You all know I like Keith Hill.

Dagnall was quality all season. Hill repeatedly tried to sign O'Grady.

 

He was struggling in Keith's last few weeks. Remember some awful misses. Looked drained of confidence, like Wiseman.

 

But Flitcroft signed him and played him as a striker.

 

After he'd played him wide left...

 

I agree with all that. I would just add that Keith was very unlucky. The previous season, he was unlucky that he lost the whole of his midfield at Christmas. This season, we all know that he wanted COG , but it was during Flitcroft's reign that Wednesday finally agreed to it, and COG was instrumental in Flitcroft's success along with Scotland. However, his success with Vaz Te made him over-confident and the Mido fiasco was a bad error.

Overall, it was the club policy on pay structure which resulted in the need for Keith Hill to take huge risks in order to put together a team within the allowed budget. When any manager has to take so many risks, it is inevitable that he will get it wrong now and again. Knowing this, the club should stand behind its managers through the bad times. The fact that Rowing distanced himself from the mistakes that the manager made, he though he had to be aware of the reasons has left me with a bad taste, and I would suggest that it is also the reason that Flitcroft is now seeking to make sure that the same does not happen to him. Personally, I think that the club should think about replacing Don Rowing rather than keep replacing managers. That job requires someone who is prepared to face the consequences of their policy rather than hide behind successive managers.

 

I've never wavered in my belief that the club usn't well run.

Sorry, correction, it is well run just not well directed.

 

Well said Dyson...............It is the responsibility of the then manager Keef to bring players to the club
Its the responsibility of the coaching staff and the manager to get them playing as a team

Keef did a great job bringing these players in
Flicker has done a great job getting those players working as a team........PLUS.........the players flicker has brought in have also been good uns, COG and Scotland

I'm really glad (now, cos I wernt at first) that Flicker has got the job.............but I would be even more pleased if Keef was working in the background with him ...........then again he might still be

 

This

 

I think rather than footballing issues, it comes down to strength of character.

Keith was a big, bouncy character - straight talking in an abstract sort of way. People took to him for this, particularly after the uninspiring, monosyllabic mumblings of Robins. He had a tough hand dealt with the January player sale, but he didn't ride it very well. Turned on the fans and divided the dressing room, while stubbornly repeating his mantra and obviously caving in under the pressure.

Flitcroft stood by and watched all this, but couldn't do much about it. Given his chance he demonstrated he had strengths Keith clearly didn't. "Putting out fires" and installing a self belief in the team that they were more than an Aldi's 2nd XI. And he got the supporters on his side, with what he did on the pitch and said off it. The players and fans became closer and apart from a little loss of composure around the time of Man City and Bristol, he held it together and noticeably strengthened for the run in taking us all up with him and the players.

Now we are safe, I would expect folk to look at it more rationally. Flicker's success highlights what Keith got wrong and why. But you can also see what might have been for Keith too, had he been up to it.

 

Don Rowing #FallGuy

 

Pretty certain Keith would have been in charge of recruitment. He'd talk it over with Flicker, just like Flicker will talk over with his staff, but I'm absolutely positive Keith would have had the final say. That's the case with all managers, but it's even more so with Keith who has such a strong personality.

I don't like Keith Hill. As a bloke, I really don't like him. I like him a hell of a lot less than I ever let on during his tenure because I didn't want to be constantly slagging off our manager. I can't remember ever taking exception to anyone who has either managed or played for Barnsley before, to anywhere near the level I have taken exception to Keith Hill.

I don't rate him as a manager either. I thought his team selections and tactics were abysmal. The worst I've ever seen from a Barnsley manager, which is reflected in the fact that his points per game is the lowest of any Barnsley manager in our history.

But his recruitment? That's a totally different kettle of fish. He had next to nowt to spend, but did remarkably well with what he'd got. He made a couple of bad signings, but on the whole he got it right. He had no idea how to use the players he'd signed like, but he got them in to the club, he didn't break the bank and I have no doubt that the players were his choices.

 

I think that sums it up nicely.

The players he signed weren't Championship quality players when they joined. They are now. I think that is a compliment to him and Flitcroft.

 

Flitcroft was unlucky that he lost Davies and Stones. Difference is he didn't moan about it forever and a day. He just got on with the job. Hill may have put together a team on a budget but Flicker took an inferior squad and showed Hill for the useless clown he is. I agree that the club should not have distanced themselves from Hill but they really should have sacked him a lot sooner than they did.

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

Useless and arrogant - not a winning combination.

 

I would say losing Davies (aka mugging Bolton) was a massive stroke of luck.

 

Agree.

 

And so to finish the thread.......

Hill was crap

FLICKER IS GOD

That's my view anyway.

 

Thought you were going to stop moaning about Hill if we stayed up.

 

See you just can't leave it alone. The devil has your soul !