If I were a Director....

[Banging_Them_In]

5 - 3 - 2 is perhaps the way to go. Ideally you need wind backs who have pace as well as the ability to cross.

Nicholson does not have the former but he can cross.

For one thing, all this fuss about 4-3-3 these days is only really applicable to top sides and International footy.......

Build from the back, 5-3-2 can also turn into 3-5-2 quite easily.

Playing 5-3-2 does mean you need one of the 3 centre backs to have the ability to advance on occasion to link up more with midfield.

Didn't Cyryl Knowles play us at 5-3-2

[ferrarilover]

He could cross, 5 years ago in the Conference. These days, he is one of the worst crossers of a ball in the whole division.

Matt.

[Banging_Them_In]

......or is it that we had a better centre forward back then.......in the conference ?

[bengull]

There was nothing wrong with his crossing at Bury last week.

[ferrarilover]

I knew someone would point to Bury. That's two successful corners in his last 300 games. Hardly an appropriate strike rate.

Do me a favour, BTI. We could have the love child of Messi, Ronaldo and Sills up front and, with endless numbers of floaty, far post catching practice crosses provided by Nico, we still wouldn't score from them.

Matt.

[Dave]

Love the way this thread has morphed, from if I were a director I would seriously want to know what was going on, to if I were a director I would want to sit around and discsuss what the best formation was and if or who can cross a ball..

[chunkygull]

5 - 3 - 2 is perhaps the way to go. Ideally you need wind backs who have pace as well as the ability to cross.

Nicholson does not have the former but he can cross.

For one thing, all this fuss about 4-3-3 these days is only really applicable to top sides and International footy.......

Build from the back, 5-3-2 can also turn into 3-5-2 quite easily.

Playing 5-3-2 does mean you need one of the 3 centre backs to have the ability to advance on occasion to link up more with midfield.

Didn't Cyril Knowles play us at 5-3-2

yes, he most certainly did! it was quite a big thing at the time as i remember, drawing much comment, and considered quite unusual, radical even. a few years later england adopted a similar system at italia 90 which also drew much comment.

would it really hurt to try something a bit different, it would be better to do it now than when its too late.

i didnt go yesterday but the amount of times i heard it said on the radio that there is no movement from our players, they dont manage to string more than a couple of passes together or they play like strangers. this is all things i have said myself when watching this team. there is one more phrase i heard yesterday which is similar to what i have said many times myself and if i were a director i would be breathing down alan knills neck right now asking him - "WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY DO IN TRAINING".

the board should be asking questions right now, they should be all over him like a rash wanting to know what is going on and what he is going to do to put things right. in any other profession if the performance of staff is poor, questions are asked and heads might roll. if he doesnt like it if they question him, he can always walk.

[nickbrod]

....I would still be extremely annoyed the day after. With the manager banging on pre-match about the financial importance attached to a home cup draw together with the back fired decision to reduce admission prices after fewer than 2000 turned up I would be insisting on a 'clear the air' meeting on Monday morning.
We have a decent squad at present so why was yesterday's performance so inept? Makes a mockery of what both Knill and Mansell wrote in their programme notes.
Now is the time for the directors to show some teeth.

[Dave_Pougher]

....I would still be extremely annoyed the day after. With the manager banging on pre-match about the financial importance attached to a home cup draw together with the back fired decision to reduce admission prices after fewer than 2000 turned up I would be insisting on a 'clear the air' meeting on Monday morning.
We have a decent squad at present so why was yesterday's performance so inept? Makes a mockery of what both Knill and Mansell wrote in their programme notes.
Now is the time for the directors to show some teeth.

Glad somebody's said that I actually think we have some decent players at the moment, certainly slightly better than what was left when ML was left with IMO and they performed immeasurably better than these we have now. The board must be thinking about the cost of Bakers legacy in employing AK. they must be aware of the non residential support (like myself) not currently contributing to the gate receipts. I decided not to travel yesterday for a variety of reason the biggest of which I just knew I'd come away depressed. Fair play to those that went but sub 2000 gates are not good.

[hector]

"The decision is based purely on footballing grounds, after falling from play-off contenders last season to just escaping relegation this time around, and early exits in all three cup competitions."

The 'footballing' reasons for sacking Martin Ling, and how we would take the form the team was showing when Ling went sick in exchange for the disaster we have now.

What are the 'footballing reasons' for persisting with a clearly ineffective Alan Knill? If I was a director, I would be asking that question.

[arcadia]

Start planning for the future and don't give a manager more than a years contract as they should negotiate a longer contract after a good first year. Don't bother with them if they don't like your terms.

[Rjc70]

....and able to pick the team I'd go for a back four of O'Connor, Downes, Pearce and Cruise.

Bang on, I reckon.

[ferrarilover]

Why do we keep on about ML being sacked for footballing reasons? Everyone on Earth knows that's not true, so to keep referencing it is bizarre.

Matt.

[Scott Brehaut]

So the club lied to everybody then?

[ferrarilover]

Of course. You know this, we all know this. Ling was sacked for being sick and a liability that we weren't willing to carry. Sacking a bloke for 'footballing reasons' is perfectly legitimate. Sacking him for being sick makes the club liable to an out-of-Court settlement up in seven figures.

Matt.