Just playing devils advocate here

Is it possible that we are having a reverse half season to what happened last season and in fact we would have gone on a winning streak with hill still in charge, the last few years we've got off to a stormer and got the points on board but tailed off after Xmas,...oo controversial,

 

It's funny how its worked out that way, in that our seasons for the last few have been spilt in two results (and performance) wise. But no, I would put the turnaround down to Flicker's style of football, the confidence he inspires in the players and the togetherness of the group after finding themselves at the foot of the league. We'd be down already if Hill was still in charge imo.

 

As a self confessed Hill-ite I don't think anyone would have taken us on the run we are on now. That said I don't buy in to the chalk and cheese argument. We weren't far off being a good team under Hill and it is largely his squad.

The key for me has been momentum. A lucky win against Burnley, an excellent performance against Leeds (as there was under Hill away) and the confidence flooded back, fans got on board ans everything clicked.

Flicker isn't that disimilar to Hill. His interviews are still idiosyncratic. He gets annoyed with people who don't buy in to what we do. He encourages us to pass the ball. But he has tweaked things and used the momentum to get players playing, get fans onside, and win matches.

No we wouldn't have gone on this run, but we wouldn't have kept losing games like we were

 

I believe Hill would have got it right eventually and results would have picked up, however not in time to keep us in the league. I don't think any other manager available could have pulled out the results Flicker has, his management style suits our clubs philosophy and this squad of players perfectly. Get him signed up on a long term deal and lets have some continuity!

 

No, I honestly believe that if we'd kept Hill we'd have been relegated already and just playing the season out now, building for next season. This unprecedented upturn is entirely down to Flicker, Mellon, Scott and their team.

 

Major difference for me is that Flicker gets the ball forward much quicker than Hill did.

Also Flicker has a natural characteristic of being able to unite the vast majority of the fan-base, whereas Hill, by the time we sacked him, had alienated everyone........except Dyson, who still enjoys the swimming sessions with Keith and Sidney.

 

I liked Hill and didn't think he was a bad manager from a footballing perspective. The difference is the players are far more together and much more motivated under Flitcroft and this for me is the major factor behind improved performances and results. All the players are involved without apparent tinkering and there is a sense of personal responsibility and commitment to the cause. I don't think this would have come about under Hill, if anything I think it would have become worse. To be honest, if Hill was still in charge, I think we would be all but relegated given the form of those around us.

 

I hope this season isn't the opposite of keith hills pathetic attempt last year or we'll end the season how we started with the first 3 months of the season last year and that is with pathetic performances, baffling team selections and booing from the terraces.

Keith hill had 2 or 3 good months in the middle of an absolutely awful year last year. People let december and january cloud their judgement and forget how poor we were in august, september and october

 

if hilly had still been here we'd have been dead and buried by now,there was nowt under him to suggest differently....our best players would have been on their way elsewhere come may and with the loss in revenue caused by relegation we'd have been building a squad from players outa the conference at best....