the least, if he has hardly any money then I doubt it matters to much who the manager is as we will be stuck with bang average players
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
talking of daft comparisons, you’re comparing 3 outstanding managers with previous success, experience and with money to spend and decent players already in the team with this chap of 9 games of bang average league experience, no money to spend and players not up to it?
the problem you have is we are told he has money to spend, if that is true then some of his signings are suspect to say the least, if he has hardly any money then I doubt it matters to much who the manager is as we will be stuck with bang average players
I think it’s obvious we have no money to spend, so we should’ve employed a manager proven to work on said budget and not set our sights on playing a totally unrealistic style with inferior players.
-
The comparison is daft though
We’ve a new manager who’s trying to completely change how we play using players that we’re all signed by someone else.
The previous manager had signed almost all the players to fit the way he wanted to play,
That’s why sod struggled at the beginning, and why arteta, pep struggled.
We’re completely. Hanging out style of football and that can’t happen overnight and certainly not when a lot of the players aren’t able to do it
talking of daft comparisons, you’re comparing 3 outstanding managers with previous success, experience and with money to spend and decent players already in the team with this chap of 9 games of bang average league experience, no money to spend and players not up to it?
the problem you have is we are told he has money to spend, if that is true then some of his signings are suspect to say the least, if he has hardly any money then I doubt it matters to much who the manager is as we will be stuck with bang average players
Why are they suspect?
Youve decided that after a few mins of football?
-
I actually think there's something there with him. Despite today's defensive shambles there's areas we've improved and it's clear what he wants to do. The issue is the backing he's gotten from the board.
The team is playing, if anything, worse now than when McCsheffrey was in charge.
Definitely not
The football we’re playing currently is miles better, the manager has just made his first signings for the club and people are saying we should sack him.
Need to learn to be patient, sod showed us that
Before Schofield our record was:
P15 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.4
Since he came it has been:
P11 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.45
Marginal improvement on points (equivalent to 2.3 points over a season, so almost lost in the noise).
What is really worrying is that we are conceding goals at a frightening rate - averaging nearly 2 per game under Schofield. Whatever improvements there might arguably be in the overall play is being drowned by a simply shocking defensive record. It doesn't go matter in the long run if you play a bit more positively if your side shites itself every time a ball is put into the box.
I have to query your figures. I think Gm managed 14 league games winning 21 points which makes it 1.5 ppg.
And DS has managed 12 games winning 16 points at 1.3 ppg. Therefore no improvement to be had.
Absolutely right Cramby. My mistake. It was late and I thought 5+1+6=11.
Correct numbers are:
Before Schofield our record was:
P14 W6 D3 L5 GF18 GA19 Pts21 PPG 1.5
Since he came it has been:
P12 W5 D1 L6 GF13 GA20 Pts16 PPG 1.33
Dickos.
You can argue all you want. The numbers are what the numbers are.
For the record, I agree with you that we are generally playing better ATTACKING football. But you saying we are playing better FOOTBALL, while conceding over 2 goals per game is, like many of your claims, a bit of a stretch.
They are numbers that don’t make any sense
You’re comparing a managers record who had a team full of players he signed with a managers record who has managed a team with not one signing of his.
Not even taking into account that he’s trying to completely overhaul the style of football we play
-
How about compare Schofield’s 12 with the 12 before him? Then 13, 14 etc as the season wears on. Maybe no difference to the stats I don’t know?
-
Dickos.
The numbers are what the numbers are.
Dress it up however you like, it's really hard to justify your claim that "the football we are playing is miles better than before."
I'd accept "Some of the attacking intent is better than what went before, but overall performances and results are worse and there an no obvious signs of clear significant improvement."
-
I just don't get what we are supposed to be doing with the way we line up at 5-4-1.
We play with 2 wing-backs and 2 wingers. What in God's name is that formation supposed to achieve.
We looked far more potent for a while at 5-3-2 in the second half with two sitting midfielders, Hurst behind the front 2 and only the wing backs wide.
It's not bleeding rocket science. If you are going to play 5-4-1 with a wide 4, you're going to get overrun in central midfield. And if you're going to play that with Seaman and Molyneux on one wing, you might as well give up before you start.
It’s meant to be 343 isn’t it. That’s a difficult system to play and probably a more difficult system to coach. Especially to 4th division players that can by nature, not handle multiple pieces of caching and tactical info within games.
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
Looks like he can't be ar-ed to me, he's a passenger & offers nothing.
-
I just don't get what we are supposed to be doing with the way we line up at 5-4-1.
We play with 2 wing-backs and 2 wingers. What in God's name is that formation supposed to achieve.
We looked far more potent for a while at 5-3-2 in the second half with two sitting midfielders, Hurst behind the front 2 and only the wing backs wide.
It's not bleeding rocket science. If you are going to play 5-4-1 with a wide 4, you're going to get overrun in central midfield. And if you're going to play that with Seaman and Molyneux on one wing, you might as well give up before you start.
It’s meant to be 343 isn’t it. That’s a difficult system to play and probably a more difficult system to coach. Especially to 4th division players that can by nature, not handle multiple pieces of caching and tactical info within games.
Agree with this. Looks nice on the coaching video but without smart players, particularly in defence, it’s hard.
That said a lot of clubs play 3 at the back now in the EFL so maybe we just have a bunch of particularly unintelligent players
-
3-4-3/5-4-1 are two sides of the same coin. The former is the attacking formation, the latter the defensive one.
Doesn't change the basic issue that, the way we set up, Hurst and in particular Molyneux are usually very wide. So we effectively play with 4 wide players, and we invariably lose the central midfield battle.
The difference for the first 20 minutes of the second half yesterday when we went to 5-3-2/3-5-2 was like black and white.
-
3-4-3/5-4-1 are two sides of the same coin. The former is the attacking formation, the latter the defensive one.
Doesn't change the basic issue that, the way we set up, Hurst and in particular Molyneux are usually very wide. So we effectively play with 4 wide players, and we invariably lose the central midfield battle.
The difference for the first 20 minutes of the second half yesterday when we went to 5-3-2/3-5-2 was like black and white.
That’s the point. Some tactical nuisance for the wide players in the 3 as well as the defenders in the 343 which we don’t have the intelligence to do
-
3-4-3/5-4-1 are two sides of the same coin. The former is the attacking formation, the latter the defensive one.
Doesn't change the basic issue that, the way we set up, Hurst and in particular Molyneux are usually very wide. So we effectively play with 4 wide players, and we invariably lose the central midfield battle.
The difference for the first 20 minutes of the second half yesterday when we went to 5-3-2/3-5-2 was like black and white.
Agree.
Also Brown is a better player than Seaman and Miller becomes a player when he has Lavery up front with him.
Must stick with that set up we had beginning of the 2nd half v Hartlepool. If he doesn’t i despair.
Just a pity about the finishing. Almost as bad as the defending. In fact it was as bad.
-
Dickos.
The numbers are what the numbers are.
Dress it up however you like, it's really hard to justify your claim that "the football we are playing is miles better than before."
I'd accept "Some of the attacking intent is better than what went before, but overall performances and results are worse and there an no obvious signs of clear significant improvement."
It’s a fact that the results haven’t improved but performances is down to opinion.
I think we’ve played much better under schofield, plenty of games under Gary where we stole points, we’ve not done that under Danny yet
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
That lackadaisical loss of the ball after 25secs yesterday really made our afternoon!
-
As disappointing as it was - the goals conceded were terrible and all preventable.
The defence need to know what their roles are and 5 at the back doesn't work...... the shape and organisation isn't there.
We need to work out the system that the players are comfortable with and play to it.
As I said, we directly contributed to every one of Mansfield's goals and missed opportunities to get back into the game - Miller had to score when he had the goal at his mercy - and if he had it may have spurred on the team.
-
He needs to do better, if he can’t organise them defensively then he needs an expert in to do it.
We are wide open.
-
He’s just another inexperienced manager!
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
Last season for Hartlepool he scored 12 goals in 55 league and cup games. A one off season or we are not playing in positions where he can score. He is the biggest disappointment of this season. His record in the National league was not good either. Let’s hope we can get more out of him playing wide of a front three is not working for him or the team.
-
I would love it, really love it, if the club would allow a select few (3 or 4) members of this forum, who obviously have been around the game in one capacity or another, to sit down with Danny and Copps, and discuss the way our team is set up tactically.
The amount of technical knowledge and understanding of the game from some posters on here is very impressive (to me, that is), and I would love them to have the opportunity to have a face to face with our HoF and Head Coach just to sit down and discuss things the way that some of you can see from the stands, that you feel the management can't. I don't profess to understand the technicalities of how to set a team up, I just enjoy watching good football.
Just a very informative meeting, all very amicable of course! Is that too much to ask from the club?
Probably never been done by any other club either!!
-
Molyneux needs to stop thinking it’s all about him, and its a team game, he’s been a massive disappointment for me, looses the ball loads of times during a game
Last season for Hartlepool he scored 12 goals in 55 league and cup games. A one off season or we are not playing in positions where he can score. He is the biggest disappointment of this season. His record in the National league was not good either. Let’s hope we can get more out of him playing wide of a front three is not working for him or the team.
Jeff Stelling was amazed he didn’t go to a league 1 club.
Yes he has been the biggest disappointment this season of all the players who came in since our relegation.
Has shown flashes of what he can do. Not been anywhere near the player he was last season for Hartlepool.
Lacking in confidence it seems. We need to get him firing because like Hurst he can be a match winner with both assists and goals.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
What he says to the media and what he says to the players in the changing room will be totally different.
He isn’t going to go into detail or discuss tactics in depth in any interviews.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
Some more than valid points there, we shall see what happens in the coming weeks. His record, whatever his words are, is not great.
-
Campsall: Whilst I cannot refute what you say, is it not the case that what anyone says in public defines the way in which they wish their audience to see them? In the case of a football team where it is in a manager’s interest to encourage the fans, they surely shape their comments to foster the belief that the fortunes of their team will improve. That is part of their job – PR.
I accept that the relationship between what people say in public and in private cannot be deduced accurately, but public statements define what you want your audience to believe about how you do your job.
It is difficult to know why Schofield would disguise or would choose to disguise his style of management or the terms in which he expresses how he approaches his role. The way he comes over fails to convince me that he has the depth of understanding to convert the theory into practice. If performances begin to improve I will be open to persuasion that I am wrong, but (to use possibly a refined version of his language) the combination of outcomes and obvious failures in execution points to a failure thus far.
-
I think it's when and how the interviews are done that place a limit on the answers. They aren't 30 minute press conferences like Pep and Klopp get. They are answer this in 30 seconds or less so we can post out some clickbait stuff from local press. Very little requests to elaborate on answers or points to specific sections of the game.
The same applies to player interviews; The way that Hurst spoke led me to think we'd had a really good game (not losing 4-1 to a traditional rival) but it's all cliched media training answers to bog standard questions.
Not a true reflection on them as people or their understanding of the game.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place
-
I am concerned though dickos. I am not convinced Schofield is our next SOD.
The benefit SOD had was he ad ROK as his right hand man.
He was a very good coach and motivator.
Who has DS got helping him. Some fairly inexperienced coaches regarding EFL experience. That’s putting it mildly.
Having said that we must give DS time as I keep repeating.
He does though need to learn quickly that Miller is not going to be the answer playing up front on his own.
If he doesn’t start Lavery up with him on Saturday then I am seriously worried about his management.
-
Schofield is the lynchpin, so his performance is the key to our fortunes. So how he views the play, and its quality and in this recent case, his solutions to failure, match by match, are key to what we are about in this forum, so I cannot apologise for my focus. He is not inspiring.
Others may imagine that he is a different man in private. I cannot say I listen to all the interviews with his players, but I do not recall much that they have said about Schofield, the man, nor do I recall anything that they tell us about how he does his job. Saying that he must be different on the training ground seems speculative. He must be a bit different because he has to translate the pages of the Training Manual into things that should be happening on the pitch.
It is too early to suggest he be dismissed and maybe he can get the right messages across in his coaching sessions to get us back on track, but why doesn’t he let us in on how he is tackling this day to day at the training ground? And get people on his side, be more forthcoming. The whole purpose of opening up your thinking to the media is to encourage fans and inform them and I do not think many people can be content with what they are getting from him. He needs time, but give those who go to games, home and away, something to convince them that he “gets it” and is working really hard to put things right.
And Campsall, I agree with you. Richard O’Kelly was the perfect foil to SOD. Why don’t we hear more from DS’s assistants - and we get less from Copps now than when he was playing.
-
Is Copps still at the Club?
-
Hate to break it to people but if SOD was operating on the relative budget we have now, we would not have been at Wembley beating Leeds.
He was a great manager but he was able to recruit real talent. Even SOD would struggle with the lads we have now. It’s a world away and not a credible scenario.
I don’t think we should be spending hugely or aiming for the Championship but it’s surely not beyond the wit of the club to get us back to being a competitive League One side on our current resources.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place
For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)
With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.
That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.
-
Just won't do it
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place
For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)
With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.
That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.
He's not going to do it with the type of signings we've brought in so far.
-
To return to the topic of the Article, can anyone seriously believe that someone who talks like Schofield can communicate what he wants to the players effectively. He was asked why the team conceded the 4 goals. His reply was that it was in those "key moments", and "in the manner we conceded those goals". Apart from not really answering the question what are we supposed to deduce from that? The way they played before and after and in between when other mistakes were made either does not seem either to enter his thinking or he is unwilling to disclose what he is advocating practically to counter the problem. It was as though, in summarising how they did, everything apart from those "key moments" were the only stain on an otherwise satisfactory performance.
What did he say to the players at half time, he was asked, and he replied that he "wanted a response" from them; he did not say any more than that, so he either was not specific to them or does not want to disclose what he wanted them to do differently (since it didn't work for very long). Either way, that rather fits the way he is - not keen to actually let us in on how he (attempts) to motivate and organise the team. Another possibility is that he is not very good at pinpointing what needs to be done or thirdly not really very good at motivation at all. On this basis where is the evidence for some people to believe he can "turn it around?"
On the subject of how the new signings can contribute, he referred to them "impacting the game from the bench". Does he actually say "Go on lad and impact the game!" On the defensive inadequacies all he said was that "We need to work on those inadequacies and reduce those moments".
You can picture these words at the beginning of chapters in the Coaching Manual. What is missing is how the coach teaches the players to relate the tactical objectives to how they actually play. You have to convert them to a game of football in which the players on the pitch are organised and pass the ball around, shoot at goal and tackle and mark opponents in attack and defence - with the object (in Schofield-speak) of "impacting the score".
You could listen to Schofield's answers and not be sure what sport he was talking about. It seems to me that he is consumed by theory and if this is what he is like on the training ground, I wonder how it "impacts the players?
Moore used to mumble and repeat himself, but he did produce some exciting football. Apart from the Carlisle game Schofield's have been worse than McSheffery's.
You do seem to bring up your displeasure with schofield on a frequent basis. How the manager speaks to the press is pretty irrelevent for me, look at sod his interviews were terrible and he never spoke in any detail about anything and just gave short cliche answers.
What they say behind closed doors will be completely different,
Performance wise we’ve had a few good games where we haven’t had the result but we should all remember this also happened under sod and then everything clicked into place
For the record, it took well over a year for O'Driscoll to get everything to slot into place. And that was after inheriting an excellent squad (O'Connor, Roberts, Roberts, Green, Price, Coppinger, Heffernan, Lee, Forte, McCammon, Lockwood) and adding to it expensively (Stock, Wellens, Sullivan, Hayter, Mills, Woods)
With most of those players available, O'Driscoll won 45 points from 37 games in 2007 before things clicked.
That's the scale of the task facing us now. Even if Schofield is a genius, this is a massive, long term job to turn round this club.
I was going to mention the players SOD inherited. It was a team of functional mesters with a real spine that knew their jobs and played simple football put together by a manager that probably reflected that. You could liken that to Wenger also who inherited a core of Seaman, Adams, Keown, Dixon Winterburn, Bould, Parlour, Wright and Bergkamp. The point I’m trying to make is, would they have had their success if those squads were not inherited to build on? This is why I think DS is totally the wrong man at the wrong time. We need someone who is pragmatic and can steady the ship by assembling a squad of mesters and plug the gaps. If your ship is taking on water you block the hole before putting up the sails and paddling like hell. We’re trying to run before we can walk in my opinion. It’s all well and good trying to play fancy football when we can’t keep the ball out of the net at our end. (Not that we’re scoring many either like). It’s just as an important part of the game and we’re shipping in nigh on 2 a game. They always say start at the back.
I hope we can turn it around but I don’t see it really.
-
I agree with the above. It’s not a league for fancy football - look at Stevenage. It’s about being organised, solid and hard to beat. We aren’t any of those things. Teams probably relish coming to our place - I mean why wouldn’t you? Lovely surroundings, great pitch, one of (if not) best stadiums in the league, a warm welcome from our family friendly club and a soft bellied touch of a team. Perfect storm
-
I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!
-
Get Dean Saunders back to do our recruitment for next season and we might start getting somewhere.
-
I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!
you know what I’m saying. He weren’t afraid to leave the elbow in by the way.
-
I think that’s the first and last time I’ll ever hear Dennis Bergkamp described as a “functional mester”!
you know what I’m saying. He weren’t afraid to leave the elbow in by the way.
Bergkamp was a stylish player who knew how to mix it when needed. Defenders knew that they wouldnt be able to bully Dennis out of the game
-
It feels like we need a Billy Bremner type figure. Bremner twice inherited a club in crisis with bloody awful squads. Twice he went right back to basics. Mesters, pace, physical presence.
-
It feels like we need a Billy Bremner type figure. Bremner twice inherited a club in crisis with bloody awful squads. Twice he went right back to basics. Mesters, pace, physical presence.
A permanent Manager who will sort the club out and does not accept nonsense from below and above. That doesn’t accept second or third best. If that means no HOF then so be it.
-
DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.
We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.
He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.
-
DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.
We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.
He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.
What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against or is this potential based on what ?
-
DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.
We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.
He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.
What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against or is this potential based on what ?
So Copps is an idiot. He has brought in a coach who is not very good!
He did his homework. Spent time at Huddersfield watching and learning how they did things.
DS obviously impressed him.
-
DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.
We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.
He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.
What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against or is this potential based on what ?
By that logic there never be any new managers. He’s worked with some top coaches at top clubs learning the trade. They all said good things about him.
Yes doesn’t make him a great manager but look at Arteta he was in a similar boat and given time has got his team playing, it’s not as simple as experience = success.
there’s a big difference between the CV of McSheffery to DS. If DS was inexperienced then McSheffery was a toddler in comparison.
-
Most managers will do better if they can get hold of better players than their predecessor. If a manager is better than his predecessor he should be able to make more of the existing players and do a good deal better with a few additions of his own choice, so might we hope for some improvement before all 11 are replaced?
-
We’ve been told that basically the manager / head coach will not be responsible solely for recruitment. It’s hard to judge Schofield really as he’s having to piece together a side out of parts that don’t fit together.
-
A bit like the Government then…nothing is going right and no one can he held responsible. No wonder the simplistic answer for some is “Sack the board”!
-
SOD, Was very lucky with the players he inherited but he took that squad onto the next level. He had backing that no manager since has had. It was a fantastic time and I enjoyed it. Now it’s back to the drawing board. Danny needs help with funds for real quality signings and I would suggest an experienced man at the side of him could help.
-
I guess we have to hope the fundamentals are better for Tuesday…
-
I can’t understand his style of play he wants, slow build up, very little attacking threat! The players he has brought in are average at best, does not bode well for a re build that we clearly need
-
Probably watched a Pep coaching dvd while doing his badges so tries to have L2 players sustain possession but what happens is we never get high enough up the pitch
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
the odd performance has been Better yes but some have been as bad or worse
-
We’re having shots on goal which is a bonus, we went about 4 games in a row under GMC with no shot on goal.
Every manager needs time, give him this summer and let’s see where we’re at but very difficult to be positive as a rovers fan these days
-
It is absolutely horrific as a spectacle and the results bear out the typically piss poor and half hearted performances, but we should see this through to the summer and let Schofield have time to try and turn this around. It's obvious we are in transition although not so obvious what we are transitioning to.
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
Agree we have to stick with him and he needs to be backed with better players. Part of this mess we’re in is too many changes in manger.
-
Not been a great start for Danny has it.
Disappointing stuff overall for me.
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
Do you really think that?
It’s shit and on a par with GM
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
Do you really think that?
It’s shit and on a par with GM
Yeah.
-
We all love to watch champagne football, playing out from the back, playing through the thirds and all that, but we are a average League 2 Team, there needs to be a mix, you can’t do the same thing week in week out and expect a different result.
-
DS needs time, he was/is a very highly rated coach.
We are to my eyes playing much better attacking football on the whole, not results wise(yet)but I am far more confident in what DS is showing to what GMc showed, and that it will eventually change to be more consistent and provide more results.
He needs his own team, and to find who can in the current team, play his way. We have given most managers this chance, DS deserves this.
The interesting part will be who he keeps in the summer, especially in defence.
What makes him a rated coach ! Has a track record of success to be measured against or is this potential based on what ?
By that logic there never be any new managers. He’s worked with some top coaches at top clubs learning the trade. They all said good things about him.
Yes doesn’t make him a great manager but look at Arteta he was in a similar boat and given time has got his team playing, it’s not as simple as experience = success.
there’s a big difference between the CV of McSheffery to DS. If DS was inexperienced then McSheffery was a toddler in comparison.
As we’ll knowledge a Manager should be a good communicator and a motivator enough to influence the hearts minds of all his players . Tactically we look inept and clueless . We often talk about a “Plan B” a basic plan would be a benefit !
-
Ifollow commentary even said today Hartlepool looked like they had a game plan ,and we just lumped it forward if something does not change quick we could be in a relegation battle very soon
-
Blokes a fraud.
There's no plan B. There's no flexibility of thought, it's just this crap formation and playing out from the back.
Alot was made out of him working with bielsa when he signed. A bielsa team wouldn't play like that they wouldn't dare .
-
More burying his head in the sand and not taking accountability.
https://twitter.com/drfc_official/status/1621923929706172418?s=46&t=ttrVYi-kPn-bQ_SuDX-Zkw
“We were brave going for the win”. F*** me we were playing 23rd in the league at home.
We can all see the system isn’t working from the stands. We were relying on Tom Anderson to be our main creative output today. I mean, come on. The players looked lost.
I wonder if he’s told the players he’s in the wrong or if he’s bollocking them for not giving enough? Nah, probably being nicey nicey telling them it’s all ok and making sure everyone gets along.
-
I think their is potential that Schofield will be a quality manager for us. He just needs to right players. The performances are better than under McSheffrey.
the odd performance has been Better yes but some have been as bad or worse
think today you've hit the nail on the head
-
The bloke hasn’t got a clue. We swapped our failed youth team coach for Huddersfield's failed youth team coach and the results are the same, not good enough.