Keep Kelly as a coach?

[Geo V]

No.

He has favourites within the club and it must be a fresh start. the last thing we need is for theer to be a divide once a new man comes in, if he comes in even !

I hope RK takes a lower club job and does well as a manager because I will always be greatful for the revival he "masterminded" last season and for doing OK this season with little to no resources and all this takeover stuff in the backround. Thanks RK but now fook off!!!!

[Head Honcho]

We need a team of stiffs to manage first.

We have a team of stiff's. It's called the 1st team!

[Thracian]

How does one 'measure' the concept of 'coaching'?

Effect in many ways. You can offer players help and then provide drills and small-group exercises to improve and develop the point you've made but it still requiress the "pupil" to believe in what they are told and to diligently practise until they effect a permanent improvement.

Then there is team coaching and, again, the players have to put the coaches work into practise. This often requires the right player because there are "coaches" players, individuals who coaches always choose to demonstrate something because they always provide a good picture.

Levi Porter, I am sure, would be just such a person. Technically he is one of City's best and if the coach want someone to deliver a certain type of pass into a certain place, he would be the first you'd choose, I imagine.

I don't doubt for a minute City have been working on McAuley's attacking of the box from City's attacking set pieces. And it takes a precise delivery. If the delivery fails two or three times the idea fails because the opposition cotton on.

On Saturday Kelly seemed to get good marks as a coach. Not only did he have the team pressing up whenn we were leading - something we didn't do against Luton - but we had two precise set plays, both of them from the same position in effect yet both subtly different and involving a different deliverer.

That's not a fluke. That's good coaching and repeated practise, put to good effect.

I could chapter and verse the times our coaching has flopped but you get the picture. And I'd rather concentrate on the good side right now seeing we won and seeing the boss, and his players, got some things right.

[Flynny]

I've explained my views on keeping Kelly as manager until either he proves good enough/too bad to justify or until a genuinely better option becomes available.

But if he loses the managership then the new boss will want his own team around him.

I'd want to keep Beaglehole though. His achievements are without question or doubt. And so is his style of play.

It's just a pity there s absolutely no relationship between the way the Under 18's are taught and encouraged to play and the way the first team plays, apart from the zonal marking. Even the Academy's 4-4-2 is more often 2-4-4.

Clearly we should be teaching these youngsters boring, safety first, grab-one-and-pinch-one "win ugly" football from the start. So they are used to it and it's part of their psyche by the time they reach maturity.

I think thats to do with resources. Our first team isn't good enough to beat lots of teams no matter how they play, really. It's not got the class, it's just not as good.

Our academy team isn't in that position. There was an article on BBC Sport abotu Jason Koumas here that this arguement reminded me of. Pretty interesting and relevant.

Playing an attacking game with verve and flair is fine if you have the quality and the confidence, but otherwise you're going to concede by the bucketload. I'm not saying our defensive approach is entirely right, just that I can understand the reasoning behind it.

[Simi]

If he does get sacked then he shouldn't stay. We need a clean start and still having his nput on the team isn't changing anything know matter how good or bad coach he is. Were not in a much better positon when Levien was here and Kelly was his assistant. Same as McLaren under Sven.

[Thracian]

I think thats to do with resources. Our first team isn't good enough to beat lots of teams no matter how they play, really. It's not got the class, it's just not as good.

Our academy team isn't in that position. There was an article on BBC Sport abotu Jason Koumas here that this arguement reminded me of. Pretty interesting and relevant.

Playing an attacking game with verve and flair is fine if you have the quality and the confidence, but otherwise you're going to concede by the bucketload. I'm not saying our defensive approach is entirely right, just that I can understand the reasoning behind it.

It was two years ago that I said if you're going to play attacking football you have to do so right through the team and with players who are capable of pulling it off.

Sadly, since then, we have continued to sign and field people who are not capable of doing that.

Now, with Maybury at right-back, Jarrett in midfield, McAuley capable of passing and scoring from central defence, at least the semblance of a right winger and some aerial capaibility up front, we might have a better chance.

We still need a mobile, attacking left back, strikers who can score and an Andy King-type instead of Johnson in midield. But there has been some progress.

[Geo V]

Ive said it before but part of a coaches job is to teach coach them to make them better players and more tactically aware. Most of our players seem to have gone backwards from last season including Stearman, Paddy Mac and Matty Fryatt. I know its not all solely on RK but a quality coach brings players on.

[Leonisco]

It might be a good idea to keep him on as a youth-team coach - after all he always stated that he never wanted to be a manager and if Mandy could offer him a decent wage for it then there's no reason why he wouldn't accept a demotion.