Minority Report - Chesterfield

The pre-match feeling had an end of term feeling, and the match itself confirmed it. The manager had brought back Ramage at centre back, which allowed him to shift Cranie to right back and to rest the over played Holgate, who apparently got a chasing in the defeat at Colchester. I wonder if he should not have been rested for that game instead, whether two games in three days is just too much for a player of his age. The change leaves a question mark against George Williams though, because this game represented an ideal opportunity to have a good look at him. It also confirmed my feelings about the limitations in Ramage’s overall game at the centre of defence as compared to the different mix of skills that Cranie offers there.

The manager recalled George Smith at left back in order to have a better look at Declan John at left wing, a change that I had been calling for. John was just as poor further up the field as he had been at full back and, in my view, has ruled himself out of a permanent move.

The announced team looked to be designed for 4-4-2 and I was amazed when it lined up as 4-5-1 with Winnall featuring mainly on the right side. The manager explained later that whilst that was the basic shape, Winnall was given licence to support Waring further up the field as and when appropriate. Whilst this was undoubtedly true, Chesterfield’s first half dominance of possession served to keep Winnall back in his wide role for much of the half. Winnall was no more effective in the role than was Kane Hemmings, when Danny Wilson asked him to play in a similar way earlier in the season.

The system matched Chesterfield’s five man midfield, but my overall first half impression was that Chesterfield were more comfortable with it, understood it better and had players more suited to it. In central midfield only Scowen held his own. He seems to improve every time I see him. Today, he showed an ability to run at a retreating defence that I did not know he had. He held on to the ball for a stride too long on both occasions, but he is learning fast and I feel that he will develop a better sense of when to pass. However, Hourihane and Pearson were ineffective in possession and both seem to be going backwards in their development. Pearson in particular seems terrified by the prospect of possession of the football, and the consequent responsibility to try to make something positive happen. He came to the club when our defence was leaking goals because we lacked steel in centre of midfield, and he brought this. However, as the team has developed and settled, he has shown that his play is one dimensional, and that the defensive aspect of the game is all that he offers. Hourihane would benefit from playing with better players, but he is not a leader and he is not one would can dominate midfield through his strength of character, or his physical strength either. His supporters quote his statistics of goals and assists, but most of the good stuff happened earlier in the season when the team had the pace of Cole and Williams, and Hourihane had much more room as a result. This was also a time when as well as scoring plenty of goals, the team was also conceding goals for fun. He is an enigma and as such he will always inspire feelings of both love and hate amongst the fans, depending upon the type of player and the type of skill each individual supporter admires most. He does not have the full range of skills and will therefore divide rather than unite fans behind him. Personally, I see both sides. I think that he could be more effective if he had better players around him, but I also wonder if he is worth the effort and whether the better strategy would not be to sell him and replace him with a player with a better all-round game. The fact that Luke Berry seemed to offer so much more than Hourihane when he was introduced confirmed to me that selling would be the better strategy.

Up front, George Waring’s goal count offers a different and contrasting statistic to my impression of his overall play. The effectiveness of a target man is so difficult to judge. A target man can only be effective if the ball delivered forward to him is of a decent quality. The support players must get to him quickly because he cannot retain possession for long and consequently the gap between him and his support players should not grow too distant, so the back four must endeavour to hold a high line in order to prevent that gap from growing too distant to allow anything but long passes from back to front. At the same time, the target man must have the strength to hold off his marker and the ability to control the ball and lay off a good pass to his support players. Here it might be useful to contrast Waring and Ibehre. Waring is twelve years younger and is also taller. He scores more goals. However, Ibehre is stronger and has a better first touch. He can be relied upon by his support players who are more confident that he will retain possession, and who as a consequence, are more willing to commit to forward runs. Neither is particularly mobile. So the question for next season is, Ibehre or Waring or neither? The ideal answer for me would be neither, because that would imply that we have something better lined up. However, if I was looking for a reliable deputy, I would pick Ibehre.

Our first half formation did not work and Winnall looks a fish out of water. He played further forward in the second half but did not look dangerous until Ibehre was introduced. His frustration turned to petulance and he was booked for his reaction by a mystified and frustrated referee. He looked like a player who knew that he could do better, if only he was not required by his manager to play in a way that was against his natural inclination. LJ should take note.

Many posters are posing the question about improvement in results and performances since Danny Wilson left. They seem to think that changing football managers is like changing your brand of instant coffee. You just add hot water and get an instant result. LJ has the same players with the same limitations. He has tried the same tricks as Danny tried, with in the main, the same results. Is it reasonable for supporters to expect anything different? In my view, the answer to that question is no. That is why I constantly argue for a manager to be given time. Time to bring in different players, time to develop new systems, strategies and ways of playing. Time equals stability and team building requires long term stability. Supporters who call for constant changes of manager should note the successful teams and note the common factor. The common factor is that the manager has been there for a long time. It is a case of supporting through the bad times, as well as the good.

 

A lot of sense spoken there bud. Thanks for taking the time to write that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

"by a mystified and frustrated referee"

Is this a euphemism for utter tripe referee.

 

"Mystified and frustrated" would apply more to us I think rather than the inept Mr Eltringham

 

Winnall took an elbow to his side which left him on the floor. He lost his rag with the red when he came to see if he was ok rather than give the foul..

 

Good summary that. I do agree with your point of stability and sticking with the manager (like a lot of us have said) and giving him time, but it must be with the caveat that small, measurable improvements are being seen over time. They werent under Wilson but need to be under LJ or his fate will be the same as Dannys and a whole host of previous incumbents. And I think thats right too, you cant stick with a underperforming Manager or player just on the basis of stability and 'we gotta give him more time'. From what ive seen with Lee Johnson is somebody who will be given time because we will improve. And again i agree with your point that he aint gonna drastically change anything when hes making love with somebody elses john thomas. (to put it politely). I reckon he knows our shortfalls already and is making plans to alleviate them accordingly. Roll on next season. I reckon we will be hovering around the play offs all season and will just need a bit of bottle at the end to get in.

 

When some of the fans reaction to referees decisions turn from jeering to just laughing you know they've had a bad game.

 

Referees miss things all the time. They all do so, because they can only give the things that they see. The players all know this and as a result, they all cheat and pretend. Players generally accept that they will get decisions that they do not deserve and will not get decisions that they do deserve. It is part of the game.

Winnalls reaction yesterday was petulant. It was also a reaction from him that I had not seen before. I am sure that he has been refereed by a poor referee before and has not been given a decision that he deserved before, so why the petulant reaction. My guess is that some frustration lies at the root of it. That some frustration has pushed him into new territory.

 

I had a similar conversation yesterday, saying that cheating players were the biggest problem with the standard of refereeing in this country however having said that I got the feeling yesterday that the ref had taken issue with Sam. I don't think it was a particularly difficult game to officiate yesterday, I just felt the referee was poor.

 

I have to say, Winnall went down in my estimations after the Sheffield Utd game. He was whinging and petulant throughout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I support all our managers and have written basically the same message during the tenure of all of those from Keith Hill onwards. My problem with what you have written about small and measurable improvement is this. Improvement comes in fits and starts, two steps forward and one back. Sometimes the reasons for a backward step are outside the manager's control. Longer term injuries and player sales are bound to have a detrimental effect on short term results. When the team is losing, the fans do not stop to ask the reasons why, they just call for the manager to be sacked, and when they stop going through the gates, our weak board is quick to accept the judgement of the missing fans and act.

It is very similar to the upcoming general election in that respect. Political parties are like our board. They are not interested in the views and opinions of the loyal supporters/voters, those who support them through thick and thin. They are only interested in supporters/voters who are willing to take their support/vote elsewhere. I have supported the club for 50 years and will continue to do so for the rest of my days, but it has always been a constant source of irritation to me that my opinion is less important to the club than is the opinion of someone who only attends matches when the club is on an upward cycle.

 

'Tis like the parable of the Vineyard and the Labourer, Red Rain, is it not?

 

Your knowledge of the scriptures is much better than mine so I had to look up your reference. That seems to point out that late-comer to belief in God will be treated in exactly the same way once they reach heaven as the person who has been a believer all his life. That is fair enough, but my argument is that the late comer at Oakwell is being treated with more respect than the lifelong supporter.

Frankly, in spite of my GCE "O" level in the subject, I have never been much for religion. There is little else that was invented more than 2000 years ago that has stood the test of time and I do not see why religion should be the exception.

 

Hourihane isn't irreplaceable. But depends on how much we would be offered for him. If it's just a case of recouping our money then we'd be better off keeping hold. If we could get upward of 500k it might be worth serious consideration.

I'm hopeful that a break and a good pre season might see him come back a bit stronger than we've seen lately.

 

If there is a God of this forum, you're it. I've agreed with every word of your sermon today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm just a very naughty boy.

 

Another of your posts, Red Rain that I really enjoyed reading. You might have a point on Hourihane.

 

Can't argue with much of that this week pal, but I'm not at all sure about Ibehre. I don't recall him holding the ball up all that often, and I think that Waring offered a more direct approach more likely to bring a chance. Both just suffered from having no-one close enough to them.

I'd like someone to point out the value of Ibehre to me, because I've seen nowt yet to suggest he's anything but a bottom 1/3 of league 1 striker, good for teams that want to play hoofball and perhaps for 7 goals a season. Frankly, I'm filled with dread at the prospect of him signing (which I think he will) and then playing on his own up front for half of next season.

But I didn't go to Bristol, and I hope those that did saw someone very different.

 

Think I'd have to disagree with your substantive point Red Rain, although I can see why you'd get that impression. Fact is though, I think the "early bird" ST offer these last two years has been the best offer to ST holders I can remember in a long time. And Ben has instituted the "evening with the Manager" events for ST holders. So I'm not sure I'd agree that the time-served brigade are undervalued. However, the importance of attracting the "floating voters" can't be under-estimated. Having renewed early these last two years, I don't think I can claim bona fide membership of the floating voter club anymore. But new custom is what will attract the funds for growth and squad development.

 

The reason given for sacking the last manager was because of commercial considerations. When the fog was cleared at the subsequent meeting organised by the West Stand Bogs fans at the No7, it was pointed out that attendances were reducing, even though this was not apparent from attendance figures because season ticket holders were counted whether they attended or not. The inference that I draw from this statement is that Danny Wilson was dismissed because supporters were staying away in ever increasing numbers. In a poll run on this site and voted on by contributors in the very same week, those who voted were still 2 to 1 in favour of keeping Danny Wilson as manager.

Now I have gotten over Danny's dismissal and am 100% behind the new guy, but it is obvious from these two facts that the owner and board placed a greater importance on the views of those who had chosen to stay away than they did on those who had decided to keep attending. Quod Erat Demonstrandum as they would say in Rome.