Finn Claw Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 For those who defend RK on the basis of having no funds, lets have a look at who he has signed. Johnson – Garbage Lowe – Garbage Welsh – Garbage Kenton – Okay - does a job McAuly – Good We also had Carl Asarba on trial, what a joke that was. He also got rid of Ryan Smith who at least had the balls to try and take players on He didn’t sign a left back or an attacking midfielder when we obviously needed both, certainly over a centre back and Right back. Now he may not have had any cash but that doesn’t stop you getting some good loan signings in, look at the two Chelsea players at QPR. He is also far too negative, this is perhaps because our midfield is dreadful it will be interesting to see if he puts his faith in Williams when he is fit, who I have strong reservations about but is at least an attacking footballer. I’m not saying that RK is shite as he did a great job at the end of last season and has very limited resources I just think that there are better options out there especially after MM has taken over and we have a bit of cash. Football is no place for sentimentality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 Laughable most of this!! All these armchair experts slagging off Rob Kelly, a man who is working with one hand tied behind his back. Or is that irrelevant? The time to heap all this naive abuse on Kelly is if he fails after he's given funds to strengthen this godforsaken squad. I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to some of the team-talks some of you lot would give. It's so easy sniping from behind a keyboard. It would be interesting to know if many of you Kelly baiters have actually played or managed football at a decent level because it's hard to believe any have judging by some of this rubbish. Top Post L444ry. We have disagreed on plenty but you are sooooo right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 I don't think MON always had what I'd describe as quality players, certainly not in the Bergkamp sense. No obviously we didn't have a team full of Bergkamps, if we did we'd of won the champions league. You cannot say that players like Izzett, Lennon, Savage, Heskey, Elliott, Flowers didn't have quality. They were the spine of the team and could have gone to almost any premier team and done a job, Some of them did!!! Yeah he got the best out of people that is undeniable, but you cannot sit here and compare every manager to him forever. There have been a handful of managers like him in the history of the game. Even players he "got the best out of", Elliott, Guppy, Claridge, Cottee... they cost £1.2m, 700k, £1.1m and 500k. Savage, Lennon, Izzett... 500k, 750k, 850k. Not even all his signings worked, Eadie £3m, Gunnerlaugsson (sp) £2.2m, Fenton £1m. Rob Kelly has had £000000000000000000000000.00 to spend.... jesus Lee Phillpot cost us about 300k!!!! The guy has his faults, but I think people are overly harsh. Whether he is the man to take us to the next level i'm not sure, but he should at least be given the chance to get in some quality loan signings in the transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 For those who defend RK on the basis of having no funds, lets have a look at who he has signed. Johnson – Garbage Lowe – Garbage Welsh – Garbage Kenton – Okay - does a job McAuly – Good We also had Carl Asarba on trial, what a joke that was. He also got rid of Ryan Smith who at least had the balls to try and take players on He didn’t sign a left back or an attacking midfielder when we obviously needed both, certainly over a centre back and Right back. Now he may not have had any cash but that doesn’t stop you getting some good loan signings in, look at the two Chelsea players at QPR. He is also far too negative, this is perhaps because our midfield is dreadful it will be interesting to see if he puts his faith in Williams when he is fit, who I have strong reservations about but is at least an attacking footballer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 I'm not going to pretend to know what makes a good coach but I have been to see Kelly training sessions and I've seen training sessions under past managers too and one of the main things that stand out is that when Rob is explaining something to the players they all stop to listen and take on board what he's trying to get through to them. There's no players messing about in the background, the all want to learn from him and that goes for the older players in the squad too. To an extent, once those players cross the white line then it's down to them to perform. Of course Kelly has to pick the correct team but when you're squad's as thin as ours and has some players in it that aren't good enough anyway, the job of picking the team almost does itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 No obviously we didn't have a team full of Bergkamps, if we did we'd of won the champions league. You cannot say that players like Izzett, Lennon, Savage, Heskey, Elliott, Flowers didn't have quality. They were the spine of the team and could have gone to almost any premier team and done a job, Some of them did!!! Yeah he got the best out of people that is undeniable, but you cannot sit here and compare every manager to him forever. There have been a handful of managers like him in the history of the game. Even players he "got the best out of", Elliott, Guppy, Claridge, Cottee... they cost £1.2m, 700k, £1.1m and 500k. Savage, Lennon, Izzett... 500k, 750k, 850k. Not even all his signings worked, Eadie £3m, Gunnerlaugsson (sp) £2.2m, Fenton £1m. Rob Kelly has had £000000000000000000000000.00 to spend.... jesus Lee Phillpot cost us about 300k!!!! The guy has his faults, but I think people are overly harsh. Whether he is the man to take us to the next level i'm not sure, but he should at least be given the chance to get in some quality loan signings in the transfer window. I thought long and hard about the way to express my MON comments because I expected someone to say he did have quality players. So I didn't say he didn't have quality players but that he didn't always have quality players, some were simply good players, but the thing about MON was that he constantly got so much out of so many of them. By building his team around their strengths. Instead of deciding on a system and insisting on fitting people into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 I must confess I don't particularly see the coaching thing either. Presumably he was doing a fair bit of coaching under Levein and look where that got us. I think Kelly's main positive is getting results from poor performances, which is more of a manager thing than a coaching thing. If he was a good coach, we wouldn't be playing poorly in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilesyboy Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 You touch on an important point and one which only adds fuel to Barton's view - that too many players fail to function at their best under RK. I think its mainly to do with them being drafted into a team which doesn't play in the way they're used to. We have two styles of footballer in the same team. At reserve team level (when they play) and at Academy level they press forward and attack in numbers, real numbers. Any player with the ball has several options as to what to do and lots of close support so that, even if the ball is lost, it is usually recovered on the rebound so to speak. That simply doesn't happen in the first team and, apart from Logan, Porter has probably found it easiest to adapt. It is one of the reasons we need to complete our transition rapidly to one of attacking pass and move football with young, fast, agile footballers. As for evidence that the coaching is lacking it's there every week. We've had some success with Tiatto bending a free-kick in on the goallie so what do we do - we repeat the thing til every opponent is expecting that approach instead of posing a series of different problems. Our corners are invariably bent in to the edge of the six yard box for our big defenders. Everyone knows that. We should play some short and some hard and low - first to keep the opposition guessing and second to take a player or two away from our big men and so give them more space in the box. Coaching is all about being one step ahead and being more imaginative and more efficient than the opposition. I can't remember more than one occasion when we've done a crossover, there's very little overlapping, we cramp our space at throw-ins, we don't hit feet from the throws, and only Porter, Tiatto and Hume of our players ever seem to pass and move. Off the ball movement is a joke - it hardly exists. Just look up when your sitting in the stand and one of our defenders brings the ball out and looks for a pass. See how many people are actually moving to try and create space. There's more movement in a graveyard and I've rarely seen it so pronounced at our club right now. All that might not be what Kelly has called for, I don't know. But it's what he's getting. Some interesting points I certainly agree with, although it brings it back to the old argument, sacrificing immediate results for the good of the long term. Changing the coaching methods and styles of play will require experimentation with techniques and players etc which will invitably put results on a downward spiral, the younger palyers don;t need that kind of pressure and with R Kelly on a year rolling contract and the fate that his predecessor suffered do you think he's going to risk this, no chance. I think the best way is to send a lot of these young players out on loan, get them to toughen up a little and work with the incumbents to try and achieve at least some semblance of a pass and move game then integrate them into that pattern rather than throw them to the lions, cross your fingers and find them shut out 3 games down the line if it isn't working. In a nutshell, shield them form the cr@p that is currently served and aim to bring them in when all is sorted, not rely on them as a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 Some interesting points I certainly agree with, although it brings it back to the old argument, sacrificing immediate results for the good of the long term. Changing the coaching methods and styles of play will require experimentation with techniques and players etc which will invitably put results on a downward spiral, the younger palyers don;t need that kind of pressure and with R Kelly on a year rolling contract and the fate that his predecessor suffered do you think he's going to risk this, no chance. I think the best way is to send a lot of these young players out on loan, get them to toughen up a little and work with the incumbents to try and achieve at least some semblance of a pass and move game then integrate them into that pattern rather than throw them to the lions, cross your fingers and find them shut out 3 games down the line if it isn't working. In a nutshell, shield them form the cr@p that is currently served and aim to bring them in when all is sorted, not rely on them as a solution. All the more reason Kelly should have got his information at the end of last season - when it was suggested - and during the close season when we wasted so much time playing so many untesting friendlies. I'd rather send underperforming players on loan or into exile and instead have faith in our footballers. Sending them out on loan is just another way of avoiding uncomfortable decisions - and Dodds is a classic example. The only people flying the flag for us right now are youngsters. Even the best first teamers are people like Kisnorbo, Hume, McCarthy, Logan, Porter and I'm quite sure Weso will follow when he's fit. Which old uns are really deserving of the shirt right now?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 21 November 2006 Share Posted 21 November 2006 All the more reason Kelly should have got his information at the end of last season - when it was suggested - and during the close season when we wasted so much time playing so many untesting friendlies. I'd rather send underperforming players on loan or into exile and instead have faith in our footballers. Sending them out on loan is just another way of avoiding uncomfortable decisions - and Dodds is a classic example. The only people flying the flag for us right now are youngsters. Even the best first teamers are people like Kisnorbo, Hume, McCarthy, Logan, Porter and I'm quite sure Weso will follow when he's fit. Which old uns are really deserving of the shirt right now?. Surely it is the opposite Thracian. He has sent him on loan because he feels he's not good enough yet. You really do misrepresent Rob Kelly at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Surely it is the opposite Thracian. He has sent him on loan because he feels he's not good enough yet. You really do misrepresent Rob Kelly at times. Flippin eck L444ry we're on a bit of a roll here on agreeing. Thrach, sometimes you just don't see the reality. I know someone very well who has just signed his first professional contract with a championship club. He, like many of the youngsters you bang the drum for has worked his way up through the academy and into the reserve team. The conversation that he is having at the moment is one about the possibility of sending him out on loan. This has been discussed with him on a regular basis because believe it or not these youngsters get spoken to, not as you seem to describe be left "hanging in suspense" waiting for the call up. This particular player does not see it as management avoiding an uncomfortable decision one bit. His attitude is one of the longer term where he knows what his particular requirements are to develop. Whilst having a bit of trepidation about where he might go, he is behind the club's thought trail 100%. I do not believe for one moment that this club operates in isolation in how it treats it's youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Surely it is the opposite Thracian. He has sent him on loan because he feels he's not good enough yet. You really do misrepresent Rob Kelly at times. Sorry, I thought it was Kelly himself who described him as "the most natural finisher at the club". I don't notice too many more of them around at least at first team level. He won't have decided he's "not got enough" on the basis of his lesser team performances because he was Mr Consistency when it came to scoring (hence, presumably, his comment) so why he's left him out in the wilderness while every striker but Hume struggles to beg a goal smacks to me of not wanting more expensive senior strikers sidelined. Cos otherwise I'd love to know how you work out how any of our regulars merit a place in a striking role apart from Hume right now. I happen to think Fryatt, O'Grady and Hammond all have their plus points - and have detailed them on occasions - but that doesn't blind me to the fact that COG's not fit, Fryatt probably the same and none of the three have delivered goals all season. Hammond's big plus is his pace not his goals. Dodds has never had once chance to show whether he's good enough or not. Yet Hammond and Fryatt seem to be blessed with chances. There are others who are just the same. People who seem able to play badly without the slightest fear of getting dropped. Among the others one forward clocked up 40-odd games without a goal. And Low's not scored in 11. If I misrepresent RK, which I've no desire to, you explain it. And explain why I shouldn't want the likes of those people out on loan or playing reserves football, instead of people like Dodds and Andy King who might, just might, help us flow a bit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilesyboy Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 All the more reason Kelly should have got his information at the end of last season - when it was suggested - and during the close season when we wasted so much time playing so many untesting friendlies. I'd rather send underperforming players on loan or into exile and instead have faith in our footballers. Sending them out on loan is just another way of avoiding uncomfortable decisions - and Dodds is a classic example. The only people flying the flag for us right now are youngsters. Even the best first teamers are people like Kisnorbo, Hume, McCarthy, Logan, Porter and I'm quite sure Weso will follow when he's fit. Which old uns are really deserving of the shirt right now?. Essentially my point. I agree with yourself and Whitney Houston in that 'I believe the children are our future', ahem... and I also agree that the players in question pretty much form the basis of the 'real footballers' at the club, but I don't think it's right to back them right now as the structure isn't there to support them which will only be detrimental to their development. Sending underperforming players out on loan isn't simply uneconomical but puts too much pressure on our youth by handing them to mantle of turning things round and goes back to my original post on this topic being that if this doesn't happen, as the players I originally highlighted have shown to be likely, then not only are we worse off in the short term but run a huge risk with our long term progress. As long as Kelly doesn't let them believe they're not good enough I see no problem with loaning them out, providing they go to appropriate clubs, and while they're away set about administering a more 'footballing' approach to current senior squad in the way we play, who whilst maybe lacking in finesse have the experience to pull the odd result out of the hat to keep us ticking over, while the structrue is changed for the kids to come back into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Essentially my point. I agree with yourself and Whitney Houston in that 'I believe the children are our future' I think that you'll find that was Gary Glitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Flippin eck L444ry we're on a bit of a roll here on agreeing. Thrach, sometimes you just don't see the reality. I know someone very well who has just signed his first professional contract with a championship club. He, like many of the youngsters you bang the drum for has worked his way up through the academy and into the reserve team. The conversation that he is having at the moment is one about the possibility of sending him out on loan. This has been discussed with him on a regular basis because believe it or not these youngsters get spoken to, not as you seem to describe be left "hanging in suspense" waiting for the call up. This particular player does not see it as management avoiding an uncomfortable decision one bit. His attitude is one of the longer term where he knows what his particular requirements are to develop. Whilst having a bit of trepidation about where he might go, he is behind the club's thought trail 100%. I do not believe for one moment that this club operates in isolation in how it treats it's youngsters. The reality is that we have scored too few goals, are 18th in the table or thereabouts, are continually overweight with defenders and have people in our team who don't deserve the shirt, not in the main because they don't try, but because they're not good enough and never will be.. And for all the understanding and excuse-making we are just two points better off after 20 games than we were under Levein last season and that's going to get worse if we don't change. Yet I seem to remember the same arguments being put forward to justify Levein's defensive regime and the players he picked who failed to deliver. This isn't the time for young players. It isn't the time to attack. We might get caught on the rebound. We need experience... For some people it's never the time. And so we go on with the same old shortcomings. Well, it might have been coincidental, but we only started picking up last season when young Wesolowski became available and when young Kisnorbo moved back into defence. I well understood young Dodds being sent out to Northwich to get him match-fit. But why we left him there for a second month I've no idea, given our predicament and the fact I don't see that a team like Northwich will do anything for his football. Cos I truly doubt they'd beat our reserves. And right now we need him here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anish Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Laughable most of this!! All these armchair experts slagging off Rob Kelly, a man who is working with one hand tied behind his back. Or is that irrelevant? The time to heap all this naive abuse on Kelly is if he fails after he's given funds to strengthen this godforsaken squad. I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to some of the team-talks some of you lot would give. It's so easy sniping from behind a keyboard. It would be interesting to know if many of you Kelly baiters have actually played or managed football at a decent level because it's hard to believe any have judging by some of this rubbish. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilesyboy Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Spot on. No offence but I think we've moved on a bit from there mate don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverFox Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Spot on. Seconded! Those comments are spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 No offence but I think we've moved on a bit from there mate don't you? No offence but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Thracian Posted Today, 12:52 AM "I've no idea" Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Spot on. What's the one hand that's tied?. Lack of money? And I suppose, given his signings so far, you'd give him millions of your money to spend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 In this case size does matter. Unkess I have missed someone, only one of our resident strikers is over 6 foot. Hume 5 '7" Fryatt 5' 10" Hammond 5' 9" Chris O' Grady 6' 3" Mark de Vries 6' 3" Old greats like Stanley Matthews Jimmy Greaves, George Best, Dennis Law and even todays strikers Owen, Rooney all of them short guys and they score with their feet. So unless we buy tall uns our strikers aint going to score many headers; thats a physiological issue not a training problem. Wheras Kisnobo and Stearman are 6 '2 apiece and have scored for Leicester with headers. Micheal Owen scores plenty of headed goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 In this case size does matter. Unkess I have missed someone, only one of our resident strikers is over 6 foot. Hume 5 '7" Fryatt 5' 10" Hammond 5' 9" Chris O' Grady 6' 3" Mark de Vries 6' 3" Old greats like Stanley Matthews Jimmy Greaves, George Best, Dennis Law and even todays strikers Owen, Rooney all of them short guys and they score with their feet. So unless we buy tall uns our strikers aint going to score many headers; thats a physiological issue not a training problem. Wheras Kisnobo and Stearman are 6 '2 apiece and have scored for Leicester with headers. Exactly, so why does Rob Kelly encourage our team to hoof the ball up to our strikers and swing aimless crosses in. It just surrenders possession, hence us being easy to play against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 Micheal Owen scores plenty of headed goals. And the big thing about little blokes who score headers is not so much their leap as their movement and late timing of runs into the box. Tony Cottee is a good recent example of someone whose movement to the near post was brilliant, just giving him a yard or so's edge to clip a shot or flick a header into the net. We don't have anyone who seriously attacks the near post and it is rare indeed for us to score a goal from this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 22 November 2006 Share Posted 22 November 2006 And the big thing about little blokes who score headers is not so much their leap as their movement and late timing of runs into the box. Tony Cottee is a good recent example of someone whose movement to the near post was brilliant, just giving him a yard or so's edge to clip a shot or flick a header into the net. We don't have anyone who seriously attacks the near post and it is rare indeed for us to score a goal from this position. Do we have any movement in our team, the players in my table football game have more movement!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.