davieG Posted 7 March 2007 Share Posted 7 March 2007 The problem here, DavieG, is that Thracian has pulled one sentence from the whole interview. Standing alone it can be made to sound negative. I can't see where Kelly is being negative when you read it the entire piece. A phrase out of context is a pretext. And Thracian has done this to suit his own view. My criticisms are not based on what Thracian says or just on that one interview I've found his pre-match & post-match comments for that matter consistently negative no matter who we are playing or what the current situation is, every uttering is steered towards preparing us the fans for a draw or defeat. Quite frankly it's grates on me almost more than the abject performances that inevitably follow. As I also said when we've played so called superior Premier opposition he's taken a much more positive approach and low and behold, coincidence or not the crowd have been up for it and we've performed better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 7 March 2007 Share Posted 7 March 2007 My criticisms are not based on what Thracian says or just on that one interview I've found his pre-match & post-match comments for that matter consistently negative no matter who we are playing or what the current situation is, every uttering is steered towards preparing us the fans for a draw or defeat. Quite frankly it's grates on me almost more than the abject performances that inevitably follow. As I also said when we've played so called superior Premier opposition he's taken a much more positive approach and low and behold, coincidence or not the crowd have been up for it and we've performed better. Some of us value wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 7 March 2007 Share Posted 7 March 2007 Eh, nothings happened yet. His results have been good. WHEN they stop being good, I will criticise him. I personally think we'll beat Palace, and if we do, I won't care how, why, or what's been said before and after the game. All I want is results, and at the moment he's delivering. When he stops, that's time to start reviewing the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatbloke Posted 7 March 2007 Share Posted 7 March 2007 Some of us value wisdom. So who are you claiming has this wisdom then Steven ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Hallelujah. This is just another 'Kelly Out' thread in another guise. Thrac, Davieg, Ric Flair, JME, TPH et al - we know you don't like Kelly, but is it really necessary to bemoan every little thing about him? Anything he does will never be good enough for some people. People could of said the same thing to you about Levein, you weren't keen on him. I haven't got anything against Kelly per say (sp) but he's not good enough. Even if Mandaric hadn't bought us out, i'd have concerns about Kelly being at the helm, but that's irrelevant now. We now have an owner who should be able to re-vitalise this club and with no disrespect to Rob, we'll require a higher calibre of manager. It's not as if Rob hasn't been given a fair crack. He's been here over a season now. Ok, so he's had little money to work with but the small funds he has had he's not really used wisely. Other than McAuley, his signings have been utter guff. But with the current squad we've had this season, we should of been able to improve on last season's dismal league position. Yet, we are around about the same spot as last season with a similar upturn in results near the closing stages of the season. There's no signs of him having that bit of magic about him, where he can conjure up something from very little. Something good managers can do at this level. He regularly talked about having little money to get players in, but the fact we had several players at the start of the season worth a few quid should have given him scope to play with. Billy Davies (Preston), Adrian Bothroyd (Watford) and the other good young managers that have been at this level in recent times have been in charge of clubs who had similar finances to ourselves. They had a plan though. They knew they might have to cash in on assets to generate finances to strengthen areas of the team. Both did it and used the money wisely to bring several players in and it catapulted their clubs up the table. Any signs of Kelly ever doing that? Instead, the young players that were worth a decent wedge (Fryatt, Stearman, etc) have gone backwards under Kelly's coaching and are probably worth a fraction of what we could have got for them in the summer after good seasons for us. We turned down million pound + offers for both of them. Yet, neither have been picked on a regular basis by Kelly due to various reasons. The thing i've not mentioned here though, is that even if Kelly did have a similar game plan and was shrewd enough to cash in on a player to get the money to bring 2 or 3 players in. He's hardly got a reputation of being able to pick up a bargain and make the most of a transfer budget. I've only scratched the surface as to why Kelly isn't good enough. The myth about him being a good coach is what gripes with me the most. Where's the evidence?. He's a nice bloke and is a mini-legend for saving us last season. But sentiment for what he did last season isn't enough to keep him in the job. I'd rather he go with his head still held high in Leicester, before he gets found out properly and ends up getting the boot that clouds the memories of what he did last season when we looked dead and buried. But that has shown to be a purple patch and I can't see him being able to replicate that sort of form over the course of a season. Not here anyway, not when there is a greater expectation and money at stake for Milan. Cheers for what you did last season Rob, perhaps we could name a plant after you. But other than that pal, you're not good enough to take us where we want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBK Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Any signs of Kelly ever doing that? Instead, the young players that were worth a decent wedge (Fryatt, Stearman, etc) have gone backwards under Kelly's coaching and are probably worth a fraction of what we could have got for them in the summer after good seasons for us. We turned down million pound + offers for both of them. Yet, neither have been picked on a regular basis by Kelly due to various reasons. The thing i've not mentioned here though, is that even if Kelly did have a similar game plan and was shrewd enough to cash in on a player to get the money to bring 2 or 3 players in. He's hardly got a reputation of being able to pick up a bargain and make the most of a transfer budget. Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo V Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. I think we should start to loan these kids out a bit more often. We cant blame lack of funds from the months gone by for not having a strategy for our kids and there development away from the club on loan surely? All you have to do is look at Wolves who have loaned out that young GK to Stockport and he has gone from nowhere to being trailed by Premiership clubs and even Dirty Leeds, who have loaned out Beckford to Sc**thorpe who is scoring goals (and class ones at that) for fun. Why he hasnt been recalled to their shower I dont know but then again lets hope they leave him there so relegation can be attained! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. The fact is, Kelly was aware there was little money for him to strengthen in the summer. We had bids for both Stearman and Fryatt in excess of a million and he turned it down. He had every right to as they both are good players. But at this level and in the situation we are in, you have to sell to buy. It's the nature of the beast, Kelly put himself under pressure by not doing so. Because now what's happened is, the players we turned down bids for, haven't even played much for us for various reasons. Therefore we've neither benefited from having the services of these players nor the money we could of got had we sold them. Hindsight is wonderful, but history has shown that to gain success at this level you often have to sell your most sought after assets to generate money to strengthen the team in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. Irrespective of injuries Fryatt wasn't fit from day one so those injuries hold no water. How on earth can players like Stearman mature into the job by not participating in that job, the only maturing he's going to get is what it will feel like when he's retired. A completed wasted season for him and for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 8 March 2007 Author Share Posted 8 March 2007 Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. You've touched on a real problem in our club. Lots of us would like to see a fit Wesolowski in the team. But Kelly also wants Hughes in the team. And Johnson. And Tiatto. And Jarrett. They are all his types of player. Industrious, persistent, determined, disciplined. Trouble is they are basically all the same. They stop the opposition playing but are creatively fairly sterile. We don't need five such players - or three as Kelly invariably goes with - so some are clearly surplus to requirements. Yet Kelly simply won't admit it and introduce a genuinely creative box-to-box midfield player. Where is our Paul Scholes or Patrik Berger type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Point out the fact that Fryatt has been injured regularly. Otherwise Stearman and Weso are only treated like reserves. So either Kelly feels the need to let them mature into the job for this particular year which is valid, because as with Logan I think he will be very improved when he is given another chance. Critical issue is if Stearman is given go-ahead to play against Palace or Maybury regains his place as RB. My basic knowledge of knee injuries is that inflammation of the cartilage prevails for longer than 2 weeks, and inflammed cartilage is more susceptible to tearing by muscles. Tear cartilage seriously and you have 2-3 months on the sidelines. Weso is the one I want to play regularly. Because we can have as many young talented players as we want in the 1st team, but why let them waste away. It is true that someone like AJ might know something of controlling tempo but so what at the tempo he drives a match.... I'd like Kelly to explain his decisions more, because I still think he is not that bad. I don't think our physios are stupid mate. I think their fully trained and qualified opinion of knee injuries is better than your "basic knowledge" of knee injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 The fact is, Kelly was aware there was little money for him to strengthen in the summer. We had bids for both Stearman and Fryatt in excess of a million and he turned it down. He had every right to as they both are good players. But at this level and in the situation we are in, you have to sell to buy. It's the nature of the beast, Kelly put himself under pressure by not doing so. Because now what's happened is, the players we turned down bids for, haven't even played much for us for various reasons. Therefore we've neither benefited from having the services of these players nor the money we could of got had we sold them. Hindsight is wonderful, but history has shown that to gain success at this level you often have to sell your most sought after assets to generate money to strengthen the team in the long run. Nail on the head really ric, and as you've pointed our Watford are a excellent example of what can happen if you have the balls to get rid of a mediocre manager. There were more than a few eyebrows raised when Lewington got the boot at Watford, Watford were established in the Championship and He'd also got them to a FA cup semi final. They're were even more raised eyebrows when his replacement, a young unknown manager named Aidy Boothroyd sent Hider Helguson packing for £750,000. The rest as they say is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 You could also argue that if we sold them the board at the time would have taken most of the money to pay off debts etc. So Kelly would have lost 2 key players at the time and probably only have around 200-300k to replace them. You say now yeh we should have got rid of them because they've had poor seasons so far but at the start of the season i'm sure you wouldn't have thought the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 You could also argue that if we sold them the board at the time would have taken most of the money to pay off debts etc.So Kelly would have lost 2 key players at the time and probably only have around 200-300k to replace them. You say now yeh we should have got rid of them because they've had poor seasons so far but at the start of the season i'm sure you wouldyn't have thought the same. Unfortunately RKs failed on both counts then because he neither got ridy of when he was arguably at his most valuable or got the best out of Stearman, demonstrating that he is lacking in his coaching abilities and his transfer wheelings and dealings. The speed at which MM appears to want operate in is not apparently matched by RK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 You could also argue that if we sold them the board at the time would have taken most of the money to pay off debts etc. So Kelly would have lost 2 key players at the time and probably only have around 200-300k to replace them. You say now yeh we should have got rid of them because they've had poor seasons so far but at the start of the season i'm sure you wouldn't have thought the same. Obviously, and it can also go the other way and be a disaster. The point is RK doesn't like selling what he's got, it's a safe non risk approach, like alot of subs, alot of his line ups and alot of his tatics, ultimatley it wont get us promoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBK Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 I don't think our physios are stupid mate. I think their fully trained and qualified opinion of knee injuries is better than your "basic knowledge" of knee injuries. Then why did Henry play yest against PSV. I'm saying Kelly will probably ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Then why did Henry play yest against PSV. I'm saying Kelly will probably ignore them. He was out with a back strain and he's not got a tear to his stomach and a groin strain. Unrelated. EDIT:Sorry "Hamstring and foot" problems not a back strain. Also they rushed him back for a season defining game, Palace away is not that important for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBK Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 He was out with a back strain and he's not got a tear to his stomach and a groin strain. Unrelated. EDIT:Sorry "Hamstring and foot" problems not a back strain. Also they rushed him back for a season defining game, Palace away is not that important for us. What is important for us? 3 points all the same. For Kelly more time in his position. Eitherway realised I got it wrong. Seems the ankle was done for Maybury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 What is important for us? 3 points all the same. For Kelly more time in his position. Eitherway realised I got it wrong. Seems the ankle was done for Maybury Nothing, nothing worth risking Alan Mayburys general fitness over anyway espically when we have decent cover that needs experince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonisco Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Any signs of Kelly ever doing that? Instead, the young players that were worth a decent wedge (Fryatt, Stearman, etc) have gone backwards under Kelly's coaching and are probably worth a fraction of what we could have got for them in the summer after good seasons for us. We turned down million pound + offers for both of them. Yet, neither have been picked on a regular basis by Kelly due to various reasons. The thing i've not mentioned here though, is that even if Kelly did have a similar game plan and was shrewd enough to cash in on a player to get the money to bring 2 or 3 players in. He's hardly got a reputation of being able to pick up a bargain and make the most of a transfer budget. How do you know that it's Kelly's fault though? Fryatt and Stearman may not have the right attitude, for all we know they're lazy, arrogant tossers who think they've made it already. If that's the case (which I'm not necessarily saying it is) then there's not an awful lot Kelly can do about that. You also fail to mention that Levi Porter and Conrad Logan have made huge strides under Kelly - two young players who maybe aren't at the same level as Fryatt and Stearman and aren't worth "a decent wedge" but who have outshone them this year. If he can bring those two into the first team, then getting Matty and Richard playing well shouldn't have been too hard, which I think means that there's probably something else to it (although in Fryatt's case it's probably more to do with injuries). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Any signs of Kelly ever doing that? Instead, the young players that were worth a decent wedge (Fryatt, Stearman, etc) have gone backwards under Kelly's coaching and are probably worth a fraction of what we could have got for them in the summer after good seasons for us. We turned down million pound + offers for both of them. Yet, neither have been picked on a regular basis by Kelly due to various reasons. The thing i've not mentioned here though, is that even if Kelly did have a similar game plan and was shrewd enough to cash in on a player to get the money to bring 2 or 3 players in. He's hardly got a reputation of being able to pick up a bargain and make the most of a transfer budget. where did you read that, football rumours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBK Posted 8 March 2007 Share Posted 8 March 2007 Nothing, nothing worth risking Alan Mayburys general fitness over anyway espically when we have decent cover that needs experince. I think we're agreeing on the same thing. I was saying Stearman deserves a chance with Maybury injured and if Maybury plays he may very well aggravate the injury. If anything this whole discussion has prompted me to revise the lower limb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.