When we were winning all those games on the spin

The 'inside word' was that the real key to success was Micky Mellon - ah yes of course, couldn't be Flitcroft, what with him being Keith Hills mate and that.

No we've lost 2 league games, drawn one and got beat at the current English Champions, Micky Mellon's been forgotten and it's now all Flitcroft's doing, the useless mate of Keith Hill.

Funny old world.

 

players to blame, always is in my eyes.

 

That's not how I remember it; I remember Flicker getting loads of praise and rightly so. Since then he is falling into the trap of playing players out of position and pi55ing around with formations and losing as a consequence so now he is getting some criticism which is perfectly ok as its part of football. I don’t think many on here have called him useless.

 

3 games ago we wanted Flicker on a longer term contract

now, Dons 'end of season deal' looks shrewd.

 

3 weeks ago folk wanted to give him a 3 year deal with no mention of Hassell.

Unless he plays him and is seen to be embracing him he won't last beyond end of the season.

 

The positive still massively outweighs the negative, for me. If we hadn't have lost the wing-backs and Dawson, the run may well have continued. If there was ever a game to suit Bobby Hassell it was Bristol away, but the players also have to take responsibility for being done at set pieces 5 times, which is shocking even for us. Flicker has put his hands up for City saying he picked too many pressers, who didn't really press very much, at the expense of creativity in Mellis.

He's made some mistakes and I think he should be allowed time to learn from them as he allows the players to do so. No-one saw that run coming and without it we would have been cut well adrift so he has to be given some credit. Time to start winning some games though and get the confidence up for the run in.

A win tonight and we'll all feel a bit better, COME ON YOU REDS!!!

 

That is not true at all mate, what some fans want is for him to answer the question, just like he did with Mellis, nothing sinister in wanting to know why the player with the most experience at this level is not playing when others that are seen as not of the same ability are playing regularly.

 

He can't win with the question. 'Because I don't rate him' - he gets slaughtered'. 'Because I don't like him' - he gets slaughtered. He's not a politician but he did handle it badly.

 

He'll get slaughtered if he continues to pick Wiseman and Tunicliffe

Hassell or no Hassell my friend.

 

Nor seen Tunnicliffe so can't comment. Agree RE Wiseman but been told he's done ok recently?

 

All I want is honesty. I simply can't believe that Wiseman is being picked ahead of him, as a defender, based on ability so there must be other reasons. If it is personal then lets just put the speculation to bed once and for all. As a manager he needs to pick his best side.

 

I wish you'd stop just making stuff up to prove your own point. It's really boring. I've wanted Hassell in the back three since Flitcroft changed to that formation, but if he doesn't play him it won't be a reason to call for his head.

 

Both Mellis and Hassell have said there's no problem so unless I've missed something there's no problem.

 

Think you all need to buy the matchday programme today. Apparently under flickers notes there will be some interesting facts in there.

I think one of them was a refusal by a player to board the plane to spain because he didnt want to go

If this is correct then that player should no longer be at the club in my opinion. How can you build team spirit with an attitude like that

 

Wiseman has had a couple of 6/10 games before the City game, In other words, he was average, he did ok. But folk created threads praising him for doing ok, some even went as far as giving him MOTM against Bolton despite him being at fault for the first (and crucial) goal.

That's how bad it is - a ***** laiker for 70+ games does less ***** in a game and gets lauded for it.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hassell, twice the player, and MOTM at Hull, at least a 7/10 at MK, is constantly ignored by the manager and written off by the apologists on here/twitter etc.


I'd like to see our best players play regularly, so I do query Flitcroft's recent selections, but he's the manager etc.

However, what I'm not happy with is Flitcroft's remarks recently.

T'other week, he claimed that Etuhu played RWB because "I had no other options.." - he had Hassell and Wiseman, but chose to play the latter at centre half whilst dropping Foster and ignoring Hassell.
He speaks about family/loyalty etc, yet treats the most loyal member of our squad like the ******* plague. It's got to the point where the name Hassell to Flitcroft is like Macbeth to actors...

Yesterday's abomination of an interview served only to divide the fanbase he says he wanted to unite.


I compare it to finding a new bird...

You both do and say the right things at the start, you want to be liked, to impress each other. But give it a few weeks and you slip back into the way you actually are, how you're comfortable etc.

I think that's happened with Flitcroft.

He was trying to appear different to Keith at the start, trying to show us he wasn't the same.

I think the mask has slipped recently (pressure) and he's now showing his true colours.



Could be wrong. But that's how I see it.

 

Ben Alnwick, Reuben Noble-Lazarus, Marlon Harewood, Jason Scotland, Stephen Foster and Bobby Hassell stayed behind. They had their reasons.

I doubt their decision not to go to Spain has affected team spirit, nor their inclusion in the squad. In fact, all except Alnwick and RNL (injured) have travelled with the squad since Spain, and played for the first team...... oh, except Hassell.

The only unprofessional act I've noticed lately, was Flitcroft's tantrum yesterday.

 

So Flicker's won't pick a person because he didn't want to go to Spain for a training camp - how maungy. If said players inclusion would strengthen the team then he should be picked. Remind me, who was it who scored a hat trick on Saturday? A player picked for his ability dispite a rather big recent misdemeanour (and I don't mean driving while banned).

 

I've not made anything up - folk in the middle of our run wanted to give Flitcroft a long term permanent deal. But I think unless he embraces Hassell it'll always be a point of division and folk will call for him to leave.

What's wrong about that?

 

I think you're suggesting that to survive - as manager here - he should play Hassell to appease a section of supporters. Am I right?

 

You said no one was talking about Hassell during the winning run. Many people were discussing Hassell being in the team win, lose or draw. Many people view him as a good player and could see him being a valuable asset in that back three even when the side was winning. You said "no mention of Hassell" and that's just crap.

As for "Unless he plays him and is seen to be embracing him he won't last beyond end of the season". I see no justification for that comment either. The board will decide whether he stays or he goes. If he does a good job, with or without Hassell he'll stay. If he does a poor one, with or without Hassell he'll go. I'd play Hassell. I think he's a good player. But I won't be calling for his head if he doesn't play him. I think that goes for the vast majority of people who rate Hassell. They'll start calling for his head if we lose the rest of our matches and are relegated without a fight, but that's for a different reason.

Flitcroft's comments in answer to the question about Bobby Hassell on Radio Sheffield were crap. We're allowed to say so, without it meaning we want him sacked.

Barnsley fans aren't a bunch of wnakers who only think of Bobby Hassell. Making stuff up about us to justify god knows what argument doesn't make it so.