Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly ****?

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

Hill set off ok 8th after beating Palace last season but yes 7 out of 9 is unbelievable when we went 4 months without a win at home Flitcroft has changed the culture of the club.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

I never got that. We were losing week in week out yet Hill wanted to wait until the international break to work on a change in formation. What would he have had to lose for doing it asap?

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

Well said Wayne he's gone. We have moved on.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

@Mario, I don't know how much of it was down to bad management and how much was the air of negativity around the club, sometimes the only thing that can happen is a change to breathe some air into the club. I don't know how much Keef was to blame, he obviously played a part but think how it felt to go to games as a fan towards the end of his reign, I was going to most games expecting a loss and I am certain that sort of feeling rubs off on players, not much a manager can do about that!

 

Just to add to that

Dagnall's change in fortune isn't anything to do with luck. He's scoring goals now because he's playing on the shoulder of the last defender and can run in to the space behind the defenders when we play a through ball. Yesterday's two goals were a perfect example of this. He couldn't do this under Keith because he was played much deeper, behind the one main striker. Play someone in a position that can hurt the opponents and you'll reap the rewards. It's not luck, it's good management.


Some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that many of us are saying Keith wasn't a good manager but we are. We're not saying that at all. We're making no such claims. What we're saying is that Keith wasn't a good manager, but Flitcroft and his team are. We're not celebrating our own decisions, we're not claiming that's what we would have done, we're simply recognising that what Flicker is doing is good management, but what Keith did wasn't.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

Obviously some people havent.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

At least I'm consistent.

I have a default position for all management teams. It was the same with Ritchie and Davey, and to a less extent with Robbins (because I did not appreciate the type of football we played under him). I support the guy in charge. I have gone into why on many occasions and will not bore you with my reasons again. I will still be supporting Flitcroft when he goes through a bad patch for exactly the same reasons, probably long after the majority have moved on and are saying how wrong they all were about him, and are calling for him to go. I would only ask why we should expect loyalty from our players and our management team when WE are unable to show it when the going gets tough. Loyalty runs both ways and is only apparent when difficult decisions are required.

 

Some of us thought Davies was massively over-rated and we wouldn't miss him at all. Just for some balance like.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

To be fair, Hill said as much himself at the start of the season, hence his attempt to recruit Gordon Greer, and the trialing of Ibrahima Sonko.

Also, after seeing a succession of goals conceded from set pieces, and poor jumping from makeshift centre half Scott Wiseman, you can hardly blame the 'gurus' on here for spotting our lack of height at the back and suggesting that it was a weakness.

I don't recall many people saying that. I do however remember the majority of us on here wondering what he had to do to get a game in a team that was losing/shipping goals week after week.

I don't remember many of us on here stating that. But perhaps during his early season goal scoring form the supporters felt he was a valuable commodity..?

I don't subscribe to this 'lucky' theory. You make your own luck.

I don't recall anyone wanting Stones dropped for Hassell.

I think the fall in attendances since Keith Hill took the job is down to a lot more than fans merely 'staying away'.

Negative football from 2012 onwards. Negative, sometimes confrontational comments from the manager. Ludicrous matchday ticket pricing. Negative soundbites from the club. Selling our best players on the cheap. The recession. Etc etc etc.


I did agree with one or two of your other original points, but thought I'd give my opinion on the ones I disagreed with, because whilst I do always enjoy reading your posts I do find them very condescending at times, and full of little digs at persons unnamed.

We're on the crest of a positive wave right now, and so I don't see why anyone would feel the need to try and create divisions among us.

We're merely supporters of this fine little club, and as such we're all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are ever going to escape being wrong from time to time.

I'd like to know who the 'gurus' are, though. They seem to talk some right *****...

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

I tend to post when I disagree with a poster rather than when I agree. This tends to make me look like I am picking on people. I can assure you that I am not. It is just that I see no point, or any discussion in simply saying I agree. So I am totally behind you just identifying the parts of my post that you disagree with. There are no digs though. If I have something to say to someone I say it. The guru comment addresses all those who think that they know more about the game than the professionals, and it is not aimed at anyone in particular. Also, I identified myself a couple of times as one of those who thought that they knew the problem, so by definition, I am covered by the term gurus.

Having said all of that, I do stand by the comments that I have made. Although I post infrequently on here, I read most of the stuff that is posted.

Bobby Hassell
As good a player as Hassell has been for BFC, I do not think that he has enough energy to play wing back, and Hill was using his full backs as wing backs. Yet, poster were calling for him to be in the team. Should Hassell have played in central defense (too small) or in midfield (other players are better). So where did Hassell fit into Hill's team. Yet Hill was accused of having something against Hassell and of being obstinate. Now the team are winning, there are practically no calls for Hassell to be in the team. I conclude that the calls for Hassell to be in the team were for him to play in his natural position i.e right full back. In actual fact the calls were for change because we were all grasping for a solution.

The Lucky theory
During Hill's reign, Dagnall was noted as much for the number of times he hit the post as the number of times he failed to score. I cannot recall him hitting the post in the Flitcroft reign... they are all hitting the back of the net. Flitcroft's team are getting lucky with rebounds too. For example, how many times can you remember us getting 3 rebounds in the opposition penalty box as we did at Hull before we scored the winner with our fourth attempt. The winner at Blackpool rebounded back to Scotland two of the goals at Middlesborough were deflections. Do not get me wrong, I am not complaining. But luck does exist.

 

Re: Is flitcroft the best manager in the world? Or was Keith Hill utterly utterly shi

As I said, the calls for Bobby to play were simply because we were regularly losing/shipping goals, and whenever he plays we seem a lot more solid and win more games. The fact he was out of favour and Hill played Greening in midfield or Kennedy at right back/Wiseman centre half served only to suggest Hill didn't like Hassell.

And if we're saying Delap has enough energy to play RWB but Bobby doesn't, then we may as well all pack in now. IMO, both are more than capable of playing RWB, but I wouldn't expect them to be bombing up and down as often as Golbourne does.

There seems to be this myth created, where it's suggested that Hassell is no longer capable at full back. Now, seeing as we haven't seen him play there for so long I find it a strange conclusion to arrive at.

As things stand, I think he's a very valuable player who can play in a variety of roles, as he's shown at Hull (centre half) and Millwall recently (midfield). Both games that we won, as we did yesterday.


Regarding the lucky theory, I again refer to my previous remark - you make your own.

Daggers hit the post at Peterbro, btw. But I agree he was often unlucky under Hill.

I think the reason for the turn in luck, is mainly down to our focus on attacking/scoring, rather than beating the opposition on possession stats.