Bet it's been interesting on here...

Wasn't at Peterbro, but against Burnley it was much the same fare we've been dished up for 18 months. But Burnley were reduced to ten men, were without Austin, and were as bad as us. I saw nothing at all to convince me that we'd improved under Sidekick. I dare someone who went to suggest otherwise.

The formation idea is good. But it was more 532 than 352.

 

Redders has a 50% win ratio in this very division. Flitcroft, 0%....

Redders is being judged harshly as regards the other jobs he's had. You only have to do a bit of reading up on each club and their circumstances at the time to realise this.

I never claimed we should keep Davey for 5 years. I said WHOEVER we choose, we should give em 5 years, so long as they aren't utter gash, like Hillcroft.
And Dyson usually bangs on about that, so it's strange to see him now disagreeing...

 

With all due respect mate, I love how it suits to bring up context and circumstances with Redfearn's record yet it's completely ignored when it comes to Hill.

We should give the manager as long as possible. But I still think we should have given Keith longer considering the drop in wages and money we've had to spend (and the amount of cash he's clawed back from transfers).

 

You cannot beat Wombwellians for getting a straight opinion
The difference between Flicker and Hignett with Redfearn is the latter although nice guys and Ex Barnsley players have not had the experience of managing at this level. Flicker also has not been on his own ,but give the guy a chance if we does well with Leeds. He has been dealing with the players at the club and knows what he has at his disposal. We are not in a position to blame him for Hill. He could have been over ruled and may not have had the choice. He is a 100 percent man and you cannot ask for more. Judge him after Leeds I would think if they had anyone in the applicants who they thought could do the job they would not have approached SOD and Butcher

 

It wasn't completely ignored though, was it. Certainly not by me. I backed him until the 15th of December 2012. So I gave him enough time, considering the results, the team selections, his belly-aching, *other stuff*.. And when backing him, I often used the contextual ****** to do so, as you well know.

I don't think we should have given him longer. I'm now of the belief we should have got rid at the end of last season. He'd clearly lost the plot then. I just couldn't accept it, as I was too proud to see it/believe it.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree mate. 20th October is when it went downhill for me. We were doing better than expected. 2 away wins, 2 home wins, a couple of draws and close defeats to Blackburn and Leeds.

Then we saw Davies injured, Mellis lose form, Perkins is out and it went to pot. He couldn't recover it. He panicked, brought in a couple of loan players that do need time to settle (just look at Tonge at Leeds now...) and it didn't work out. That's life. A combination of bad luck and poor decisions.

But I still believe he'd shown enough in his time here for a little more patience this season. Last season means nothing. We stayed up, broke even. Job done. But he'd lost the fans so understand why we did get rid. I think we might regret it.

 

Redders has had 4 games in charge of the mighty white *****, at this level. Won 2, lost 2. Beats Sidekick if that's the top trumps bit you want to go with?
Redders is also a 100% man.
Just playing your game, mate.

I would never suggest appoint a man based on one game. That's lunacy. And Leeds are ***** and I'd expect us to beat them with myself at the helm, nemind Sidekick.

 

Disagree...

 

Don't be fooled into thinking that Hill forced his will onto Flicker. They were an equal partnership hence Hill making sure Flicker got the same money as him....This was part of the reason he said no to start with

 

How do you know Redstar what they were on and who dictated what. As for Merlin, we've cracked it New manager Merlin and he will shag Leeds on Saturday. Only kidding mate

 

Good post Farnham and I agree with most of that. The only slight thing I'd add is whilst I don't think the board can be blamed for the way they have approached recruitment I think the problems they have faced have been inevitable and entirely foreseeable. Trying to appoint a new manager mid-season in our position is always going to be difficult and lead to either a long period without a manager or short term appointment with no long term plan, which further reduces the pool of candidates. I think they've been very lucky Flitcroft agreed to take the caretaker job because otherwise I don't know what they would have done, probably appointed the first person who turned up at Oakwell for interview.

Obviously agreement witht he above hinges on how good or bad a job you think Hill was doing! If the view is anyone could do better then sacking him without consideration as to who we'd get isn't an issue!

 

To be fair mate you can decide someone should be sacked without meaning you were wrong all along. It just means that you believe the manager's time is up due to a series of different factors that have meant circumstances have changed. For example there was more reasons to sack Hill on the 29th December than there were on the 15th, and there were more reasons to sack him on the 15th then the 20th October.

 

sorry i dont feel Redfearn would get us back in the championship.