these are for league games only including flickers caretaker role PLD W D L F A 27 10 8 9 39 45 Under flicker we have amassed 38pts out of a possible 81 at an average of 1.44 ppg which if carried out over a full season would get 66.24 pts We have kept 7 cleans sheets in this time and only failed to score in 5 We have scored 3 or more goals in just 2 games while conceding 3 or more on 6 occasions Those 6 games have cost us 26 goals the other 21 costing just 19 goals We have scored 7 goals in the 80+ minute period gaining us 5pts (all last season) We conceded 9 goals in the same period costing us 7 points (5 goals, 5 points last season, 4 goals, 2 points this season) Some may say I have excluded cup games because of the 5 citeh and Southampton racked up against us, but we have also amassed more wins than defeats so swings and roundabouts Thankyou for reading my pointless excersise (if you bothered) and soz if I wasted your time
Dun't include cup games But see you didn't in your stats either. Whatever the stats are, it needs to improve sharpish.
I don't think it's pointless, it shows he's done well. Easy to forget that when we're languishing in the bottom 3, but we shouldn't judge him on the bad run we're in at present, but his tenure as a whole. Just hope he starts to pick a settled side and adopts a formation a little less barmy than the one on Saturday.
That would depend On how prone the powers that be at the club are to impatience, panic attacks and knee jerk reactions towards a manager who was only appointed full time in May and has been able to operate in just one transfer window.
Re: That would depend and there is the voice of an old git who comes from a time where a manager's tenure was measured in seasons not weeks. Well said Kev and I agree wholeheartedly ! (from another old git)
Re: That would depend Agree entirely. However, he needs to start picking up points, especially considering the backing and assurances he's had from our new board.
A lot longer than this I hope. See where we are at Christmas and even then, unless we're cast adrift at the foot of the table and in a similar mess to when Hill left us, he should keep his job. Personally, I don't think we will be. Don't agree with a few things he's done, but me not agreeing is definitely not the same as wanting him sacked. I'd be appalled if the powers that be at Oakwell are even considering such a course of action. Keep going Flicker. I might talk ******** on here, but it doesn't mean I don't support the team, it doesn't mean I don't want you to do well, and it doesn't mean I don't think you can do well. Still think you'll be a very good manager for us in both the short and long term.
I've seen nothing To make me think the manager & players aren't capable of picking up those points. However, if we're starting to issues threats after a mere six games into his tenure then he shouldn't have been appointed manager in the first place.
Re: That would depend But is the backing any greater? We don't know anything until the accounts come out. My understanding is we are still operating to break even. Some or all of the Stones money is clearly being used but that's money we've generated. Added to which the last of the big contracts signed under the old regime have now finished allowing more leeway. I don't know if any of the above is the case but no one has said break even has been abandoned to my knowledge, just that we are trying to run ourselves more professionally and commercially. Which would still point to us having one of the lowest budgets in the league. Happy to be proven wrong. Of course I might not agree with how some of that money is being spent
Re: That would depend I see your point, however, it seems Flitcroft has been given much more scope to bring in players of a different quality than any manager since Davey. He's also been able to control the background, having his recommendations and assurances met by the owner. We will always have a small budget but my point is I imagine Flitcroft's has increased considering our incomes over the last 12 months/2 years. Considering the work he did with Keith to generate that he definitely deserves it, though.
Re: That would depend Not sure that's true over Robins. Certainly more so than Keith, but then how much where Hill's hand's tied by the contracts dished out to the likes of Lovre and McEverley which Flicker isn't now constrained by? To be honest I think what Flicker has asked for are changes that are likely to benefit the club in the long term - improved commerciality, offering longer contracts, not letting contracts run down, and certainly not flogging our best players in January. I'm not sure the off field improvements can be used to beat Flicker in the short term (not saying you are doing this).
