'Sending the team out not to lose'

RE: I'm afraid to say that good luck to you if that is your belief

Im not saying Davey doesnt get things wrong, he's still a relative novice in terms of experience after all. He picks a team that he believes will get us a result, and regardless of what people might think on here, there's consideration gone into it. Who's looking hungry in training, what the opposition are like, who's carrying a knock, etc. Sometimes it works - Wednesday away for example. Kept the same team for the Charlton game at home and it didnt. Not many would blame him for keeping a winning side, but it seems its a one way street, criticism or silence. I'd do well to find a single post on here giving Davey credit for the 7 points we got our of 9, but its predictably negative after last nights result.

Some people seem to think we've a history in Division 2 as was, the years preceeding our promotion to the Premiership indicate so, but Im old enough to remember us battling relegation in a few of them, and not this perception that we steadily progressed year on year, climbed the ladder rung after rung. We took a gamble on a player coach with no managerial experience who stumbled upon a winning formation but getting a group of unknowns and has beens to play above themselves. Sounds pretty much like what Davey is trying to do, give him a chance to find the formula, rather than write him off cos its not happened overnight.

Or you could just take a dislike to him, refuse to acknowledge anything he does, dig your heels in and use every defeat as an excuse to say I told you so. Like some.

 

You massively underestimate Danny Wilson

if you think he stumbled upon a winning formula. He planned it, brought in players to play the system and mastered it better than just about any other manager around at the time to such an extent that many teams were trying to copy us.

 

RE: Truth hurts

didn`t he also describe us as unprofessional and that we had a lack of discipline.

 

boulding and stallard, them were the days nt

 

My memory aint all that

but I remember us playing 4-4-2 for a bit under Wilson before he played wing backs and even then he had the occasional lapse and go back. We had a great youth system in them days as well, with no Academy in sight. Howd that happen?

 

In true Dragons Den stylee - This is where I'm at...

Davey is no longer a relative novice after having over 2 years in the job on a full time basis.</p>

We shouldn't be trying to stumble across a formation this far into a season. Football is planned months and years in advance. The formation you talk about in 96/97 wasn't stumbled across at all. Barnsley had played 3-5-2 years prior to that season. During Allan Clarkes spell as manager we tried and also at some points in other seasons. The coaching staff at the time went across to Holland where it had been tried and tested for years and studied it. What happened was that during Danny Wilsons stint as manager certain members of the back room staff brought up the idea of going to 3-5-2 again as no team in the country was playing it.</p>

There are a lot of pros to3-5-2 and it works against most systems however it has pitfalls and as no clubs were used to playing against it we had a bit of a head start. Once people understand how to playagainst it it can be easy to nullify hence the reason why most clubs now have reverted back to 442 or variations offlat back 4 formations.</p>

Anyway what DannyWilson did the pre seasonwas to go out and buy players that fitted the formation. Matty Appleby as Sweeper, Clint marcell for the 'hole' player etc. It wasn't stumbled across, it was a calculated decision to go down this route. </p>

I think you have forgotten the work that was put in at Oakwell the season previous and the pre season before that promotion. As an aside i know the coach at that time told a lot of people to put money on BFC getting promoted that season because of the strength of the dressing room as well as the quality of the team that had been built (on a shoestring a lot less than this years budget).</p>

</p>

 

LOL I've just typed all that nt

 

Ah, but...football has "changed"

But the last time I looked it was 11 v 11. And in 96/97 Barnsley was a lot "worse" than it is now and we managed to attract two good pros with decent careers behind them that proved on the field they were capable.

Add to that DW and Eric Winstanley having a clue and players that wanted to play for each other and we had a good mix.

You can't tell me it never pisses the better players off that we have that we have persisted with the likes of KO and El Hamoir? It must do. They know these players are toss.

 

just a minor point

I was watching in the seasons 81/82 to 96/97 and I can only remember a couple of seasons when we looked in real danger of going down... the last one being 1989/90.

 

Am I missing something

but is Davey not trying a different formation but people are screaming for us to revert back to 4-4-2? Maybe its history repeating itself...

 

Read my posts

We shouldn't be trying to stumble across a formation that works 3/4 of a way through a season. Thats not what Wilson did...</p>

Stumbling across any formation is a recipe for disaster. FACT.</p>

I want us to back to 442 because a) Thats what the players are comfortable with and b) What players we have got at our disposal.</p>

Like I have said... Wilson Brought in players to suit the formation he was planning to use and you can't do that when you a) haven't got the suitable players already and b) the tranfer window is shut.</p>

 

RE: Read my posts

its all speculation of course, but it wouldve been interesting to see what Wilson wouldve done if Hendrie had got a career threatening injury in October. If what you pracise and preach in pre season isnt working by October, I'd say you need to be pragmatic and change things to get the results. Thing is we seem to have hit on a couple of decent formations only after 2 or 3 good results, to get either an injury or suspension that means we dont have the personnel to make it work.

We obviously disagree, I think Davey is making progress, problem is, it might not be quick enough and time seems to be one thing you dont get in football.

 

All tactics done with an etch a sketch

And a bit of chalk on the floor.</p>

Yet more utter nonsense. I was at Barnsley in 93-94 and there wasn't a piece of chalk in site.</p>

And funnily enough the youth sides at Oakwell at that time were all playing 3-5-2.</p>

 

What? Planning for the future?

How did nobodies like Wilson and Winstanley know how to do that?

Although I will credit SM with that, he does say the Academy is ****. I'd venture that we need better coaching staff.

 

Yes we do disagree however

If Hendrie got injured we would have gone and bought a replacement or loaned one in. Having said that we also had Liddell as a replacement.</p>

I've just been looking at the stats on Soccerbase and it wouldn't copy and paste across but in 96/97 we used 21 players some of which only came on as sub 2 times.</p>

Top goalscorer was Redfearn with 17, follwed by Hendrie on 15, Wilkinson 9, Liddell 8, Marcelle 8, Thompson 5, Eaden 3, Davis 3 and so on.</p>

This year so far in the league we have used 30 players! The top goalscorer is Macken with 7, JCR 6, Hume on 4, Foster 3, then next is Boggy and De Silva on 2.</p>

These stats basically say we haven't really had any plan from the outset and as you have said we are trying stumble across something that works.</p>

http://www.soccerbase.com/squad_season.sd?teamid=208</p>

I don't buy any of it. The stats this year are atrocious.</p>