Anyone see Hill's view on Saturday's game?

Keith's making sure that he puts out to his team's fans that there's a reason for his team losing other than looking close to home or being outplayed. Nigel Pearson's another that does it.

 

I think I'd do the same. Let's face it, unless you manage Chelsea or Man City, you end up losing as many games as you win. If you came out and admitted you and your team are inadequate every second week you wouldn't last a month in the job. You've got to find excuses otherwise you're an easy target.

Nowt wrong with Keith's interview really, I've heard a lot worse from many managers, but that first observation isn't benign, it's full of venom.

Doesn't look like he can bring himself to say the word 'Barnsley'. Maybe he did in the full interview, but he hasn't in that edited piece. Sometimes, it's what you don't say that really gives you away.

 

He'll be as mad as his arse that they lost to us. That's enough for me.

 

And me.

 

Hill's interview is exactly what makes him the pillock that he is.......99% is valid and fair point......then he slots a line in, which is always designed to be derogatory or to suit his mood and offend others.

I've got thick skin, so it doesn't really bother me, but I can see where others are coming from.

 

Of course I can see that. But to wrongly quote one sentence, to make it sound worse than it was, in an interview that was on the whole complimentary of our manage, is in my opinion an attempt to stir up more hatred towards Keith Hill.

 

Probably, but so what? Thankfully, he's nothing to do with us any more. Barnsley fans are allowed to 'hate' players and managers from other clubs. It's good to have villains in football as well as heroes. Keith Hill has become a villain to us. He knows it and he plays up to it which is why he comes out with stuff like that comment. But people don't really hate him. Not properly. No one is going over to Rochdale (or wherever he lives) to kick **** out of him or make his life a misery. He's a pantomime villain, not a rapist. If he's managing in the same league as we play we go over once a year, sing stupid songs to him, hopefully celebrate a victory, then come home. In turn he has a bit of a dig in his interview. Tit for tat. But we're allowed then to post about his interview on a forum, to keep the rivalry going, to have a dig back. Stirring it up is probably a good thing.

I wouldn't have gone on Saturday if it wasn't for Keith Hill. His presence spiced up the fixture. I had a good day out, Rochdale AFC got £20 out of me, the local boozers got a hell of a lot more, one team won a game, another lost, but no one was hurt. In fact, lots of people had a very good time.

I want more rivalries stirred up, not less.

 

Was a decent bar The Ratcliffe. Wish we had something similar at Oakwell.

 

Very honest report to be honest

We did park the bus and only created chances on the counter attack

 

I watched the full interview. He never mentions 'Barnsley'. It's 'they', instead. The girl interviewing him (Leighanne.. nice lass to be fair) mentions Barnsley in her questions so there probably isn't a need for him to say our name.

He later refers to Jamie Allen as the best young midfielder he's worked with, says he's the closest we've had to another Paul Scholes. Reckons he should be in the England under 21's or whatever. And Scott Tanser, the left back who had a nightmare against Devante. Says them not getting call ups is political.

He then goes on to warn the Dale fans not to start moaning when the defenders have the ball "in negative areas... because they're not negative areas.." Also suggests it was the players decision to go long/direct and that they're not good at it. Funny that, because I saw Keith stick Andrew on right next to Vincenti which forced them to go long, even more than they'd been doing prior to the sub.


He was outfoxed, out-thought by his opposing manager. No shame in that. It was Danny Wilson in the opposing dugout.

 

Not seen the interview, only the text version, but if they are going too long then he should have bloody told them. The fans thing I can't work out either, most of us know how we play and don't mind defenders having the ball; the problem on Saturday was that Allen was the only out ball centrally. A very small amount of fans moan to "go forward" but they've always done that, they get ignored so can't see why it's an issue now. Much has been made about how the supporters are educated to the way we want to play, but as I've said I've not heard the interview so maybe this is something and nothing.

Tanser had his worst game of the season on Saturday but he's been very good so far, one of our best players. Maybe needs a rest now as nobody expected him to play every week. He needs to do it for a few months yet to be talked about in anywhere near the terms that Allen is. But yeah, Allen could play for the 21s tomorrow and fit in effortlessly, he's that at ease with whatever game he plays in.

Its all about Allen getting an opportunity, maybe his size or Dale background will count against him, but stick him in any team in the country and he wouldn't look out of his depth. I've never seen a player look so comfortable, even in games when we're getting well beaten he carries on relentlessly.

 

He's very good at receiving the ball in any areas, passing it quickly, great technique, good little engine. Would think his lack of shooting and stature holds him back a bit. I'd love him in our side alongside Hourihane and Berry. I think Tanser looks decent going forward, but he was on toast defensively. However, when Cole's playing like that I doubt many full backs would cope.

Keith wasn't suggesting you were moaning. He said 'before you start' or summat. Was basically doing his usual, trying to educate. He's a wally for it. He did the same with us regards the budget. Kept on 'educating' us. Or, in other words, kept repeating the same 'we've no money' line after every defeat, forever pointing out how great the opposition were, how much they'd spent, etc etc. If he has ambition to reach the top, he might want to stop talking so much. He can be funny and good at it, in victory. But in defeat his true colours are shown. Same with Flicker. Slightest bit of pressure and criticism and they both get angry, defensive and find a handful of random excuses.

Just watched the game back on Player, and I think I was harsh on us in my report. We were better than I'd first imagined. In fact, only Keith Hill can watch that game back (as he says he has) and think we parked the bus. You created nothing second half. One or two balls fell kindly, that was that. Whereas we created numerous opportunities.

Ah well, sithi in May.

 

Last time I mention hill I was told to let it go!!

 

It still goes on though doesn`t it! People keep going on about him and therefore I have to keep saying why they shouldn`t. I dont start these threads !

See you got off lightly !

 

Its called being damned by faint praise, by the king of passive agressive.

 

In reply to the OP. I don't gives a rats arse what Keith Hill thinks.

They weren't good enough to beat us on the day. End of. Although I was convinced they would.

He maybe ought to watch the Hull away game where we played 4-6-0 with 3 strikers on the bench (when he was in charge) as a definition of "parking the bus." Didn't we lose that day?

 

Or the away defeat at Coventry. He parked two buses that day.

 

I'm not commenting on him, honest

There still seems a lot of interest around a topic that I have t agree should should be left in the past