Lee Johnson time at Barnsley (SAFC Supporter here)

I an equally as convinced as you are that Lee Johnson had found the players and a balance that worked before he left. There is no doubt that Paul Heckingbottom deserves a huge amount of credit for our promotion, but as I have said, no manager has a magic wand. Even SAF was within a game of being sacked at the start of his career with Manchester United because it took him time to find the right balance. You are expecting me to believe that Hecky took over with the side in turmoil and immediately extended our unbeaten run, and that there were no foundations in place that allowed him to do so. Hecky must indeed be the magic fairy.

My level of understanding has nothing to do with this discussion as neither of us is quoting anything that is particularly difficult to comprehend. We are not debating the level of our sporting knowledge, we are debating the level of our patience. I am willing to give a manager time. You want instant results. That is the Johnson argument in a nutshell, and if you remember the start of this thread, my advice to the Sunderland lad who fancied sacking David Moyes was the same. Be patient.

 

That is a description of our current playing strategy. That strategy document has survived the change in management and it continues under Hecky. It describes 4-4-2. It describes how we won promotion. What do you want me to do here? Deny the basis for the system of play that got us promoted.

You say that in spite of the presentation, Johnson was actually a devotee of a different system. That is nonsense. He was a manager struggling with the practicalities of making a team. And those practicalities are that you cannot find the right balance with the players that you have at your disposal. The big issues were that we did not have wide players of sufficient quality and Hourihane kept getting trapped up field when we were attacking, which meant that there was not enough cover for the central defenders on the counter. He tried a midfield 5 in order to take away some of the defensive responsibility from Hourihane so that it was not as much of a problem that Hourihane was not getting back quickly, but the tactic failed because Winnall could not play up front on his own. The coaching team worked with Hourihane to improve him defensively. It meant that he did not score as many goals in open play, but it improved us as a team because it improved us defensively.

To be honest, we went through all this at the time and I am just rehashing old arguments that are of no consequence any longer. Johnson is happily ensconced at Bristol City and their fans seem quite happy with him. He is gone, and no end of haggling will bring any peace to proceedings, so let us just allow sleeping dogs to lie and support our team on Saturday.

 

Wasn't a fan of Johnson. I've said it before & I'll say it again he's an incredibly lucky manager. He couldn't have taken over at Barnsley at a better time. We had a talented squad but from the fall out of relegation & a lot of injuries we were pretty inconsistent. He took over just as we'd got a full strength side for virtually the first time that season, Winnall had just come back from a lengthy injury as had Cranie, Bree & Ramage & we'd just had a difficult run of games including Swindon & MK Dons which ended in unsurprising defeats.

He took over a fully fit squad with an easier run of games & managed to get 6 wins back to back, Oldham in particular was a great away day.

He then started messing about with the team & using the negative tactics which killed our momentum. Our main striker, Winnall was played on the left wing & we had little attacking intent in the side & stumbled towards the end of the season blowing a great chance of the play offs.

We carried on the next season in the same way, 4-5-1, central midfielders on the wings, no overlapping. It was the worst football I've seen since I started supporting the club (95 onwards). I wouldn't have wanted him sacked if it was just results, I wanted him sacked because the football was awful. He constantly told us our best player Hourihane couldn't play in a central midfield 2 yet most of us had seen him do it & knew he could & this was his justification for only ever playing one striker.

Anyhow, we signed Adam Hammill, went 4-4-2, outplayed & beat a few sides & somehow Johnson got headhunted by a championship club. Good move for us really, compensation for a manager most of us didn't rate. It all happened quickly & it's hard to know how much credit Johnson deserved as we clearly had a very talented team that he'd not been getting the best out of.

I'm not sure what sort of football Johnson plays now, I'm guessing it's a lot better than he had us playing as he seems to be doing well at Bristol.

On a personal level I've met him & he's friendly enough, I just couldn't stand the football he played.

If you were looking to pick up a young talented manager I'd be hoping for Gary Rowett of Birmingham.

 

You genuinely think we have 'easily strengthened our defence'? Because that the one area I believe we have gone down the gutter from the end of last season. Mawson is a HUGE loss and I cant remember us missing a player as much since Hignett went.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not the draw that counts !!

 

Mawson is a decent footballer and did well for us , but we're now playing at a higher level , and although it hasn't been perfect , overall the lads have done pretty well....Williams looks a bigger loss than Mawson particularly in view of Adey White's injuries .

 

Mawson was head and shoulders our best centre back and he's light years ahead of MacDonald. He's a huge loss, not just defensively but going forward. We always now seem to punt it long, only for it to come straight back at us 9 times out of ten. Ok he gave the ball away sometimes but he was also a lot better on the ball than any of our current cb's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Simple Definition of philosophy
: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
: a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Requote one part.
a set of ideas about how to do something

It says set of ideas. How to do something.

The presentation clearly emblazes the word philosophy. So I'm not sure what your wanting anyone to say because it doesn't agree with what you are wanting to hear.

But we'll done. You have beat me to what I was leading up to.

It describes 442. And 442 is one of very few formations likely to carry it out. Something which LJ let's be honest didn't want to play.

I can understand what the diagram intends.

It's no fluke that hecky brought the team to basics using that same philosophy (sorry playing description) and we ripped the league apart.

LJ simply pissed about too much without the players at his disposal. So you could argue he didn't have the foresight to play a longer strategy and tried too much too soon. Ie why we were rooted and hit rock bottom.

And correct me if I'm wrong. But your entire posts over recent weeks are advocating any formation but that very 442 system we do play.

 

For once you're right.

 

Come on RR it states philosophy quite clearly. Hands up time.

 

Conor Wilkinson.

Enough said.

 

So you do you want an argument based on semantics or do you want to talk football?

Oxford English dictionary definition:

Semantics:

The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

As I have said on many previous occasions, I am not so much concerned with sticking with any predefined formula of how to play the game. I am concerned with what I see on the field of play. I am concerned with the strengths and weaknesses of the individual players in our team. I am concerned with what the opposition did that hurt us, and how we might have combatted their system. That means that I am not wedded to any particular system. It means that I do not think that any system or method of play is better or worse than any other. It means that the system that we use should suit the particular attributes of the players who are expected to turn out for us on any particular Saturday. The weakness of my argument might be that most of our players were brought in to play 4-4-2, and logically they are therefore most suited to that system, but I have accepted that weakness in my argument in other threads and on other occasions.

Having said that, I am biased in favour of my team having at least 50% of possession. I do not like watching the opposition have the ball for long periods. When we do not have the ball, in the simplest terms, it means that we cannot score but the opposition can. If you like, this is a basic principle of how I look at and analyse the game. Of course, I do not want to see the ball passed across the line of the back four simply in order to retain possession, but in contrast, I would rather see us build from the back than hit aimless balls in the general direction of the front two, handing possession back to the opposition. There is a balance to be struck between defence and attack. A team that commits too many players forward is vulnerable on the counter attack. For periods in the game, my team will be without the ball, and I want to see the back 8 or 9 organised to prevent the opposition scoring in those circumstances. Even when you play a pressing game, you cannot do that for very long. Ultimately, whatever system you play, you are looking to get the best from your limited resources, because unless your team is Manchester United, your resources will be limited.

Many posters refer to 4-4-2 as if it were some magic system, the only system that allows for entertaining football. But that is not so, is it. Danny Wilson's promotion team played football that had the fans comparing us to Brazil, but his system was 3-5-2. The system was adopted during Viv Anderson's time and was the result of a problem with our central defence. He stumbled upon the system, but found a wonderful wing back in Nicky Eaden in the process. Danny Wilson ran with the system when he took over, first as player manager and then as manager and Danny Wilson took the full credit for developing that system into the one that got us promoted to the Premier League. At the start, the system suited the available players, but when it proved successful it became established and the club looked for players who could play the system. We achieved promotion to the Premier League, and it was soon obvious that the system had its limitations. Our opponents used the space behind the wing backs and the system was reluctantly fazed out in favour of 4-4-2 and sometimes 4-5-1. Danny Wilson got away with it because in the minds of the fans, he had earned the right to do what he thought was right for the team. I have told this little story in order to illustrate my point about not being wedded to any system. Equally, I could have referred to 4-5-1, finding reasons why that system can be entertaining. The club has always changed the way it plays football depending upon the players it has. At the end of the day, the type and quality of the players dictate the system, and the team is more important than any one player or any one system.

In most of the games that I have seen, and I only attend home games so my comments refer only to those, we have had less than 50% share of the ball, even in some of the games that we have won. In many of those games, we have lost the important central midfield battle and that has been the reason that we have struggled to achieve 50% possession. Furthermore, our wide players have not dominated their full backs in the way that they did in the second half of last season. Finally, the pressing game has not worked as well against the better and quicker players that are found in this league. In short, the 4-4-2 system has not worked as well against the higher quality and the 4-5-1 most often encountered in this league. It is not unlike Danny Wilson's experience of moving from Championship to Premier League when he found the system that served him well in the league below, failed him in the Premier League.

 

Conor Wilkinson.

Enough said.

 

Did you watch us under Bobby Collins?

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

I did. He brought Gwyn Thomas and Paul Futcher to the club I think.

 

And an unbeaten run which included a lot of draws.

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

It's all pretty much pot luck.

 

Aye, light years ahead of Angus is Mawson.

 

Statistics don't give a full and true reflection, admittedly. But it's still nice to see.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Alfie as a player, but he played in L1 last year and made **** loads of mistakes. Angus has stepped up three divisions and is the name on every scouts lips. So whether he's better or worse than Alfie will always be up for debate. But absolutely no chance is one light years ahead of the other. That is mental talk.

Here's the top ten Championship players (statistically) away from home this season so far...


View attachment 4392

 

Comparing a Danny Wilson side that adapted it's shape because we were getting hammered every week to our current team that is more than holding its own in the championship seems a bit of a stretch.