Kilworthfox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 I blame Holloway because, for the first time since going into administration, I believe we have a group of players that should be a half-decent Championship team.Which is something that should be tackled and adressed by the manager. If there is a malaise at the club then he's had plenty of time to sort it out. He's not only failed to improve the situation, but, going on what I've seen on the pitch recently, just made things worse. Not actually bollocks then now you have read it was it? The main points are: Holloway has not been here for a full season Holloway has not changed the poor uncompetitive mentality of the players (just like every other manager since Adams 1st full season BTW full of ex O'Neill players) The players who have been here for seasons under performing continue to under perform We need players who want to battle when they have to, not to shirk that responsibility Holloway has not had a pre season with these players Holloway has not had the time IMO to have an opportunity to have this clear out and bringing in of fresh blood as he had a mid transfer window We were in a similar position before he came Holloway has brought in some quality players, however they have made no difference I am not suggesting he has done everything well, but I am suggesting that we are judging him harshly as he has not got great tools with which to build a great side, on paper we are good, but the desire of the side + the the mental toughness of a group of people is not there at Leicester, it has not been here for years, personally I would like him to have the chance to change these things! Holloway may not be the answer, but is constant instability? Are we going to have 4 managers per season until we get some fluky results which mean 1 guy gets slightly longer than another? A hard decision has to be taken somewhere along the way, why not make it now and say to the fans, THIS is my man, come relegation or survival, at least the players would know that Holloway is the man they have to impress and play for. I believe football is about talented players and making them a team, before all that happen you have to get both of those qualities and pick natural mental winners, the people who strive to win an all costs, we have few too many of those characters at LCFC, that is my 1 major issue with the players has been for seasons.
Daggers Posted 29 April 2008 Author Posted 29 April 2008 Which is something that should be tackled and adressed by the manager.If there is a malaise at the club then he's had plenty of time to sort it out. He's not only failed to improve the situation, but, going on what I've seen on the pitch recently, just made things worse. How recent is recent - the last time I looked we'd got a draw and a win from our last three games. Having money to spend in January is not the same as having it during the summer - the quality of players available is in short supply and most of the decent ones were commanding prices out of our reach according to the stories at the time. Not only that, but we were messed about by potential loan signings not coming, the decent one going and everything that had gone before. The squad is not something that can be sorted out in a couple of months - the crap attitudes and the losing mentality that Kelly fostered have to be sidelined which just isn't possible at the moment. You seem to think that a manager can simply come into a changing room, say a couple of words, and everything will be OK on the pitch if he's half-decent at his job. The world doesn't spin that way. We have a history of sacking people then throwing money at them that could be used for players - and we simply aren't learning the lesson from that mistake.
Kilworthfox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 Desire Stability Mental Strength Confidence Ability Decisions All lacking from the club
Daggers Posted 29 April 2008 Author Posted 29 April 2008 DesireStability Mental Strength Confidence Ability Decisions All lacking from the club I remember them using the handy acronym DSMCAB
Kilworthfox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 I remember them using the handy acronym DSMCAB It was actually D S M C A D
Daggers Posted 29 April 2008 Author Posted 29 April 2008 It was actuallyD S M C A D The B was for oh Bollocks! Any room on the Twat bus, Raj?
Kilworthfox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 The B was for oh Bollocks! Any room on the Twat bus, Raj? THOUGHT YOU WERE THE DRIVER? Sit down! shut up!
Raj Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 I still say he should stay - and so did 75% of you last week compared to just two thirds of you the week before.How's your opinion bearing up in the face of a loss and imminent relegation? Im not fickle. BUT get the cvnt out of here.
C-man Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 For the first time now, I'm not bothered either way. It worried me greatly when he switched Baz and Hume at half-time and then took Hume off whilst he still looked most likely to score. Although I really want Ollie to succeed, with tactics like that he's not winning any friends. Still, win on Sunday and I'm sure I'll want him to stay
Eastern Fox Posted 29 April 2008 Posted 29 April 2008 Still, win on Sunday and I'm sure I'll want him to stay Why? We should never have been in this position in the first place, the reason it's got to this is we took one point from two games where should have got six (Colchester and Wednesday). He's done nothing so far to show that he knows what he's doing, the Stoke game makes no difference. His job when he was appointed was to guide us to midtable/playoffs, not narrowly avoid relegation (if we beat Stoke).
Monk Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 Changed my mind now. He makes jokes about relegation and he clearñy thinks its a bit of a laugh. The final game is down to the players not him. Hate to say it but I think he should face the chop for being so utterly shite.
Kilworthfox Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 For the first time now, I'm not bothered either way. It worried me greatly when he switched Baz and Hume at half-time and then took Hume off whilst he still looked most likely to score. Although I really want Ollie to succeed, with tactics like that he's not winning any friends. Still, win on Sunday and I'm sure I'll want him to stay To be fair he did the same at Barnsley anr I thought the same and we won, and greatly both down to them Can't win them all I suoppose?
Chimp Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 To be fair he did the same at Barnsley anr I thought the same and we won, and greatly both down to them Can't win them all I suoppose? At Barnsley we were winning 1-0 and the substitutions were all about preserving that lead. You can't compare it to the Sheff Weds game where the only player who looked likely to scored was moved to the wing.
Kilworthfox Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 At Barnsley we were winning 1-0 and the substitutions were all about preserving that lead.You can't compare it to the Sheff Weds game where the only player who looked likely to scored was moved to the wing. When Hayles came on it was the 44th minute! The change was made due to hendrie being injured. Hayles and Hume swaped it was 0 vs 0 I don't wish to argue with you after every responce but I do believe we should be accurate with the information we put out on here.
BigGibbo Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 Still the same answer as the last 4 polls. :thumbsup:
Dr The Singh Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 When Hayles came on it was the 44th minute! The change was made due to hendrie being injured. Hayles and Hume swaped it was 0 vs 0 I don't wish to argue with you after every responce but I do believe we should be accurate with the information we put out on here. This forum would die in minutes!!!
Kilworthfox Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 This forum would die in minutes!!! too true mate
Chimp Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 When Hayles came on it was the 44th minute! The change was made due to hendrie being injured. Hayles and Hume swaped it was 0 vs 0 Yeah, sorry, forgot Hayles came on for Hendrie... I was thinking more of the subs during the second half where Bruno and Campbell came on for Hume and Bell. I don't wish to argue with you after every responce but I do believe we should be accurate with the information we put out on here. If you don't want to argue then just give up and agree with me. It's obvious that we're of different opinion otoward Holloway and that we won't change each other's mind so I'll bow out of this conversation with the following... Played: 35 Won: 10 Draw: 9 Lost: 16 Win Ratio: 0.28 Which, AFAIK, is worse than any previous manager since we went into administration, despite the majority of the team being made up of players who joined this season.
Daggers Posted 30 April 2008 Author Posted 30 April 2008 Win Ratio: 0.28Which, AFAIK, is worse than any previous manager since we went into administration, despite the majority of the team being made up of players who joined this season. Try doing a ratio for the number of managers Stearman has played under per month and then you'll be raising stats that have a bearing on our current predicament. As always - the inference from his win ratio is that someone else would have done better, and I don't believe they would have.
Kilworthfox Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 Try doing a ratio for the number of managers Stearman has played under per month and then you'll be raising stats that have a bearing on our current predicament. As always - the inference from his win ratio is that someone else would have done better, and I don't believe they would have. Or the amount of managers that he has under performed under? Apparently he is one player the Holloway has managed to motivate according to most on here? Well Holloway has done something positive then?
act smiley Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 Win Ratio: 0.28Which, AFAIK, is worse than any previous manager since we went into administration, despite the majority of the team being made up of players who joined this season. Err, Megson's league record was worse. When you look at the league, to be honest the problem hasn't been that we've not won enough, its that we've lost and drew in key games that have gifted some terrible sides vital points - Holloway's record just the average of what we've been this season, shite. This season, league-only: Allen P3 W1 D1 L1 Pts 4 WR 0.33 PPG 1.33 Beaglehole-Rudkin P1 W0 D1 L0 Pts 1 WR 0.00 PPG 1.00 Relevance 0.00 Megson P7 W1 D4 L2 Pts 7 WR 0.14 PPG 1.00 Burrows-Taggart P4 W1 D2 L1 Pts 5 WR 0.25 PPG 1.25 Holloway P30 W9 D7 L14 Pts 34 WR0.3 PPG 1.13 Total P45 W12 D15 L18 Pts 51 WR0.26 1.13
volpeazzurro Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 To be fair he did the same at Barnsley anr I thought the same and we won, and greatly both down to them Can't win them all I suoppose? We were bloody lucky against Barnsley.
Kilworthfox Posted 30 April 2008 Posted 30 April 2008 We were bloody lucky against Barnsley. I think it was Kevin Keegan who said he would rather be lucky than good! I personally would never say that, you make your own luck in life
Daggers Posted 30 April 2008 Author Posted 30 April 2008 We were bloody lucky against Barnsley. And bloody unlucky in a whole number of matches - if Kisnorbo had not been sent off in both of the games where the red card was recinded we wouldn't even be bothered about Sunday's match. Holloway had a shite squad, some real bastard luck and a bunch of fickle boo-boys who one minutes vote him to stay and the next for him to leave. If we beat Stoke then most of this board will suddenly want to give him the keys to the city.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.