As most of the BBS already knows, I am against sacking managers. It does not work unless it can be clearly shown that the manager is incompetent, as was clearly not the case in most, if not all, of our sackings in the last 10 years. As I have said before, it is the way that football clubs try to shed the outer veneer of failure. They blame all of the clubs failings on the old manager, and the fans fall for it time after time. Don Rowing was a past master at the process, and it allowed him and his administration to avoid being tainted by the club’s failure to deliver success on the field during his tenure. Having said all that, the record of the present manager would have been more than enough to earn him his P45 in any of the last 10 years. So what has changed? The key to answering that question lies in the appointment of LJ. Ben Mansford looked distinctly uncomfortable when he was challenged about the sacking of Danny Wilson. He looked no more comfortable when trying to explain why the new man’s job title was Chief Coach, instead of the more traditional title of manager. It has never been adequately explained since. Mr Cryne said that LJ would be his last appointment, another cryptic clue that something was afoot. Although there has been no attempt to defend LJ’s record or to place themselves into the firing line, such defences are often seen as a poison chalice, which gives a board time to find the next man. So no inferences can be drawn in the absence of any board statement. It appears on the surface that the board and management are united behind the new principles of management as outlined on LJ’s appointment, the signing young players with a sell on potential. There appears to be a new principle of joint and several responsibility within the walls of Oakwell, and given that this is something that I have called for in the past, I am pleased to see that it is holding through this, the sternest of tests. Given that the signs seem to indicate that there has been a re-allocation of responsibilities within the new structure, and given the reluctance of the board to explain what the individual responsibilities of the management team are, we supporters are left to infer what we can by performing an autopsy on outcomes. There is no doubt in my mind that the source of our current problems goes back to the failure of our summer recruitment program that left us having to top up our playing staff with loan players. The questions is, what went wrong and why did we fail to recruit the players that we wanted. Of course none of us really knows, but the pattern of loan player recruitment convinces me that we always planned to have another go in the January window. It also suggests to me that LJ knew at the outset that we had problems, that he told the rest of the board about his concerns and that they have all been towing the party line until such time as they can fix the problem. This in turn suggests to me that LJ has at least one more transfer window, and that by hook or by crook, LJ will get his men in that window. Another clue surrounds the recruitment of Michael Smith. We know that Smith wants to move closer to his family in the north east, and we know that a fee was agreed with Swindon for his permanent transfer. In spite of this, the deal when it was done was for a loan. In my view, this smells like a compromise. It smells like the manager was not keen, but that the rest of the transfer committee wanted Smith. It smells like the manager was asked to try him for 4 months. If I am right, and this is evidence that the manager does not control outright our transfer policy, it is another explanation of why there is more of a sense of joint a joint and several responsibility, and a reason why they are sticking with LJ, when others would have gone. It is also an explanation for Danny Wilson’s departure, because Danny would not have tolerated any interference in transfers from above. This is a conspiracy theory that ticks all the boxes, and I am sure there will be others. All I would say is that something has gone off behind closed doors to bring about a massive change of policy from our board.
I think this theory makes sense Red Rain. Although I don't know where it leaves us because if Ben and/or the board are making the selections then you wouldn't trust them to pick their nose. On the other hand, with a very few exceptions, Hill, Flicker and even Danny have bought more turkeys than Bernard Matthews. While they piddle about up to another window we are likely to be adrift at the foot if the table. What was it Oliver Cromwell said? "Gentlemen..........."
Good post sir, well formulated and a good read. However, there is a lot of supposition and circumstantial holding the theory together. You may be right, you may be wrong but either way 8LJ IS incompetent.
Its food for thought. Makes sense. Of course it could be totally wrong. Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald and the magic bullet theory are the in fact the real reason JFK was killed and the CIA had nothing to do with it!
Very good explanation and one I tend to agree with. Why would LJ ,want to bring back past players if he was building his own team ? He wouldn't is the answer ,although whoever had the brainwave that this formula could reignite the fans and club were proved nearly correct. The return of Hammill has certainly motivated some fans and the team now really does have a flair player capable of turning the match around ,so well done who ever thought this regime would work ,Hugo I can't wait for your return also and if by some magical way we could introduce Chris o Grady on loan back up front instead of Smith ........ Back to the post,LJ is going nowhere because it's not his team , scowen ,hourihane ,Davis,nyatanga ,Winall, Ryan Williams , Ben Pearson ,etc they are all Danny's players ,LJ just coaches them in my opinion ,the team I believe is put together via different mechanics. The team to be honest is nearly there,tactically is where LJ has failed ,wrong formations ,wrong team selection from availables ,but this is far from just his doing ....change is needed throughout for continued success I feel but as we can't see round the corner we have no idea what the wind will blow in so for now we are having to succumb to the hope that the current coach can use the available armoury and get us somehow out of this very deep hole
The flat back 5 against Walsall for one. With 2 defensive midfielders in front it meant we were left with just 3 attacking players. No wonder we never had a shot.
I have made the point for almost all the season that we are short of players for every formation that could be mentioned. For example, we played 4-4-2 yesterday, but in order to play that formation you need two decent wingers, and you need two central midfield players who can hold their own, possibly against an opposition that is fielding three. If you cannot hold your own, you have less ball possession and your two forwards are wasted because they see less of the ball. Yesterday, we dominated possession of the ball, and it is easy to conclude that the same would have happened in all the other games, but that is simply not a conclusion that can be made. Adam Hammill has greatly increase our threat on the left side. He has given us a different dimension. I have always maintained that Hourihane could not play in a two in central midfield. and yet he did so very successfully yesterday. Nevertheless, LJ said in his after the match interview that they had worked hard in training to increase Hourihane's understanding of the position and it showed. He also said that Pearson has had to work hard in training to understand the position because he has never played in a four at Manchester United. The problem is that LJ is being accused of tactical naivety by fans, who are themselves tactically naïve.
It's almost like he has too much tactical knowledge and then tries to apply it to a pub league...where non of the classroom power point presentations work practically. It appears his sum is greater than his parts as he constantly fields formations that do work...nor do the physics of his staff on the pitch.
