I feel Danny's business is probably all done.

If he's a plater who's the platers mate, and if he's a good plater does he do it from front to back or from the back to front

 

Have you seen his video on t'internet he's more all over it as they say.

 

Thought you meant he was a creative type, a `put it on a plate' kind of footballer.

 

I tend not to reply when posters disagree with me on the basis of a difference of opinion because there is nothing to be gained. At the end of the conversation, both parties tend to hold the same opinion and the differences can only be resolved by time when facts are actually revealed. However, on this occasion, you have spent so much time on your reply that I think that you deserve an explanation of why I hold these views.

As you have noted, I tend to hold my own views on matters. I do not go along with the crowd. However the crowd is generally manic depressive, that is they operate at the extremes of opinion. One victory convinces them that their team is wonderful just as a loss convinces them that their team is dreadful. Therefore, I have chosen my time to publish my views, a time when the crowd is enthused by the possibility of brighter times ahead.

This tendency to to go from one extreme to the other has been illustrated better in the last year than at any other time during the clubs history. When Hill was sacked, practically no-one wanted Flicker. He was part of the problem. Then under his caretaker management, the team did not just beat Leeds, it thrashed them. The crowd decided that Flicker deserved his chance. They backed him and the team played for him. The crowd decided that Hill was the problem and Flicker the brains. The team survived and the call went up. Flicker is God. He must be appointed permanently before someone else steps in and we lose him. He is our future and without him, we are lost. The board, never a group who have much gone for leadership, agreed with the crowd. And the crowd said, the first thing Flicker should do is sign up all the players who had done so well for us in the second half of last year. And Flicker did as he was bidden to do, and the crowd was happy. But when the following season began, results were poor. The crowd looked for a reason and the crowd turned towards those who had proven such good targets in the past. They turned on Wiseman and they turned on Flicker. Sack them, the crowd cried, and the board, never ones to provide leadership, did as the crowd asked.

So the crowd were wrong. So why do you think that I should go along with the crowd.

In truth, I had my doubts about re-signing some of the players we signed before the start of the season. I did agree that we should re-sign Etuhu though, so I too can be wrong. More than that, I was unhappy with most of the new players signed. I did not expect that we would break the bank, but with the money that we had to spend as a result of the player sales etc in the previous year, I had expected a better quality of recruit. Perhaps Flicker spent it all on last years team, or perhaps he did not really have the budget available to him. For whatever reason, in my opinion, we once more lost ground on our rivals. It is the same in this transfer window. The crowd has concentrated on the changes at Oakwell and has given little weight to the changes that have been made in our relegation rival's squads. They have all improved their squads. Only time will tell whether they have improved faster than we have, but nothing has been standing still.

The conclusions that I made about the team are based upon the observations that I made against a poor Blackpool team. Surely you cannot doubt that we were hanging on for the final 25 minutes of that game, and surely you cannot argue with my reasoning that this was a result of a lack of fitness. In my previous post I listed the players in the current squad who I feel are fit enough to compete for a full 90 minutes. You have disagreed only with McLaughlin who had cramp off and on for the final 15 minutes, and who in his after match interview stated that he did not overlap as much as he normally would expect to do. Even if I were to allow you McLaughlin, there is very little room for the manager to manoeuvre tactically or injury-wise if he knows before the start that four of his players can only last an hour.

Unlike yourself, I have watched Barnsley perform for two spell in the old fourth division. I can testify that the theory that we are too big to end up back down there is no more relevant to Barnsley than it was for Sheffield United, Wolverhampton Wanderers etc etc.

 

"so I too can be wrong"

And I'm out.

 

"Did his brief appearance suggest that he was an improvement upon Perkins. In my opinion, all he proved was that he might be fit in 10 games, and even then he would be inferior"

I would suggest that Lawrence, having played 15 times for Eire and 70 games in the prem, Compared to the highest level Perkins has played is with us....kinda blows your theory out of the water

 

Either direction, it'll be better than that pigeon 5hit tha puts on

 

Enjoyable post that I nodded in agreement with for the most part.

We were all in favour of Flitcroft's appointment. We'd have been idiots otherwise. But I don't think we were all universal when it came to the retaining of certain players. In fact, my support for DF started fading in pre-season if I'm honest, with his treatment of Hassell and Steele. And it was all downhill from there as he proved to be a bit of a wally. So again, I think we were right to suggest he had to go. And the likes of Wiseman in particular had to go, too.
I don't believe it's as easy as you suggest to just assume the board went with the crowd, or that we the crowd are fickle and too snappy in our judgments. I think both Keith Hill and David Flitcroft were given more time than they deserved. I'd have got shut of Keith a month earlier, as I would have with Flitcroft.

Of course we the crowd are happier and more positive when we are doing well. Stands to reason. But come on mate, under DF this season and Keith last season, we were subjected to two of the worst spells in our history in terms of results and the football served up. There seemed no light at the end of the tunnel.

But your little digs at the board I do agree with. I feel they are culpable for those two spells. If they'd have backed Keith like they then did Flitcroft, we'd probably be a lot better off, because like it or not, Keith is a far better manager than Flitcroft will ever prove to be. My opinion, mind. But one that time I feel will back up.


I wouldn't say we were hanging on against Blackpool. Certainly not for 25 minutes anyway. I think the fact we were so close to a vital and long waited for victory will have been a factor, as indeed the fitness of a few lads will have been too. But it was a 2-0 home win. We didn't get many of those under Keith or Flitcroft last season, or the latter this season.
Yes, Blackpool were poor. But so were Donny, Wednesday, Yeovil and Charlton this season at Oakwell. But we didn't beat them. So I'm confident that Danny is doing the right things and I'm impressed with his start since returning. We're unbeaten away, could easily have got something from the Derby and Bolton games, and from what I can gather the players here right now are enjoying representing BFC.



Oh, and I never intimated that we were too big to go down. Not on your nelly. I merely suggested that if we're talking 'probables' (you said we were probably down already) then having only seen us relegated to the third tier once in 26 seasons, that we'd 'probably' stay up.

 

Did 'the crowd' call for flicker to be sacked? Did they eck. Your posts are generally full of pomposity, this ones the same.

 

Again I find myself agreeing with some of the sentiments of the original poster but there seems to be some fundamental flaws in there too. All our team are 'fit' enough to play at this level for 90 minutes with the exception of Paddy and seemingly Lewin They are professional athletes and are prepared as such. What is lacking in some is match fitness and in others, such as Hassell the issues connected to being on the outs with our last couple of managers. What some of them may lack is quality at this level but fitness in itself no.

also comparing an international player with premiership experience to a journeyman pro again undermines the argument.

 

I have read your past posts on KH with a sneaking admiration. I enjoyed seeing character in our manager and his interviews were always entertaining. People tend to remember the end, when he was warn down by bad results and an uncompetitive budget, and it has to be said that the end, when it came, was an act of mercy. However, there was a period during his first season when he lived up to his own hype, and when I really did belief that he was a magician. The midfield that included Butterfield, Perkins, Vaz Te and Drinkwater played entertaining and winning football, and I thought for a brief period that we were going somewhere. We all know what happened, and how Hill struggled in the loan market and beyond in trying to cover for the loss of those players.

What you have to remember is that the managers who are first idolised and then reviled by the majority who post on here are ordinary people who are trying to make the best of a difficult job given the financial restraints that are placed upon them. In the end they know that if the fans turn against them, the board will not be far behind, even though the manager's failure is in large part also the failure of the board to compete for financial resources off the field. KH was appointed because he was successful at Rochdale in developing players and selling them on whilst having relative success on the field. He came into the club at a time when budgets had been slashed and his previous modus operandii fitted right with the board vision for the future at Oakwell. Did the board see itself as tainted by the failure of the figurehead of its policy ? Did it -------.

 

The best thing I've seen to sum up Keith Hill was when I saw Mark Thomas live he did a rant about all characters being cnuts. What we really mean when we call someone a character we really mean they are a lovely person.

All this bleating about budget I don't recall Bobby Collins bleating and his was much worse or Machin who's was probably comparable.

So think Keith Hill think all characters are cnuts

 

Perhaps Wilson should sign loads of players under the same agency as him and they can all car share from Derbyshire...

 

I always favoured plating from the bridge up to the boat, rather than goin down under the bridge and getting stuck in the mud yak phoey

 

A wo talking to thi cuz yisterday.

 

Which one

 

Potter

 

Is he back home or was you on the phone

 

He'd an hour or so round at ours. Back darn sarf now till Friday.