Now without Butcher. Might give us a good idea who we'll approach next as Don has gone with the fans choice so far. I have a felling Flitcroft might get it, especially if we beat Leeds. Ince would be my realistic choice given that it looks like he applied and we need a manager sooner rather than later. Looks a good bet at 20/1. You can't even get odds on Hignett.
What's the problem now with Flicker + his assistant? He has the right attitude for the forthcoming battles, he has the players' 100% commitment as I saw at Peterborough. They couldn't have given more, so you can forget any new manager being able to get more effort out of the players than Flicker. So you're left with finding someone has greater tactical knowledge. Who's that then?
Probably the majority of other managers. He and Hill were very much a pair and it was their tactics that let them down rather than player's work rate/commitment. If we play well and beat Leeds then I might not be too fussed, but until I see anything that sets him apart from Hill then I would be opposed to the appointment.
Judging by the tactics we've employed over the last 12 months I reckon you could throw a dart in a crowded bar and hit someone with better tactical knowledge. So long as you aim away from the guy with the underpants on his head. In the majority of games this season, not all, but the majority, our players as individuals have performed better than the individual players of the opposition. We look sharper, often quicker to the ball and pass the ball better. But we've only won five games. Most of the time we don't even look like winning. Our players are playing better than the opposition but they don't look like winning. So what's wrong? It seems obvious to me that it's the tactics. Everything about them: formation, personnel, style of play, everything. And that's why I think we'd be stupid to employ a guy who is at least 50% responsible for those tactics.
Completely agree. We have good players who have played well that has consequently led to them being linked with other clubs. The only thing you can blame is the tactics.
I agree with elements of that Jay, but we have the worst chance conversion rate in the Championship. I find that hard to reconcile with being the fault of the management team. I know you could argue its down to coaching, but I think its largely down to a lack of quality. I agree we could have created more chances with some changes to the tactics and they take significant blame for that. But I do think given the chances we've missed play a huge part in where we are. Played well, lost games
Is the worst chance conversion rate an official statistic? If it is I'm really surprised. I don't think we create many chances at all.
We pass it around in our own half until we lose it. We rarely see their goal, never mind create a chance. It's probably only the worst because we've scored next to no goals.
Damn, can't find it. Which therefore means no, it doesn't carry weight as I can't provide proof. I'm pretty certain it said we scored a goal every 11 chances, which was bottom. Just can't think of too many games where we deserved what we got. Forest, Peterborough, Blackpool, Blackburn?
Which I agree Blivy is in part tactical. I've always criticised Hill for our failure to overlap the full backs to provide the width (as Swansea, Liverpool and Wigan all do). That masks a lack of creativity. But that's the second part of the equation. Since we lost Butterfield and mellis went off the boil we've lacked the quality to unlock the defence. That position is the key role in our team and we haven't had the quality to fill it. Now I accept you can argue that Hill failed to adjust to not having that player and should have changed style.
What is classed as a "chance"? A chance for Robin Van Persie is not the same as a chance for Fola Onibuje (sp?) . . .
