The fact of the matter is, we aren't consistent enough and we aren't good enough to be able to mount a serious assault on the top 10 of the Championship. I've said it, time and time again, we are (sadly) a club caught up in a vicious cycle. We are a stepping stone club for players to come, have 6-12 months, then move on for peanuts and it's only going to continue. Every manager that comes in is going to have fight, tooth and nail to bring in the best players he possibly can, on a shoestring budget and just try to get the best out of them. People keep saying that we are in a 'transistional phase'. If that's so, then we've been transistioning for the past 12 years, and, like I said - it's only going to continue. We could be in a far worse situation however, and for that, we should be thankful. I'm not pointing the blame at anyone down at Oakwell. The managerial team, from Patrick Cryne to Keith Hill will no doubt be doing their hardest to get this club firing on all cylinders, and to some extent, staying afloat in a footballing world full of circling sharks. Football is not a sport anymore, it's simply a business and in some cases, a toy for rich financiers and magnates from way out East. We all want to believe that this club. This fine, fine club of ours will once again find ourselves rubbing shoulders with the Premiership giants, but I fail to see that ever happening. We don't have the finances and we don't have the resolve. We simply don't. I'd like to believe that a great footballing side could be put together on monkey-nuts. Bonded and gelled, and played great football through the league season, and maybe it could - but not at Oakwell, not anytime soon. Players don't want to stay at Barnsley and just accept mediocrity. They want to move on and try and do something with their careers - this mentality frightens me. Is it greed on their behalf? Is it lack of ambition on ours? It's simply season after season of inconsistency. A good performance followed by a terrible one. A win against a promotion chaser followed by a dismal defeat against a relegation candidate, and consequently we will find ourselves, time and time again, just staying afloat. To some, maybe this is good enough; others, not so. Maybe it's just a realistic sign of the times? At the minute, we have a cobbled together team of players from all walks of football and only through time, and patience will we ever hope to see the best out of them. The defence, I believe is one of the weakest I've seen in a long time. The two best defenders we have (IMO) are Bobby Hassell and Steve Foster, and even they are beginning to falter. We are thus left with the likes of Scott Wiseman and Jim McNulty, who are woefully poor at defending, and look resoundingly better going forward. Time and time again, we are exposed at the back, and more times than not this season, have required Luke Steele to bail us out. We are left to pick at loan players and feed from the scraps of other teams in order to keep our heads above water for another season, and I can't see an end to it. I can't see an end to the vicious cycle and a time when a manager can come in, build a team that he wants and believes in, and keep that team solid and stable for 24-48 months. That is how a good team is built. By constantly moving players on, the foundations are constantly crumbling and the resurrection process has to begin again. Stability on the pitch can not be achieved this way, and can in my honest opinion, only lead to consistent inconsistency. Maybe I was a little harsh in saying we aren't good enough, because time and time again, against good teams, we have proved that we are. However, like the infinite monkey theorem - maybe it's just us finally hitting Shakespeare every now and then? More often than not however, it's more like primary school poetry.
Summed it up well there Poet. Question is; is it enough to keep you attending / buying a ST? Me, not so sure, might give the ST a miss next season.
Why is it? We aren't consistently losing. If we'd have lost 8 in a row, then yeah, I'd agree with you.
I didn't buy a season ticket this year, partly because I'd lost some interest, but mainly because I had other financial priorities. I missed going to the games, but not as much as I thought I would (first time I'd not had a season ticket in 15 years). I was bought an half season ticket for Christmas, and I have enjoyed going to the matches, but it is quite an investment - of money and time, and I will be taking great thought between now and then end of close season before I make my decision on taking the leap of faith.
I know what you're saying. I don't believe we're consistently bad though, even if the statistics may suggest we are. I do however feel we've been inconsistent for the majority of the season upto now, and have been an inconsistent team for the past God-knows how many campaigns - our final positioning should confirm this. Midtable mediocrity once again mate.
This is the part that worries me the most. Vaz Te disappeared at the first possible opportunity, Butterfield may well have done as well, though it's all conjecture. It seems like from now on every half-decent looking side we manage to build will be broken up before the season has even finished, which is absolutely insane. I genuinely believe that Keith Hill is capable of building a side that could challenge for the play-offs, even with a reduced budget. However, if any player who shows any promise just fecks off at the first sign of a bigger pay-packet, we really don't stand much of a chance.
The only chnace we have is if Keef gets his "layering" in place. That will take time and some of the backup players we have aren't up to it.
Vast majority of teams are inconsistent There's 3 or 4 at the bottom who are crap most weeks. They go down. Two or three at the top are good most weeks. They go up. The rest of us are inconsistent. We'll not cure that by having a settled squad over 3 or 4 seasons like you suggest. We'll make 5 or 6 signings one summer who will all instantly click and we'll go up. Or we'll make 5 or 6 signings one summer who will all completely fail and we'll go down. Or Keith Hill will leave and the next manager we get will realise that the squad we've got is a total load of **** and it was just Keith Hill's motivation that kept us up and then we'll go down.
Re: Vast majority of teams are inconsistent agree jay we never seem to field the sane side 2 games in a row
Re: Vast majority of teams are inconsistent I'm with you with the latter, as I honestly believe that could happen - although it's not very often. It happened with us when Danny Wilson hit the jackpot with his team back in 96, but over the years, you can't look further than solid, stable progression within a team that is built up and allowed to flourish for two to three seasons, if not longer. It stands to reason that a team given time to gel and find each others strengths and weaknesses, will fair better more times than not, than a team thrown together and expected to get on with it. You say we'll not cure the inconsistency factor by allowing a manager a good length of time to build his team, but I can't agree with that. It's a proven formula (more times than not) for success, however, it's something that we're not going to see happen - not just us, but at many league teams in the football world today. I suppose we're just going to have to hope that, like you say, we'll bring in 5 or 6 signings and it all just clicks together. However, who's to say that in the footballing climate today, a team that has just clicked and has various levels of talent on display won't be disbanded by the circling sharks come January - which is fast becoming a common theme. There's that vicious cycle I was talking about again.
Enjoying some of the actual football, but all the other ***** that goes with it leaves me a bit disillusioned. Everything seems so transient these days, nothing to identify with.
