When we were winning all those games on the spin

I called for a deal for Flicker shortly before the defeat at Bristol, I did suggest similar terms to Keith Hill if we were stay up. He was getting way too much attention from the football world not to consider pinning him down longer term.

I stand by that despite the defeats and continuing Hassell problems. I think he took the limited resources available and turned our fortunes around overnight and had the foresight to bring in Mellon and Scott to assist. The recent run of poor form is glaringly down to the loss of Stones and Golbourne and the inability to employ a system that shored up our defensive and kept us on the front foot, allowing us to dominate midfield and attack in numbers. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to cover such eventualities and the system is redundant without adequate personnel. He might not always have picked the strongest side or the right players for the job, but there have been a rush of games and he has to see that team through to the end of the season. He is a new manager and it is in his interests as much as ours that he gets results.

I would suggest that without the early rush of results that Flitcroft inspired, we'd be dead and nearly buried. It is the usual weak stomachs who bottle it and start name calling as soon as results go against us and as some of us have pointed out, you wouldn't want them watching your back in a proper scrap.

 

I'm suggesting to survive he should win games then the Hassell question goes away. If he continues to lose and picks Wiseman in front of him he'll always be bashed by the stick of Bobby, regardless of how Wiseman plays.

For the record I'd play Bobby regardless.

 

I'd play the 352 again, and pick them both - Wiseman RWB and Bob right sided centre half. Been saying as much since we lost Stones, and it worked at MK. And Mellis must play ahead of Perkins and Dawson in a three. Marlon and Daggers up top, except tonight, where I'd have Scotland starting for a change.

I know my ****, me.

 

Bobby Hassell does come to the fore of people's thinking when we are losing, less so when results are going our way. Logic being, don't change a winning formula, if it's not broke don't fix it etc. I think Bob and to an extent Scott Wiseman, is becoming an unwilling pawn in the making or breaking of a BFC manager and is a bigger 'player' in this than he perhaps rationally needs to be. But such is football and it's fans, it's like Medieval politics down the Well sometimes and you could argue it did for Keith Hill to some degree.

I think folk are getting far too carried away over that little bit of interview. So what? He's a bit stressed and he didn't want to go there. He has his reasons and on another day he might have taken time to explain. Thing is now, if he picks Bob tonight folk will say it's down to fan pressure. You can't win sometimes.

 

If you want to take 'no mention of Hassell' as completely literal then go ahead. Of course there were mentions of him but here was never the uproar you see after a defeat. Again, in my opinion, in some peoples eyes we win despite Bobby not playing and lose because of it.

My point about not lasting the season is again exaggerated but unless he does play Hassell he's leaving himself open to a bashing every time we lose and in my opinion its unfair.

But, again, he'd be in my side.

 

I agree to an extent, people are concentrating on the Hassell bit of the interview because of his reaction, I'm more concerned at Flitcroft reverting to Keith Hillisms and his constant bigging up of the opposition .During the winning streak there was a lot less of that. Whatever formation he plays with whatever players he needs to get back to getting the ball into the last third of the pitch as quickly as possible, Mickey Melon said as much the other day........Brighton at home is not a mammoth task its 3 points for the taking, lets get stuck into them.