TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Difference was Dave...we'd already scored enough!!!!

Wasn't in either camp, loved Lings approach when he first came here esp. with THAT match at Rovers when he said "that one is for the supporters" Top Bloke then and all that half of this one. Love to know why Bill Phillips said we wouldn't be signing anyone in the transfer window and what Ling had asked for, guess we'll never know now.

Starting to have a pessimistic bad feeling about this now REALLY hope it is Knill & Brass and etremely glad Baker isn't chairman to make that decision cos I'm pretty sure I know who he would like.

taxilady wrote:Difference was Dave...we'd already scored enough!!!!

Agreed Nina but with the trash talking by the person quoted he could hardly make that comment without it being shown for what it was.

Who would that be out of interest Dave? (Pougher)

taunton_gull wrote:Who would that be out of interest Dave? (Pougher)

Buckle no doubt.

Lloyder5 wrote: 'she who pays the piper, calls the tune' and indeed may have been the central issue when she became chairwoman.

Sometimes, when men with balls are needed to implement decisive action, an individual physically without them steps up to the plate and does the necessary dirty.

Very surprised by the news. Obviously if Ling was still being promised he could return to the job up until recently, he's got good reason to be angry. Although I far prefer Knill's tactics to Ling's, I don't think there was actually much difference in the way of results this season. Knill's done a good job and should rightly be praised for keeping us up, but not sure he's been as brilliant as some are making out.

Looking at some of the players' reactions on Twitter - Manse, Downes, Easton and Craig to name a few - it seems Ling was very popular with the players. Hope Knill (or whoever comes in, if Knill gets a better offer) can be just as popular - if not, a few bad results at the start of the season, he could lose the dressing room and things go t*ts up.

"The female of the species is deadlier than the male"

DTUFC wrote:Very surprised by the news. Obviously if Ling was still being promised he could return to the job up until recently, he's got good reason to be angry. Although I far prefer Knill's tactics to Ling's, I don't think there was actually much difference in the way of results this season. Knill's done a good job and should rightly be praised for keeping us up, but not sure he's been as brilliant as some are making out.

Looking at some of the players' reactions on Twitter - Manse, Downes, Easton and Craig to name a few - it seems Ling was very popular with the players. Hope Knill (or whoever comes in, if Knill gets a better offer) can be just as popular - if not, a few bad results at the start of the season, he could lose the dressing room and things go t*ts up.

Went a man down after 7 minutes away at Dagenham yet still scored twice and got a draw under Knill. Went a man down after 30 odd minutes at Bradford and never looked like scoring and lost under Ling. Went to Southend, went 1-0 down and got a draw under Knill whilst under Ling we'd have settle for a 1-0 defeat. Went to Northampton and created a few chances away at a top team and created chances even after they'd scored when under Ling we'd have played much worse for a 1-0 loss. Won two games back to back under Knill who only had a a few months at the helm, Ling did so too but he had 3 quarters of a season nearly to achieve it. Drew 0-0 at Accrington which would have been ok under Ling but under Knill we looked like maybe scoring. I don't need to go on really, the difference in results and performances may not seem a lot on the face of it but in my eyes it is massive.

Buckle no doubt.[/quote]

Of course, should have guessed. No doubt he would have driven him to the interview

taunton_gull wrote: Of course, should have guessed. No doubt he would have driven him to the interview

Or met him at Plainmoor a couple of weeks before "stepping down"

AustrianAndyGull wrote: Went a man down after 7 minutes away at Dagenham yet still scored twice and got a draw under Knill. Went a man down after 30 odd minutes at Bradford and never looked like scoring and lost under Ling. Went to Southend, went 1-0 down and got a draw under Knill whilst under Ling we'd have settle for a 1-0 defeat. Went to Northampton and created a few chances away at a top team and created chances even after they'd scored when under Ling we'd have played much worse for a 1-0 loss. Won two games back to back under Knill who only had a a few months at the helm, Ling did so too but he had 3 quarters of a season nearly to achieve it. Drew 0-0 at Accrington which would have been ok under Ling but under Knill we looked like maybe scoring. I don't need to go on really, the difference in results and performances may not seem a lot on the face of it but in my eyes it is massive.

Fair points Andy. As I said, I was impressed by the performances under Knill (and I have no doubts without him, we wouldn't have survived), but not particularly struck on his results.

For anyone who's interested, under Knill we got 16 points from 14 games (1.14 points per game). Under Ling, we got 34 points from 26 games - 1.3 points per game. As I thought, the difference is small. Would be content if Knill got the job, and preferred his style to Ling's, but think although he was good for us, he's been slightly hyped-up by some.

I have read some tosh on this site, but never as much as has been posted on the ML/AK saga.

It is obvious that some people have the attention span of a flee, and the memory of a goldfish.

Knill is now being painted as some sort of Messiah. He has overseen a couple of streaky wins ffs. Important ones granted, but he has not transformed the side. If we had been relegated we would have deserved it for a lack of ambition and a lack of funding.

I don't want to get drawn into a massive debate on this because there have been 9 pages already and I've got other things to be doing, but I'll just say my piece.

I'm disappointed. I've said it elsewhere but I'm a passionate believer in second chances, and in people's ability to change. I think Martin Ling has been robbed of that opportunity today. It would also seem that the manner in which it has all come out is pretty shambolic, as we've come to expect.

I also feel that people are showing a worrying lack of memory and very quickly jumping to conclusions - some kind of black and white picture where Ling ruined the club and Knill saved it. A fairytale triumph of good over evil. Make no mistake - the fact that we are still a League club is largely down to Knill's hard work, but who's to say if he took over (people seem to forget that the word 'if' still applies) things would work the same way? It would be a very different task, and he wouldn't have the kind of kitchen sink support he had from the board towards the end of the season. We are forgetting that Martin Ling brought in Rene Howe, Brian Saah, Aaron Downes and Bobby Olejnik. He encouraged the likes of Lathrope and Oastler to make their mark on the first team, he got the best out of Mansell and Stevens, and he was the first person to give Macklin an honest assessment on the direction of his career. His honesty, particularly coming after Buckle, was refreshing. There is nothing to suggest that, if he came back refreshed and ready for the challenge, we wouldn't have another successful season. There is certainly nothing to suggest that Knill would do any better.

yellow wrote:I have read some tosh on this site, but never as much as has been posted on the ML/AK saga.

It is obvious that some people have the attention span of a flee, and the memory of a goldfish.

Knill is now being painted as some sort of Messiah. He has overseen a couple of streaky wins ffs. Important ones granted, but he has not transformed the side.

Exactly right. He got important wins... and fairpay to him... but even they were incredibly streaky. I say again, I could take or leave Knill but I fully expect the board to bow down to what seems to be the majority of fans and go with Knill.