It was always going to take time

[mjdgreg]

Saunders has always said that the job he took on would take time. 3 years seems to be the timescale he was thinking of. So we need to stop calling for his head and get fully behind him because after 3 years we will be in the Conference and the experience he has gained there already will be invaluable.

[I-was-there1976]

If Dean Saunders is still in Doncaster in 3 years

DRFC will be out of business

[NorthNorfolkRover]

Staggered you can make a happy clappy post tonight. Its the equivalent of a sod out post the day after wembley.

[Chris Black come back]

Whatever the case for / against Saunders, the main reason we are in this position is because in our first EIGHT league games we managed to gain ONE point (at home against Bristol City who are quite clearly almost as shit as we are).

EIGHT games. ONE point. We gave up 23 points in those games. No hope from that point on.

[donnyroversfc]

Whatever the case for / against Saunders, the main reason we are in this position is because in our first EIGHT league games we managed to gain ONE point (at home against Bristol City who are quite clearly almost as shit as we are).

EIGHT games. ONE point. We gave up 23 points in those games. No hope from that point on.

We've been out of the relegation zone while Saunders has been here. That and the amount of signings he's been allowed to make means the blame should fall on Saunders (and McKay).

I hope John Ryan admits his mistakes and tells the pair of them to pack their bags immediately!!

[JonWallsend]

Whatever the case for / against Saunders, the main reason we are in this position is because in our first EIGHT league games we managed to gain ONE point (at home against Bristol City who are quite clearly almost as shit as we are).

EIGHT games. ONE point. We gave up 23 points in those games. No hope from that point on.

It was SEVEN games and ONE point thats 20 points. Far from being no hope beyond that point, we actually  picked up 7 points from the next 3 games, (Saunders first 3 in charge) and after 10 matches, and a mere 8 days after Dean took over, we were outside the relegation zone.

Subsequent to that mini revival, we have picked up, from TWENTY SEVEN games, TWENTY THREE points. I'd be looking at this run as perhaps more season defining. However, we are only 4 points from safety with a game in hand on Bristol, all is not lost.

[mjdgreg]

Our most productive spell was the first 3 games Saunders was in charge when Billy returned from injury and we still played the SOD way. It all went tits up shortly after this when Saunders started bringing in the Mckay players and changing tactics ruining team spirit at the same time.

There were plenty of people warning about this crazy strategy at the time but they have nearly all left the forum due to the abuse they received. It's time all you abusers apologised and admit you were all wrong.

[pubteam]

Our most productive spell was the first 3 games Saunders was in charge when Billy returned from injury and we still played the SOD way. It all went tits up shortly after this when Saunders started bringing in the Mckay players and changing tactics ruining team spirit at the same time.

There were plenty of people warning about this crazy strategy at the time but they have nearly all left the forum due to the abuse they received. It's time all you abusers apologised and admit you were all wrong.

We still played the SOD way? What, the way that got us a solitary point and two goals in the first seven games?

I'm not saying that to undermine what SOD did here, but to claim that DS won two of his first three because of SOD is ludicrous, given that SOD hadn't won any of the previous 19.

[mutleyrover]

Or the way that got us in the Championship in the first place and kept us there for several years punching far above our weight!

[dickos1]

Our most productive spell was the first 3 games Saunders was in charge when Billy returned from injury and we still played the SOD way. It all went tits up shortly after this when Saunders started bringing in the Mckay players and changing tactics ruining team spirit at the same time.

There were plenty of people warning about this crazy strategy at the time but they have nearly all left the forum due to the abuse they received. It's time all you abusers apologised and admit you were all wrong.

Billy only started one of those games, and we we won with a goal after he had left the field..

[Mr1Croft]

Our most productive spell was the first 3 games Saunders was in charge when Billy returned from injury and we still played the SOD way. It all went tits up shortly after this when Saunders started bringing in the Mckay players and changing tactics ruining team spirit at the same time.

There were plenty of people warning about this crazy strategy at the time but they have nearly all left the forum due to the abuse they received. It's time all you abusers apologised and admit you were all wrong.

We still played the SOD way? What, the way that got us a solitary point and two goals in the first seven games?

I'm not saying that to undermine what SOD did here, but to claim that DS won two of his first three because of SOD is ludicrous, given that SOD hadn't won any of the previous 19.

Tbh I don't agree with either of you.

Firstly mdjgreg; The first 3 games with Saunders in charge were perhaps 3 of the most boring first halves I have witnessed. I rank it up there with my expereince of watching Doncaster Dragons against Keigthly Koogars over ten years back. However we managed to still pick up 7 points from those first 3 games. Therefore we were never playing the SOD way.

pubteam; I agree we didn't win playing the SOD way, but the day Saunders got the job most players were recovering from injury and we had just signed Jon Parkin and many were feeling optimistic as Palace being the turning point in our season had SOD remained and I still think he would have turned a corner eventually. Maybe I just loved SOD too much, what never got him a win in 18 games was rotten luck and a shattered confidence in what was already a bottom end Championship club.

I at the time didn't think SOD leaving was the right decision, but it was justified because Saunders won 2 of the first 3 games.

[mjdgreg]

What you are conveniently forgetting is that we had loads of injuries for a very long time and that was the root of our problems. As soon as they cleared up SOD was sacked and we then went on to pick up 7 points in the next 3 games.

It stands to reason that we could have built on this with SOD as long as we remained relatively injury free. But what do we do? We sack SOD, bring in a totally inexperienced manager, bring in new players thereby ruining team spirit and the rest is history.

[Donnybax]

Our most productive spell was the first 3 games Saunders was in charge when Billy returned from injury and we still played the SOD way. It all went tits up shortly after this when Saunders started bringing in the Mckay players and changing tactics ruining team spirit at the same time.

There were plenty of people warning about this crazy strategy at the time but they have nearly all left the forum due to the abuse they received. It's time all you abusers apologised and admit you were all wrong.

Billy only started one of those games, and we we won with a goal after he had left the field..

but against palcace and hull billy alone lifted the fans and the team

[Chris]

Whatever the case for / against Saunders, the main reason we are in this position is because in our first EIGHT league games we managed to gain ONE point (at home against Bristol City who are quite clearly almost as shit as we are).

EIGHT games. ONE point. We gave up 23 points in those games. No hope from that point on.

One of the most ridiculous statements ever made on this forum. I don't even know where to start.

[pubteam]

I've said it before on here, but I think anyone who puts our demise under SOD solely down to injuries and bad luck is conveniently forgetting a string of other factors that saw the club in the position it was/is in.

[Mr1Croft]

I've said it before on here, but I think anyone who puts our demise under SOD solely down to injuries and bad luck is conveniently forgetting a string of other factors that saw the club in the position it was/is in.

You probably have a point, personally SOD was an untouchable for me. From a neutral view this is what to me finished SOD off:

A declining squad.
A removal of support from a certain Director
Buying Billy Sharp (other areas of the team needed strengthening IMO and it was proved as we were in a relegation fight)
A horrid injury list
A winless streak that lead to shattered confidence
Bad luck
And ultimately his refusal for a 'plan B' which was one of his qualities became his downfall.

[Viking Don]

What you are conveniently forgetting is that we had loads of injuries for a very long time and that was the root of our problems. As soon as they cleared up SOD was sacked and we then went on to pick up 7 points in the next 3 games.

It stands to reason that we could have built on this with SOD as long as we remained relatively injury free. But what do we do? We sack SOD, bring in a totally inexperienced manager, bring in new players thereby ruining team spirit and the rest is history.

And the solution is.....?

[mjdgreg]

I agree that injuries and bad luck weren't the only problems. But despite all the other problems as well SOD had managed to keep us up the previous season. We started this season well until Billy got injured and we did have some bad luck as well.

The first 3 games under Saunders is in my opinion conclusive proof that we would have stayed up under SOD as long as our luck on injuries changed. just when he needed support and when our injuries had cleared up up we embarked on this trip into fantasy land. those first 3 games under Saunders were with the original players and when he was having the least effect on team spirit, tactics etc. As soon as his influence grew we lost the plot.

[pubteam]

I've said it before on here, but I think anyone who puts our demise under SOD solely down to injuries and bad luck is conveniently forgetting a string of other factors that saw the club in the position it was/is in.

You probably have a point, personally SOD was an untouchable for me. From a neutral view this is what to me finished SOD off:

A declining squad.
A removal of support from a certain Director
Buying Billy Sharp (other areas of the team needed strengthening IMO and it was proved as we were in a relegation fight)
A horrid injury list
A winless streak that lead to shattered confidence
Bad luck
And ultimately his refusal for a 'plan B' which was one of his qualities became his downfall.

See that's part of the problem from my point of view. I don't think you can make anyone \"untouchable.\" Football is cut-throat, and there was a point where it looked like SOD would have the safest job in football regardless of how many we were losing. Maybe if he'd been given more of a kick up the arse, he might have looked to change things, but we just carried on in the same fashion every week.

Another big frustration of mine with SOD was his blind loyalty to certain players. Offering new deals to the likes of Chambers and Sullivan in the summer completely baffled me, when the money could've been used to sign younger players who might play more games. Also, the fact that people like Lockwood and Wilson kept being handed new deals just drove up their wages as the years went on. They might have been safe back-up players, but they became L1 standard players on what were probably Championship wages. He didn't freshen things up enough IMO.

I also felt he dropped a clanger over the summer with regards to strengthening the squad. He did bring in some decent players (Bennett, Spurr etc), but to me, he failed to strengthen where we really needed it. We desperately needed a GK, but he stuck with Woods who clearly wasn't/isn't ready - DS has proved since with the acquisitions of Button and Ikeme that it can't really be that difficult to get a decent, affordable 'keeper in. We also needed a decent centre half, but he didn't address that either - lets face it, Richard Naylor was never going to be the answer. We also failed to add another striker who could take some of the pressure off Billy Sharp and eventually step into his shoes. To start the season with just 3 strikers on the books was completely laughable IMO, and we came a cropper with it earlier than anyone expected when Billy and Hayts were crocked after the first game.

After the fighting talk at the end of last season from SOD that he was going to have a proper clearout and rethink things for this season, I was pretty disappointed that we started this campaign with most of last year's squad still in place (save for the obvious departures of Thomas, Brooker, Webster and Souza), and it was no real surprise to me that we struggled from day one.

And to say he did it on a shoestring, well fair enough, but it was a shoestring that we still couldn't afford. £3/4 million annual losses just aren't the way to run a football club, and although SOD wasn't responsible for setting the budgets, I do think his management style (encompassing some of the issues raised above) contributed to the financial situation we found ourselves in.

[mjdgreg]

And the solution is.....?

To buy a time machine and go back in time and keep SOD in charge. Anyone that doubts whether he should still be here only has to look at the Notts Forest result tonight. I can't remember any team ever scoring 7 goals at Leeds ever before.

[pubteam]

And the solution is.....?

To buy a time machine and go back in time and keep SOD in charge. Anyone that doubts whether he should still be here only has to look at the Notts Forest result tonight. I can't remember any team ever scoring 7 goals at Leeds ever before.

Ah, right. So the First Team Coach has THAT much influence on results then, does he?

Perhaps you should start heaping some blame on Brian Carey rather than DS, then.

Plus, I can't remember US ever scoring 7 goals in a game under SOD - so was it really down to him?

[Akinfenwa]

What you are conveniently forgetting is that we had loads of injuries for a very long time and that was the root of our problems. As soon as they cleared up SOD was sacked and we then went on to pick up 7 points in the next 3 games.

It stands to reason that we could have built on this with SOD as long as we remained relatively injury free. But what do we do? We sack SOD, bring in a totally inexperienced manager, bring in new players thereby ruining team spirit and the rest is history.

We always had more than our fair share of injuries under SOD, why? I don't believe that was purely down to bad luck. If there's one thing that DS can be credited with is that he has seemingly reduced the number of injuries at the club by bringing his own trusted fitness guy in.

I also believe that SOD had lost \"it\" somewhat. We were on a terrible run and didn't even look like winning a game under him anymore. Derby away, Forest at home and Bristol at home are up there with some of the most clueless performances I've seen this season. At least we kept possession though, the obsession of trying to rip off Swansea by continuously passing back to the keeper only for him to boot the ball forward anyway never gets old. I don't recall seeing an abundance of \"team spirit\" either at that point in the season.

And then even if all of the above wasn't the case and SOD was still here, we would still have to cut the budget so there would be no \"building\" on what we had as you said. We barely stayed up beforehand so any budget cuts would have almost certainly made relegation inevitable. JR saw fit to take his chances with a method that could potentially \"cheat\" that. OK so it looks like it won't pay off but in mine and JR's opinion it was a risk worth taking to try and salvage a season or two more at Championship level despite cutting the wage bill.

[Akinfenwa]

Another point is, why do people refuse to accept that O'Driscoll is merely a coach at Forest? Why do people think that he's secretly managing the team behind Cotterill's back and plotting against him?

I could just as easily suggest that that the cause of Forest scoring 7 once is purely down to the secret influence of goalscoring mastermind Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

[Mr1Croft]

I've said it before on here, but I think anyone who puts our demise under SOD solely down to injuries and bad luck is conveniently forgetting a string of other factors that saw the club in the position it was/is in.

You probably have a point, personally SOD was an untouchable for me. From a neutral view this is what to me finished SOD off:

A declining squad.
A removal of support from a certain Director
Buying Billy Sharp (other areas of the team needed strengthening IMO and it was proved as we were in a relegation fight)
A horrid injury list
A winless streak that lead to shattered confidence
Bad luck
And ultimately his refusal for a 'plan B' which was one of his qualities became his downfall.

See that's part of the problem from my point of view. I don't think you can make anyone \"untouchable.\" Football is cut-throat, and there was a point where it looked like SOD would have the safest job in football regardless of how many we were losing. Maybe if he'd been given more of a kick up the arse, he might have looked to change things, but we just carried on in the same fashion every week.

Another big frustration of mine with SOD was his blind loyalty to certain players. Offering new deals to the likes of Chambers and Sullivan in the summer completely baffled me, when the money could've been used to sign younger players who might play more games. Also, the fact that people like Lockwood and Wilson kept being handed new deals just drove up their wages as the years went on. They might have been safe back-up players, but they became L1 standard players on what were probably Championship wages. He didn't freshen things up enough IMO.

I also felt he dropped a clanger over the summer with regards to strengthening the squad. He did bring in some decent players (Bennett, Spurr etc), but to me, he failed to strengthen where we really needed it. We desperately needed a GK, but he stuck with Woods who clearly wasn't/isn't ready - DS has proved since with the acquisitions of Button and Ikeme that it can't really be that difficult to get a decent, affordable 'keeper in. We also needed a decent centre half, but he didn't address that either - lets face it, Richard Naylor was never going to be the answer. We also failed to add another striker who could take some of the pressure off Billy Sharp and eventually step into his shoes. To start the season with just 3 strikers on the books was completely laughable IMO, and we came a cropper with it earlier than anyone expected when Billy and Hayts were crocked after the first game.

After the fighting talk at the end of last season from SOD that he was going to have a proper clearout and rethink things for this season, I was pretty disappointed that we started this campaign with most of last year's squad still in place (save for the obvious departures of Thomas, Brooker, Webster and Souza), and it was no real surprise to me that we struggled from day one.

And to say he did it on a shoestring, well fair enough, but it was a shoestring that we still couldn't afford. £3/4 million annual losses just aren't the way to run a football club, and although SOD wasn't responsible for setting the budgets, I do think his management style (encompassing some of the issues raised above) contributed to the financial situation we found ourselves in.

That is possibly one of your more better posts, and there isn't a lot I can disagree with either.

I will admit that making SOD an untouchable was perhaps naive of people like me but that is what happens in football. I still rate him as one of the best managers to have been at the helm here and I always will.

You talk of loyalty and in some aspects I agree with it, but I still think that those 4 players you mention (Chambers, Sullivan, Wilson and Lockwood) still had a part to play, maybe not so much Sullivan but the other 3 are not as bad as you have made out. Chambers was one of our most influential players in our first season in the Championship, since getting injured he didn't come back as strong and I find that a shame. Lockwood (as poor as he can be) has had to stand in for the likes of Ward, Shackell and Mills and he has done a fantastic job taking in mind he was playing the conference at the same time we were (albeit for a different team). Wilson was the scapegoat during his time here and I think he was a fantastic player, he didn't have the pure talent but he was a given a scrappy role and he performed it quite well. It is worth noting when Wilson featured in the center of midfield for most of the 09/10 season we made our highest ever finish in English football (32nd overall) in over 100 years.

As I say the rest of it you pretty much have nailed on the head. The only difference between SOD and DS in regards to the keeper situation is that DS has McKay, a man SOD apparently refused to work with in the past.

[pubteam]

I've said it before on here, but I think anyone who puts our demise under SOD solely down to injuries and bad luck is conveniently forgetting a string of other factors that saw the club in the position it was/is in.

You probably have a point, personally SOD was an untouchable for me. From a neutral view this is what to me finished SOD off:

A declining squad.
A removal of support from a certain Director
Buying Billy Sharp (other areas of the team needed strengthening IMO and it was proved as we were in a relegation fight)
A horrid injury list
A winless streak that lead to shattered confidence
Bad luck
And ultimately his refusal for a 'plan B' which was one of his qualities became his downfall.

See that's part of the problem from my point of view. I don't think you can make anyone \"untouchable.\" Football is cut-throat, and there was a point where it looked like SOD would have the safest job in football regardless of how many we were losing. Maybe if he'd been given more of a kick up the arse, he might have looked to change things, but we just carried on in the same fashion every week.

Another big frustration of mine with SOD was his blind loyalty to certain players. Offering new deals to the likes of Chambers and Sullivan in the summer completely baffled me, when the money could've been used to sign younger players who might play more games. Also, the fact that people like Lockwood and Wilson kept being handed new deals just drove up their wages as the years went on. They might have been safe back-up players, but they became L1 standard players on what were probably Championship wages. He didn't freshen things up enough IMO.

I also felt he dropped a clanger over the summer with regards to strengthening the squad. He did bring in some decent players (Bennett, Spurr etc), but to me, he failed to strengthen where we really needed it. We desperately needed a GK, but he stuck with Woods who clearly wasn't/isn't ready - DS has proved since with the acquisitions of Button and Ikeme that it can't really be that difficult to get a decent, affordable 'keeper in. We also needed a decent centre half, but he didn't address that either - lets face it, Richard Naylor was never going to be the answer. We also failed to add another striker who could take some of the pressure off Billy Sharp and eventually step into his shoes. To start the season with just 3 strikers on the books was completely laughable IMO, and we came a cropper with it earlier than anyone expected when Billy and Hayts were crocked after the first game.

After the fighting talk at the end of last season from SOD that he was going to have a proper clearout and rethink things for this season, I was pretty disappointed that we started this campaign with most of last year's squad still in place (save for the obvious departures of Thomas, Brooker, Webster and Souza), and it was no real surprise to me that we struggled from day one.

And to say he did it on a shoestring, well fair enough, but it was a shoestring that we still couldn't afford. £3/4 million annual losses just aren't the way to run a football club, and although SOD wasn't responsible for setting the budgets, I do think his management style (encompassing some of the issues raised above) contributed to the financial situation we found ourselves in.

That is possibly one of your more better posts, and there isn't a lot I can disagree with either.

I will admit that making SOD an untouchable was perhaps naive of people like me but that is what happens in football. I still rate him as one of the best managers to have been at the helm here and I always will.

You talk of loyalty and in some aspects I agree with it, but I still think that those 4 players you mention (Chambers, Sullivan, Wilson and Lockwood) still had a part to play, maybe not so much Sullivan but the other 3 are not as bad as you have made out. Chambers was one of our most influential players in our first season in the Championship, since getting injured he didn't come back as strong and I find that a shame. Lockwood (as poor as he can be) has had to stand in for the likes of Ward, Shackell and Mills and he has done a fantastic job taking in mind he was playing the conference at the same time we were (albeit for a different team). Wilson was the scapegoat during his time here and I think he was a fantastic player, he didn't have the pure talent but he was a given a scrappy role and he performed it quite well. It is worth noting when Wilson featured in the center of midfield for most of the 09/10 season we made our highest ever finish in English football (32nd overall) in over 100 years.

As I say the rest of it you pretty much have nailed on the head. The only difference between SOD and DS in regards to the keeper situation is that DS has McKay, a man SOD apparently refused to work with in the past.

One of my better posts? How patronising.

I'm not saying Chambers, Lockwood and Sullivan are bad players (I'll hold back my thoughts on Wilson), but for different reasons, it seemed mad to offer them new deals IMO.

Chambers is undoubtedly a good player at this level, but we knew that he had a long-term injury which would keep him out of most of this season before we offered him a new 1 year deal, so why did we offer him it? Absolute madness. I appreciate that SOD didn't like to be too cut-throat with players and chuck them on the scrap heap if they got an injury, but when you're running a club on such tight finances as we are, sometimes you just have to be.

Sullivan has been a great servant to the club, but if we're being honest, it was probably time to move him on last summer. He'd be great as back-up to a younger #1, but SOD was keen on developing G.Woods as well... So intent he was on keeping both of them, I suspect we couldn't afford a third keeper who would actually be good enough to play.

Lockwood, I agree, is decent back-up, and he has served the club well, but similarly to the 'keeper situation, we ended up with so many \"back-up\" centre halves, I suspect we didn't have any money left to sign a quality one. We started this season with Friend, Martis, Naylor, Locky, Hird, Radford and Bouhenna all on the books for the same position. Plenty of choice, but none of them up to the standard of a Mills/Shackell. If we'd maybe just kept 3 of the above (possibly Martis, Friend and Hird), we might have been able to get someone half decent in to play along side one of them.

[Mr1Croft]

If you think I am patronizing you then this is a lost cause

All I meant was usually you state your opinion and throw in the odd facts and figures, in the post I quoted you actually built on that and went in to more detail to back up your argument.

[pubteam]

If you think I am patronizing you then this is a lost cause

All I meant was usually you state your opinion and throw in the odd facts and figures, in the post I quoted you actually built on that and went in to more detail to back up your argument.

Perhaps you should've gone into more detail and backed up what you meant then, because to me, your opening sentence read a bit like: \"You usually talk utter shite, but you've had a good go there, fair play.\"

[Mr1Croft]

If you think I am patronizing you then this is a lost cause

All I meant was usually you state your opinion and throw in the odd facts and figures, in the post I quoted you actually built on that and went in to more detail to back up your argument.

Perhaps you should've gone into more detail and backed up what you meant then, because to me, your opening sentence read a bit like: \"You usually talk utter shite, but you've had a good go there, fair play.\"

Well I meant it as \"You usually reply with no more than a few sentences which is easier for someone to argue against, but here you have wrote a well thought out and detailed response which doesn't leave much to scrutinize, respect  \".

Right I'm done ass licking for one night...  

[Standanista]

(Duplicate, struggling with Bolivian ISP.)

[Standanista]

Hang on, hang on.  We're all pissed off, and there are plenty of valid arguments pro- and anti-SOD/Deano/Willie/the price of pies at the Keepmoat/BST's dentist/you/me etc etc etc.

Come on, we all follow the same club, we hate it when we're in the shit, but let's at least sit down together for 30 seconds to put some perspective on all this:

There's a badge of pride to be worn having watched Rovers in the Conference, and we've all done it, many at more games than me.

The difference with the Conference era, certainly after the first season, was that with Richardson and Weaver well gone and JR at the helm (thank God), and our club history, and relatively large support, we were one of the bigger fishes in a smaller pool, and - take a season more or a decade - it was nailed on that we would get back in the league.

However, we have had progressive success until we've now, again, reached the point where OUR Doncaster Rovers are once more punching above our weight in a league above the one we have - realistically - the resources and support base to compete in.  Back in the 1980s etc we flirted with Division Three as a Fourth Division club.  We're now doing it in the Championship as a club with L1 resources.  That does represent improvement, by the way, lest we forget.  But, for as long as any of us 40+ has followed 'em, this has represented the greater part of Rovers' league history during the time we've been supporters, at best.   As I said in another thread, relegation as a Donny fan used, alas, to be a all-too-regular rite of passage for all of us when were wee slips of lads and lasses.  \"Young folk of today?  Don't know they're bloody born!\"  We might well go down, and being pissed off and picking the bones out of why it happened is both a fan's right and duty, but let's keep all this in context.

My rallying call: end of the day, remember you're a Donny fan, and playing the underdog/Pub Team/supporter of a team derided by your schoolmates is what makes it all the more special when we hammer Villa 3-0, attract the likes of El-Hadji Diouf and witness Hayter headers at Wembley.

It was never meant to be easy: we've stuck with our local club, culture and tradition, and shunned Man Utd, Liverpool and Barcelona.  And when we DO win the Champions' League, that victory will taste all the sweeter.

Stick together, keep the faith, and you're still allowed to complain, by the way, God knows we've been bad enough the last couple of games.