Question for Whitey and Dyson

I wonder if Hill is in fact our least successful manager of all time at Championship level. I'm sure some statto will tell us. Of course winning matches might not be as important as having a plan. I got a bit more excited by our run to Wembley under Davey than getting hammered at hone every other week under Hill but then I'm weird that way.

All managers can point to events outside of their control as justifications for failure. I'm sure all our recent managers could outline convincing arguments for their lack of success after all managing Barnsley is a very difficult job in the championship as Hill, rightly pointed out ...

 

I was thinking of when I first started going to Oakwell. I genuinely believed our manager was called Jim Ileyout for a bit. I remember him being universally disliked towards the end yet still he won exactly as many games as he lost. Again in often trying circumstances.

 

Keith Hill
Played 74
Won 19
Drawn 15
Lost 40
Points pre game: 0.97

David Flitcroft
Played 45
Won 14
Drawn 13
Lost 18
Points per game: 1.22

Over a season that's 56 points for Flicker and staying up, 46 points for Hill and relegation.

Don't know what criteria you were using mate, but I can't see how Flicker's record isn't better than Hill's.

 

We as fans have a got a lot better at ridding the club of managers since then.

W93 D68 L93 sorry Jim.

 

If flicker would av managed 74 games, he would have had a -1.23 points per game ratio

 

Faulty crystal ball you`ve got there mate, do you still have the receipt ST.

 

It's his birthday on Sunday shall we and him a really really sorry card for his 78th?

 

Also sorry Norman Hunter we may have been slightly hasty.

Played 175
Won 75
Drawn 48
lost 52

If only he had a plan other than playing attractive football and winning games.

 

And soz mad Mel Machin one of my favourite managers

Played 185
Won 64
Drawn 72
Lost 49

What we were thinking.

 

Aye, am one of the guilty in question. Al sign it.

 

Can't argue with the numbers Jay. Although, using just the numbers would rank John Hendrie and Steve Parkin pretty high I imagine.

But there's more to both men's tenures than purely results.

I'd suggest Flitcroft for a start off benefited from Keith's work. John Stones being a prime example. Had Keith not picked him regularly, Flitcroft wouldn't have then had £3m in the bank of which he spent a fair portion on recruitment this past Summer.

I suppose you can credit Flitcroft with bringing O'Grady to the club. But we all know he was Keith's primary target.

Keith came in at a time when the club were cost cutting, and he pretty much had to build from scratch, a team that could retain our second tier status. As much as I liked Mark Robins, he'd left us with 11 professionals on contracts, such was his reliance on the loan system.

Keith immediately recognised that in Butterfield we had both a player who could make an impact on our on-pitch fortunes, and off-pitch once January came around. He made the lad captain, and built a side around him that after a slow start was at worst comfortable mid table material. Recruiting Perkins, McNulty, Vaz Te, Davies, Wiseman, Done etc. Talk about bravery. But he mixed those unknowns with experience - the likes of Hassell, Steele, Gray and Foster, and approaching the New Year he was rightfully heralded on here as the best manager since Wilson.

Then came the injuries, the departure of pretty much every key player, and it went tits up from then on. Keith I reckon felt let down by the board, and after Don Rowing *allegedly* went to Patrick wanting Hillcroft removed, things went even more tits up. I've heard from folk 'inside' the walls of Oakwell of the warring going on that Summer. Keith was forever looking for an exit route. The start to last season though wasn't at all bad considering this seasons shambles, and that Birmingham result really proved the turning point, the point of no return. As the club started telling the press that 'investors' were interested. The press then suggested Hill would be removed if that happened. Some proper shady goings on at that point. I know that someone sooner or later will go into detail regards that spell. I'll be fascinated to find out how much of what I've heard is true/********. But for now, these people need work so traps are likely to remain shut. Although, as Dyson showed t'other day, the one without employment had his say on a few matters. Nowt to lose has he?

Also at that point, Craig Davies was *allegedly* tapped up/approached/sounded out by other clubs. His form then deteriorated from sublime, to ****. As did our form as a team. Keith by now had lost the plot. He gave Mido game time. Recruited four players at random (or so it looked), and the only win he managed in about 10 games was away at Millwall after having to recall Bobby Hassell. Another story right there waiting to be told. Can't wait for that book.


He deserved to go. I wanted him gone after the Wednesday game. But I do have sympathy. Whenever things seemed to be clicking for him, summat screwed him over. I think he was unlucky at crucial times where a bit of backing may have helped. But whatever folk say regards his record, he 'did' succeed in keeping us up, and even last season before his dismissal, he'd accrued more points than we look likely to achieve this season, by December 28th or whatever it was.


And therein lies my point - Flitcroft was backed to the very hilt at all times and after a great start initially, he contrived to **** it up all by himself, by seemingly dropping everything that had worked for him previously. I seriously believe that had we stuck with him, we'd have been relegated by Easter and probably still shy of 20 points. Yes, it was that bleak. Bleaker than Keith's demise, because he had it all. Everything he asked for. I can only imagine what Keith may have achieved with the same backing.



May I end by just making it clear that all the above is my own opinion.

 

Useless swine.

 

Parkin fairly unsuccessful but a step up from Keef's

Played. 44
Won 12
Drawn 14
Lost 18

Win percentage 27ish.

Maybe we should refuse to employ ex Rochdale managers it's just a thought..,

 

Keith Hill. Never met him. Wouldn't want to. Terrible manager for BFC and a complete ****er. Simple as.

 

Only one key player departed - Vaz Te.

 

I think even gormless Nigel Spackman had a better record than keef

Played 36
Won 11
Drawn7
Lost 18

It's close but just I think as he averages over a point a game.

 

Keith is the only manager in our history whose points per game average is less than 1.

I think we've done Keith's tenure to death. No one is going to change their mind now, whatever evidence either side comes up with. Some of us think he was crap, others think events conspired against him. We all pretty much decided which camp we were in over a year ago. I don't know what anyone hopes to achieve with threads like this, do we hope to bash the likes of Dyson and ark in to submission? If we keep telling them Keith was crap over and over again do we hope they'll eventually concede the point? I doubt it, I think they'll become more resolute. I would. I don't agree that Keith was a good manager with us, but I don't mind that some people do and that they're fighting his corner. I don't like Keith, but he was a Barnsley manager, so part of me is happy that some people continue to stick up for him.

 

As with most things - truth lies between 2 points of view - the truth behind the 'reasons' for his poor ppg record that is.

Combination of factors imho, although I'm well aware it's black and white on here, you're either ******* **** or the best thing ever.

 

Danny Drinkwater? And later, Jacob Butterfield? As well as injuries to JOB, Perkins and Steele.
Imagine us losing Butland, Pedersen, Mellis, Perkins, Paddy and COG now. And no funds to replace them. Or funds that get you a lad from Orient, a lad from Exeter and a free agent.