I'd change my mind if he turns things around, he would have earned that by proving me wrong. I voted for "I thought Danny should have been given more time and Lee Johnson should go".....I could see signs of a plan/progression under Wilson and some of the players he brought in looked/have turned out to be good, as much as I try to see the same things now, I just cant. Perhaps its fear - the fact that I just fear we're finally going to back the wrong guy, I really, really hope I'm wrong. Under many of the previous managers, even though we sacked them, there was always the thought that we gave ourselves a chance in games - recent (and not so recent) displays don't offer that - unless Connor Hourihane is playing and we get corners /free kicks we just don't look like scoring, that's my main concern - I just cant see us scoring because we don't create any REAL chances. Bottom line is I think we have some decent players and should be performing better than we are - Lee Johnson needs to organise and motivate them, and sharpish, that's his job, which at the moment he isn't doing very well. If he can get better at that he may well turn things around, if he cant then how long do we wait?
Which game was this? Sounds more like the last four collectively to me. And 'shots' don't equate to the approach of the side. Seventy sideways passes followed by a 'shot' which wouldn't knock the skin off a jug of custard isn't what I'd call an attacking approach. Similarly we could be more expansive and faster flowing without the actual shot numbers increasing, though that would be unlikely. But, I ask again, which fixture did we produce 15 shots with eight on target? If this was done consistently then yes I might change my mind.
Bit of a stretch that Whitey old lad. Despite what I put on the survey. You didn't have an option for couldn't care less it won't change owt anyway
Crewe match - 18 shots, 8 on target. Other float from 7 to 11, we need to be getting double figures of shots and at least half of them on target. But still attacking in some of these games even when we didn't actually get a shot off.
How do we qualify shots on target? Is it just that they were going between the sticks, or that they were good attempts that need the keeper to make a decent save? I ask because some of the stats look a bit strange to me. In one match we only had one decent shot, that required the keeper to make a good save, yet we were down as having 9 shots on target ? In some of our shots are more likebloody back passes that attempts at goal. Just wondered how they actually worked the stats out ?
So basically any that was just on target, without them having to be an actual goal threat ? Fair enough thgen, maybe the stats could be changed to goal threats instead of the on target ***** then !
I didn't choose the sack him option, I chose the 'didn't want Danny sacked and want to give LJ more time' option. Either I have fat fingers or that poll is wrong.
I've stated on at least one occasion that I've nothing against LJ personally, he's just out of his depth imho. As someone who goes to almost every game I'll be chuffin' delighted if he "turns it around" and the unproductive dross served up in over 75% of our league games this season is replaced by logical selections and decision-making, attacking intent and a few points. You never know there may even be the odd goal or two from open play thrown in an' all. (Does Mr. White win the 'BBS Senator McCarthy witch hunt' memorial prize?)
i can absolutely guarantee you, if we won the next three games by playing flowing football, this would all go away. well, apart from the internet h8ers. but LJ knows who they are..
Flipping heck, Andy. You're not a descendant of Matthew Hopkins are you? <img src ="https://tommygirard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/witchfinder_general_poster_01.jpg">
just realised the names from the poll are on the thread. doh! i'm assuming they were in clear text on the poll anyway?