Those who read my posts with any interest at all will have noted my defense of past managers. I do so because with a budget that is, season after season, among the lowest in the league, I believe they have worked wonders to keep us in this division. The one exception to this rule is a manager most posters rate above the rest, Mark Robins, and I was on the whole happy to see him go because I hated the direct style of football that his team employed. I was supportive of Flitcroft's original appointment and felt vindicated by the terrific second half of last season, which culminated in our survival on the final day. I hoped that the board would release the tight controls on the budget following that last minute reprieve and the influx of cash following the sale of John Stones etc, and I hoped that we would see some improvement in the quality of the player that the club provide for us to watch. In my opinion, there has been no improvement in the quality of player and the quality of entertainment is much worse. I do not enjoy watching the ball belted 50 yards to the head of the centre forward. I like to watch the ball being crafted quickly on the ground through midfield with pace. I like to see movement ahead of the man with the ball giving him lots of options. I like to see forwards in the danger areas rather than wasted on the left wing, so that when crosses go in they are 40 yards away from the ball. I like to watch my team impose this style of play upon an opposition who would want to do the other thing. Since David Flitcroft has opted for a 4-4-2 system, I have had to endure (particularly in the second halves of games) the type of game that I hate to watch, and I'm sad to report that my support for the manager is drifting away as a result. Of course, the quality of players dictates the way the team plays. If the team does not have enough players who are comfortable with a quick passing style to feet, then it is hard to impose that style on the team and the long game is adopted in order that the players have fewer touches, because more touches risks more error. Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation as I see it, a situation that is indicative of a team in great trouble. Rather than recognising this, Flicker is still broadcasting the mantra that the team is improving. It is not. Again, unlike most, I had no problem with Keith Hill calling a spade a shovel. What I do have trouble with is Flicker calling a spade a beautifully crafted excavating device.
Good post. I believe, in general, we have improved since the Reading game. But I have to agree with you that our 2nd half performances are worrying.
What is just completely baffling to me, is Flicker's view that he 'now understands what the Barnsley supporters want'. Last season, that was to ditch 4-4-2 with immediate effect, and switch to 3-5-2. aggressive, pacy, energetic, with the ball on the floor and moving forward. he was right. why on earth then, has he switched back to 4-4-2, which at times is little more than a long ball strategy???? it makes no sense to me. at all. at this moment, IMO he doesn't understand what the Barnsley supporters want. he's bought himself more time with 4 points from the last two. but if we're still in or hovering very close to the bottom 3 by christmas, i think he'll get moved on. and in all honesty, he'll only have himself to blame. cryne and mansford have backed him to the hilt p.s. i'm still 100% behind flicker
If you want to watch that kind of football then the u18s are your best bet. First team can't and won't do it any time soon.
We are getting better and I can see us putting a decent run together in the not too distant future - I wouldn't say Butland is any better at shot stopping than Steele but his distribution and footballing intelligence seems a lot better, Paddy provides us with some much-needed creativity and Mellis does seem to be getting back to his best, the problem with him is no-one really knows what his best position is. Flicker really needs to take a long hard look at his tactics though, particularly in terms of the changes he makes during a game as 9 times out of 10 all it does is make us weaker and puts us on the back foot. The two games we've won this season could very easily have been lost due to his baffling tactical changes and no doubt there are other games where we could have got something.
