Thracian

[Fez of Mahrez]

That really is the modern fanfare from England downwards - hard to beat. It's like reading an epitaph.

Don't you understand that if the crowds continue to dwindle on the back of that philosophy we'll end up skint?

A 2,000 shortfall doesn't sound a lot but it really is quite serious in percentage terms.

That said you've got legions of friends defending that stance of yours so I'd much rather be wrong than right.

Crowds continue to dwindle on the back of us winning games?

We were harder to beat because we lost less games than we did previously. We also won more games. That's what football is all about, winning games. Scoring more goals than the opposition. That's what we were doing under Kelly. The club may have finished 16th but we were 22nd when he took over.

If we continue this season like we were under Kelly last season, you think we'll lose fans? I don't. If you stretched Kelly's record last season over 46 games we'd be comfortably top half and probably in a play-off position. We lost at home to Preston and we lost away to Ipswich, Norwich and Southampton. Hardly disgraceful. Maybe you'd like us to be less hard to beat, which we were under Levein when we lost at home to teams like Nottingham Forest and Rotherham?

[dandannieldanok]

That really is the modern fanfare from England downwards - hard to beat. It's like reading an epitaph.

Don't you understand that if the crowds continue to dwindle on the back of that philosophy we'll end up skint?

A 2,000 shortfall doesn't sound a lot but it really is quite serious in percentage terms.

That said you've got legions of friends defending that stance of yours so I'd much rather be wrong than right.

Being hard to beat = success = ticket sales

Look at Chelsea

[Thracian]

I think you'll find I wanted Levein out about six weeks earlier than he went. I don't like defence obsessed manager's of any sort.

We can talk statistics for ever. We actually won two of our last seven games under Kelly, perhaps because his style was becoming known, which wouldn't get us anywhere.

I do want us to be hard to beat. And I'd like the reason to be because the ball is invariably at the other end.

We will not get sufficient wins from a team which concedes over a goal a game by playing just two attacking players. Indeed I doubt the club has ever fielded so few in its history and, furthermore, even when we win, the games are appalling to watch.

So yes crowds will continue to dwindle. The ordinary fans, aside from the fanatical core, don't want to spend £35-odd a game all told watching torrid football, as someone described it.

Even in our best run we only ever won games by a single goal apart from 2-0 against Crystal Palace when we netted the second very late.

It is a slender margin and I doubt we will continue to get consistently the right side of such results now the opposition is aware of exactly how Kelly plays.

[dandannieldanok]

I think you'll find I wanted Levein out about six weeks earlier than he went. I don't like defence obsessed manager's of any sort.

We can talk statistics for ever. We actually won two of our last seven games under Kelly, perhaps because his style was becoming known, which wouldn't get us anywhere.

I do want us to be hard to beat. And I'd like the reason to be because the ball is invariably at the other end.

We will not get sufficient wins from a team which concedes over a goal a game by playing just two attacking players. Indeed I doubt the club has ever fielded so few in its history and, furthermore, even when we win, the games are appalling to watch.

So yes crowds will continue to dwindle. The ordinary fans, aside from the fanatical core, don't want to spend £35-odd a game all told watching torrid football, as someone described it.

Even in our best run we only ever won games by a single goal apart from 2-0 against Crystal Palace when we netted the second very late.

It is a slender margin and I doubt we will continue to get consistently the right side of such results now the opposition is aware of exactly how Kelly plays.

So what?

1-0 is worth the same amount of points as 4-0

I hope kelly and the team prove your pessimism wrong

[Thracian]

So do I.

[Thracian]

Being hard to beat = success = ticket sales

Look at Chelsea

Not a very relevent comparison.

Look at the facts of our ticket sales. There lies realism.

[newms]

Not a very relevent comparison.

Look at the facts of our ticket sales. There lies realism.

that has very little to do with Kelly.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I think you'll find I wanted Levein out about six weeks earlier than he went. I don't like defence obsessed manager's of any sort.

- That was just a point that we were beating all the teams around us at the bottom under Kelly (Millwall, Brighton etc) which we didn't do under Levein, which I view as a significant improvement. We were getting to be easy to beat towards the end of the Levein era and the first thing Kelly had to do was add some steel to the side to make us harder to beat and give the strikers a platform to go and win us games instead of always chasing them being 1-0 down.

We can talk statistics for ever. We actually won two of our last seven games under Kelly, perhaps because his style was becoming known, which wouldn't get us anywhere.

- Yeah we could talk statistics for ever. Because they support the argument that Kelly has a very good record so far. You pick out seven games because previous to that (and perhaps the Reading game as well..) we won three games in a row. Perhaps his style is becoming known - yeah we'll see. I think that's just you clutching at straws. Chelsea went through a phase towards the end of last season where they were beaten a few times in a relatively short space of time but no-one thinks they'll struggle this season.

I do want us to be hard to beat. And I'd like the reason to be because the ball is invariably at the other end.

Yeah fair enough, me too. Have never said different. No team is perfect though and if we have to grind out results, so be it.

We will not get sufficient wins from a team which concedes over a goal a game by playing just two attacking players. Indeed I doubt the club has ever fielded so few in its history and, furthermore, even when we win, the games are appalling to watch.

- But we will get sufficient wins if we score more goals than the opposition. If that takes us winning two games 1-0 then losing a game 2-0 then we will still be promoted at the end of the season on 90 points despite having a neutral goal difference.

So yes crowds will continue to dwindle. The ordinary fans, aside from the fanatical core, don't want to spend £35-odd a game all told watching torrid football, as someone described it.

- I'm not advocating dull football, I'm just saying that if we are winning games then the crowds will increase. And just because we are not playing all-out attacking football does not automatically make it dull or torrid.

Even in our best run we only ever won games by a single goal apart from 2-0 against Crystal Palace when we netted the second very late.

It is a slender margin and I doubt we will continue to get consistently the right side of such results now the opposition is aware of exactly how Kelly plays.

- So what are they going to do about it?

[Jimmy]

The last four games of last season were shit and we only won against Plymouth.

You are right about Maybury. He's solid. Nothing else and certainly nothing as an attacking midfield player. of course he'd be unhappy being left out, so is everyone else.

If Porter wasn't an improvement he'd get dropped but the present policy of keeping the Chosen Men in the team cos they earned us 16th place is getting us nowhere.

If Porter goes on loan it will take the pressure off Maybury and Kelly. Nothing more.

If Porter came in and did badly then he'd get dropped same as anyone else and if Maybury was unhappy so what?

you seem to be over looking the fact that Josh Low is a right winger and other people can play there.

your obsession with youngsters is getting repetative and annoying, if they are good enough they will get a chance.

i understand why kelly will stick with maybury and tiatto as they have dont a job for him in the past and he knows what he will get, porter is COMPLETELY untried and isn't that strong physically, a loan spell say 3 months, would do him a world of good and help him adjust to the physical requirements of league fooball whilst not having our team carry someone who is not physically strong enough.

your argument about sheehan is stronger as he is probably our only current left back and should be given a proper run (to those that say we need nills experience then play him where he was signed to play at center back).

[newms]

your argument about sheehan is stronger as he is probably our only current left back and should be given a proper run (to those that say we need nills experience then play him where he was signed to play at center back).

it is evident that Kelly no longer regards Nils as a Centre Back or why else would he sign Kenton and McCauley when we already have Kisnorbo and McCarthy.

The 2 new signings makes it clear that Nils will be expected to be first choice Left Back. I was quite impressed with him their last season. The game against Hull he showed that he was capable of going forward something many argue he is incapable of.

Sheehan hasnt been near the first team side since the start of the year. If he was good enough then he had every opportunity to cement a place in the side. levein played him for a few games however it was felt that he let the team down when sent off (harsh when Kisnorbo, McCarthy and Tiatto have committed similar crimes.)

Kelly has not let him near the first team whilst he has given chances to other youth team players (O'Grady and Wesolowski) Perhaps he has an attitude problem or simply isnt ready and could benefit from a loan spell.

Don't tell me that Kelly doesnt play him because of favouritism or a closed shop because its not credible

[Ultra]

We dont score enough goals but we also still concede too many goals. Putting out a more defensive side should go some way to help us stop conceding as many goals. It is one of the general rules that you get the defense right first then the rest follows.

I actually think the opposite of you Thracian, I think it will be far easier to incorporate young, inexperienced players in a winning team than a losing one. We start winning and the confidence will build throughout the squad. It will also enable us to try those who are untested and take more risks buoyed by the belief in the team.

If we lose games and then rely on the younger players it is a huge amount of pressure to place on them and a task they may not be capable of.

Exactly.

Wasn't that the lesson we learned last season?

[Jimmy]

Sheehan hasnt been near the first team side since the start of the year. If he was good enough then he had every opportunity to cement a place in the side. levein played him for a few games however it was felt that he let the team down when sent off (harsh when Kisnorbo, McCarthy and Tiatto have committed similar crimes.)

sheehan was injured for quite a lenghty period of time

[Bert]

His sendig off against Crewe was stupid you're right.I do remember sommeone trying to defend him though.

[davieG]

His sendig off against Crewe was stupid you're right.I do remember sommeone trying to defend him though.

No more stupid than the other players that were sent off.

[Manwell Pablo]

His sendig off against Crewe was stupid you're right.I do remember sommeone trying to defend him though.

Not just defend him, also claim he was the best defender on the pitch so I remember.

[Guest]

I can't remember Johan Cruyff or Matt Le Tissier takling anyone but they sure made mugs of a few and they sure put bums on seats.

And they won?

[Manwell Pablo]

And they won?

I don't mean to make a twat out of you Lisa but I'll think you will find Matt Le Tisser came 3rd in the ugliest footballer in the premier league competiton 96/97. He was extremly unlucky to of been around at the same time as Marin Keown.

[shen]

you seem to be over looking the fact that Josh Low is a right winger and other people can play there.

your obsession with youngsters is getting repetative and annoying, if they are good enough they will get a chance.

i understand why kelly will stick with maybury and tiatto as they have dont a job for him in the past and he knows what he will get, porter is COMPLETELY untried and isn't that strong physically, a loan spell say 3 months, would do him a world of good and help him adjust to the physical requirements of league fooball whilst not having our team carry someone who is not physically strong enough.

your argument about sheehan is stronger as he is probably our only current left back and should be given a proper run (to those that say we need nills experience then play him where he was signed to play at center back).

I think the targetting of Thracian is unfair. I can completely understand his point of view, and however you twist and turn it, you have to admit there's an element of reason and truth in giving academy players a chance. Maybury is not a lasting solution on the right wing. He only played there because Sylla was awful, and Hughes et al that were played there out of position were awful too. Maybury was the least awful of them, and that can't be good enough for Kelly. If it is, we must seriously question his judgement.

You say that Porter needs a loan. Why exactly is that? Porter will never become a tank no matter how much he 'adjusts' to the League. That's one of his weaknesses. But if that weakness was fatal for his Leicester chances, he'd be long gone! Besides, he's already had a loan spell at Dundee Utd or some Scottish club, hasn't he? Your point about him being untried is not watertight either. Stearman was untried, yet he's now our main right back.

The thing I feel Thracian is highlighting is that this boy Porter has qualities that are essential to the team, to avoid us becoming too predictable. What use is an academy for the club if it doesn't even believe in the abilities of it's products?