Corky Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Almost anyone makes a big mistake and Holloway's immediate reaction is to get him off. It's a reaction that solves nothing and mends nothing. I can't be bothered with the deep psychology of it all cos it's just common sense to me. Managing is easy when things are going well but a quality manager keeps all his players inspired whatever happens. Hume felt that miss but everyone knows his character and the time to lift him again is there and then - by showing complete faith in him. He'd been kicked when he saw that penalty pass the wrong side of the post. He didn't need kicking again. Indeed the crowd showed better managerial instincts by chanting his name. I'd want 11 players on the field with Hume's attitude and commitment - not to be taking off one of the few we had. Wednesday must have been delighted. The Wednesday back four would have been delighted when Hume went off. He visibly frightened them in the first half, winning a ball he had no right to get to for his goal, and then the composure for his finish. Howard didn't look interested, Hayles wasn't at his best, Fryatt and Campbell are not prolific enough or harass the back four enough. Hume is our biggest threat, and Holloway should have treated him better after the penalty miss. It clearly affected Hume, and Holloway did not help by hauling him off.
Hendrie is God Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Come on.MM has been great to Holloway hes gave him dosh and he is IMO spent it unwisely and can tell me whats good about his record in management. From what I gather MM is buying most of the players! He is the owner, not the manager! If he wants to be so controlling, sack Holloway and appoint himself.
Sniffer-Clarke Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 From what I gather MM is buying most of the players! He is the owner, not the manager! If he wants to be so controlling, sack Holloway and appoint himself. Cant get any worse.
DanTheFox07 Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 I'm not a fan of Holloway - he's really mishandled the money he was given in January, but I really don't think he should be sacked either - how far has the upheavel of changing managers got us in the past few years? We just get the same old excuses about "transition periods" and the squad not being their own selection. I know it's difficult to persuade people to be patient when we've watched the same drivel for the past 4 seasons, but I think that whatever division we are in next season, we'll perform better if we stick with what we've got than if we try and shake everything up yet again. Yeah this is true and holloway said to judge him after what signings he had brought to the Team, Haven`t been anything special........ plus weve had bori and lazcko on the bench what a waste of money just another 2 players on the wage bill! yet another manager we have had who Is rubbish at touting talent in transfer market.
Sniffer-Clarke Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 My choice for manager would be PAUL INCE if he would COME ?
Ultra Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Why would Ince leave one third division club for another one? Especially as it's quite possible that his current club will have bigger crowds than us next year..
kingston_fox Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Almost anyone makes a big mistake and Holloway's immediate reaction is to get him off. It's a reaction that solves nothing and mends nothing. I can't be bothered with the deep psychology of it all cos it's just common sense to me. Managing is easy when things are going well but a quality manager keeps all his players inspired whatever happens. Hume felt that miss but everyone knows his character and the time to lift him again is there and then - by showing complete faith in him. He'd been kicked when he saw that penalty pass the wrong side of the post. He didn't need kicking again. Indeed the crowd showed better managerial instincts by chanting his name. I'd want 11 players on the field with Hume's attitude and commitment - not to be taking off one of the few we had. Wednesday must have been delighted. Quite frankly, Hume was completely knackered when he came out for the second half - whether that had something to do with the stupid decision to try and play him, Howard and Hayles up front without any of them tracking back when necessary I don't know. He was trudging around like he was running on sand by the time he came back out... I'm not doubting his commitment, especially in the first half where he was able to get the better of their defenders (who incidently I thought were as mobile as Howard is up front) but you could see he wasn't up for the penalty when it was there for the taking. Holloway lost the game when he failed to recognise that without Hayles tracking back we were exposed at the back and as such he would have been better off taking Hume out of the game and shaking it up a bit. I watched Holloway regularly tell Hayles to switch with Hume as it was in the first half and neither of them responded - make of that what you will.
Thracian Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Quite frankly, Hume was completely knackered when he came out for the second half - whether that had something to do with the stupid decision to try and play him, Howard and Hayles up front without any of them tracking back when necessary I don't know. He was trudging around like he was running on sand by the time he came back out... I'm not doubting his commitment, especially in the first half where he was able to get the better of their defenders (who incidently I thought were as mobile as Howard is up front) but you could see he wasn't up for the penalty when it was there for the taking. Holloway lost the game when he failed to recognise that without Hayles tracking back we were exposed at the back and as such he would have been better off taking Hume out of the game and shaking it up a bit. I watched Holloway regularly tell Hayles to switch with Hume as it was in the first half and neither of them responded - make of that what you will. You make some interesting points. There really isn't the cohesion or understanding in the first team to allow individuals like Hume and Stearman to get a short rest when they need it and the ridiculous number of substitutes these days means too many players seem to have lost the ability to play a full 90 minutes. At other levels the players switch constantly but without noticeable change in the shape and smooth-running of the side. Beswick for instance will start at left-back in the reserves, advance to left wing, take a spell in midfield and even turn up on the right flank to deliver corners and effect a different manner of attack. Andy King will start in defensive midfield, take a break on the right wing, move to attacking midfield then start supporting behind the strikers. If he takes a breather on the right then Beswick or Chambers can move inside but the fluidity remains and the players stay relatively fresh. Almost always when someone moves, another player takes his place and I don't think I've ever seen anyone fail to respond to Beaglehole's instructions. People seem to enjoy his approach and respect what he has to say. Hayles shouldn't be tracking back anyway, he's too damned old for that and should be confined to places in and around the box where he can hurt people or, better still, to the bench when he can come on for the last half hour. If you want tracking back then Hume or Billy McKay are the best options but whoever it is will lose some sparkle as a striker. Fair enough if you've got potential scorers throughout the side and the team can attack and defend as one but from different directions. If not, and that's the case with us, then you're snookered and would be best served sticking with 4-4-2 and a more potent back eight. Our first team often has just two or three potential scorers. When the reserves play there's sometimes five or six at a time, not counting the Hungarians, and that, in its simplest form is the root cause of our problems. Apart from Howard and Hume with their 17 goals between them who else scores with any regularity for the first team? Campbell, another striker has five but there's next to nothing from any other department. No team can cope with that and expect to be anywhere but in the relegation dogfight.
kingston_fox Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 i have no clue about the reserves and how they play so i won't even attempt to compare their Tuesday nights games against mediocre opposition with a do or die game against Sheff Wed. In an ideal world no, Hayles wouldn't be tracking back but by doing so helped to shore up the defence when needed, when he didn't do it because i assume Hume was supposed to there, there were bigg frigging holes down the left hand side which they exploited at ease. Ironically in the first half you would notice that because Hayles was playing deeper it pulled a big hole in their defence when we punted the ball up front, hence the first goal but when that wasn't there they were able to block it out easily. How many times in the first half did their defenders just knock the ball out for a throw in because of Hume chasing down? Like I said though, he was knackered when he came out and it would have been a better idea to have kept Hayles where he was and put someone else on to chase down... I guess none of their legs were up for it or Holloway thought that by pushing three up front we would force them back but the reality after 5 mins was that they could just plough down our left flank as much as they liked. It's a shame though, once we saved the penalty I really thought it was our day but they showed more character to turn their shambles around than we did to maintain what was a game in our control.
Thracian Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 i have no clue about the reserves and how they play so i won't even attempt to compare their Tuesday nights games against mediocre opposition with a do or die game against Sheff Wed. In an ideal world no, Hayles wouldn't be tracking back but by doing so helped to shore up the defence when needed, when he didn't do it because i assume Hume was supposed to there, there were bigg frigging holes down the left hand side which they exploited at ease. Ironically in the first half you would notice that because Hayles was playing deeper it pulled a big hole in their defence when we punted the ball up front, hence the first goal but when that wasn't there they were able to block it out easily. How many times in the first half did their defenders just knock the ball out for a throw in because of Hume chasing down? Like I said though, he was knackered when he came out and it would have been a better idea to have kept Hayles where he was and put someone else on to chase down... I guess none of their legs were up for it or Holloway thought that by pushing three up front we would force them back but the reality after 5 mins was that they could just plough down our left flank as much as they liked. It's a shame though, once we saved the penalty I really thought it was our day but they showed more character to turn their shambles around than we did to maintain what was a game in our control. Hence why I suggested Campbell should have come on after we scored to exploit the Wednesday defenders problems in dealing with pace and rapid pressure. This would also have helped share the workload.
Koke Posted 27 April 2008 Posted 27 April 2008 Hume was a nuisance and was causing chaos to the Wednesday defence. He's the only forward who scores regularly for us but yet Holloway ****s about with him. It pisses me off to no end.
Sniffer-Clarke Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 Why would Ince leave one third division club for another one?Especially as it's quite possible that his current club will have bigger crowds than us next year.. Why wouldnt he leave mk for city.
RedOnRed Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 Why would Ince leave one third division club for another one?Especially as it's quite possible that his current club will have bigger crowds than us next year.. Hmmm, not too sure about us getting bigger crowds then you next season. What's your average gate been this year? Anyway, hands off the Guvnor!
ASH17LCFC Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 Hmmm, not too sure about us getting bigger crowds then you next season.What's your average gate been this year? Anyway, hands off the Guvnor! About 22,000, you'll never get better crowds then us ever. Paul Ince is just another Martin Allen Expect Martin Allen isn't a tart.
reynard Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 Why wouldnt he leave mk for city. Because he will leave for a big club most likely in the top half of the championship and not one that is looking likely to spending possibly several season in the old div 3!
Thracian Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 Why wouldnt he leave mk for city. Because he's already got a good thing going at MK and would have to build something almost from scratch at Leicester.
chesterfox Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 apologies if i have joined this thread so late and if it has been said before but ffs how stupid is Holloway?? Does he really want to insult our intelligence by having us believe with his empty stupid meaningless words that he is on our side and can motivate the players by saying things like ''they'd better be prepared for a fight??? fook right off you imp - you were clueless on Saturday and your desperate 3 -1-6 formation at the end just summed it up - you had better be prepared for a fight Ollie - a fight for your job. My son said to me after the game ''dad i dont want to see you have to suffer like that again'' but it has been one long continuation of the same suffering hasn't it. fook them all off and start afresh a la Jock Walsh Leicester tillidieLeicester tillidieLeicester tillidieLeicester tillidieLeicester tillidie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 Kinell Posted 28 April 2008 Author Posted 28 April 2008 No R esolve No E nterprise No L ower No E steem No G ood No A pplication No T actics No I ndustry No O rganisation No N ounce
RedOnRed Posted 28 April 2008 Posted 28 April 2008 About 22,000, you'll never get better crowds then us ever.Paul Ince is just another Martin Allen Expect Martin Allen isn't a tart. That's 22,000 in The Championship. It's hard to say, but how many do you think you'd get in Div1 or 2? We've recently been getting 12 and 13 thousands, which aint too bad for the lowest league.
4 Kinell Posted 29 April 2008 Author Posted 29 April 2008 That's 22,000 in The Championship. It's hard to say, but how many do you think you'd get in Div1 or 2? We've recently been getting 12 and 13 thousands, which aint too bad for the lowest league. IF we get relegated & we ain't down yet , and we get a good start,we'd soon get 20,ooo plus IF we were to stop all season ,say in the top three,we'd be getting 25-30,000 believe it or not ! Contrary to where we are at the moment-we ARE POTENTIALLY a big club ! Just realising it is the major problem !
Corky Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 IF we get relegated & we ain't down yet ,and we get a good start,we'd soon get 20,ooo plus IF we were to stop all season ,say in the top three,we'd be getting 25-30,000 believe it or not ! Contrary to where we are at the moment-we ARE POTENTIALLY a big club ! Just realising it is the major problem ! I agree, we will have the hard-core 18-20,000 that will go no matter what, and if we start well, others will come along. Can't see too much of a difference in attendances from this season.
hackneyfox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 I agree, we will have the hard-core 18-20,000 that will go no matter what, and if we start well, others will come along. Can't see too much of a difference in attendances from this season. There are a lot of people who won't renew season tickets, and the it is a bit presumptious to assume that we have any chance of being near the top, half the team will leave and the other half we won't want. Can we build a team around Bell, who else would be left?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.