| This is a good read. 13:32 - May 16 with 7247 views | Snipper |
This is from the facebook page of the QPR Northamptonshire supporters group.
I asked Aidan Magee from Skysports his views on the Ollie sacking on another FB Page.
Below is his brilliantly crafted response:
Paul Dowling Have to say I'm disappointed.
I've read closely some of the comments on here and on other QPR pages on Facebook and it's encouraging that most of our fans - usually the ones who attend most weeks - disapprove of the decision to remove Ian Holloway.
I must confess that last summer, I feared relegation and thought we'd finish with fewer than 35 points. That's certainly where our spending should have left us.
To secure safety by March, having made some very decent signings in the last 18 months, introducing some promising young players to the team, and slightly raising last season's finishing position and points total is very good going.
To do so beating Wolves, Cardiff, Aston Villa and Sheffield United, when they were second in the table, and fighting back from 2-0 down at Fulham - the best team in the Championship since Christmas - to get a draw, is also worthy of credit.
Yet doing so on a spend of £530,000 this season is, frankly, pretty remarkable.
That barely gets you a two bedroom apartment in Chiswick. And even then, you'll be lucky to get your own parking space.
In 1996/97, we paid nearly £8million in what's now the Championship for John Spencer, Gavin Peacock, Mike Sheron, Matthew Rose, Steve Slade, Paul Murray and Steve Morrow - then another £500,000 on Vinnie Jones the following season.
For the avoidance of any doubt - this was 21 years ago; Princess Diana was still alive and Hong Kong was still sovereign British territory.
I have repeatedly asked during conversations on Facebook this season who the critics of Holloway would have signed for £530,000.
Nobody has replied with a name. Not even one.
Even Holloway winning an average of one in three of his games since returning to the club warrants a mention when so many of those matches near the end of both campaigns were earmarked for looking at squad players.
Don't get me wrong, there have been low points in the last 18 months.
The away form has been very poor, certain players have not markedly improved as we hoped and the football hasn't always been attractive to watch.
Even allowing for this, it's impossible to argue that Holloway did a bad job.
In fact, he did a very good job.
I spend my professional existence talking to players, managers, agents, ex-pros, directors, owners, club media officials, fellow journalists and many others within football. All of them will tell you how critical recruitment is in the modern game.
Without good recruitment, you can't achieve the quality of individual nor the "culture" needed within a squad - and the most common result is a handful of disaffected players who undermine the manager and invariably get him sacked.
The key determinant of effective recruitment is money. And we don't have much of that. Only three clubs in our division spent less on transfer fees than we did.
There are a few who dispute how much we've spent, and point to a dwindling number of high earners still present in the squad as part of the expenditure.
The decisions not to renew the contracts of Jamie Mackie, James Perch and Nedum Onuoha make clear the club's intention to move on many of the players earning five-figure weekly sums.
There have been some horrific mistakes made in the transfer market since 2011. We all know about them. Indeed; we're still paying for them in so many ways.
At some point, though, we have to move on from those appalling errors of judgement and look at what is being done to remedy the situation. We can't change the past, so let's live in the now.
There are some who contribute to QPR debates on social media who don't grasp how little we've spent, and just how vital that is when assessing where the club, the team and the management are at.
It's absolutely fine for fans on here to immerse themselves in all things Rangers - we have careers, families and mortgages absorbing our time and headspace and we can't always preoccupy ourselves with the affairs of our Championship rivals.
A big part of my job, however, is knowing what goes on elsewhere in football.
And if I were to offer any advice to fans who use only scorelines and soundbites to form their opinion, I'd urge them to take a closer look at other clubs in our division and match what they've done against what Holloway has done.
Leeds United is a good starting point. They've spent £25.6million since last summer. They also took two Premier League loans.
The average wage of a Premier League player is now a staggering £50,817-a-week, which means that when a Championship player signs from that level on loan, even if you're only paying a percentage of the salary, you're probably placing that player among your highest earners.
Needless to say, a win at Elland Road last week would have seen us finish higher in the table than Leeds. As it was, they got four points more than our 56. It appears £25.6m doesn't buy you much these days.
Elsewhere in Yorkshire, Sheffield Wednesday spent £13.6m - including more than £10m on one player, Jordan Rhodes. We took four points off them.
Further down the country, Birmingham splashed out £15.49m, brought in five Premier League loans and I'm told they are paying their goalkeeper David Stockdale £100,000-a-week after he joined on a free from Brighton.
We did the 'double' over them and finished 10 points better off.
Norwich spent £13.3m, with three top flight loans, to finish two places and four points above us in the league, but not before we beat them 4-1 on Easter Monday.
Similarly, Reading invested £13.1m trying to bolster a squad which reached the Play-Off final at Wembley. They didn't take any Premier League loans but did sign two pretty expensive ones from the Championship in Chris Martin and Tommy Elphick - and all to finish 12 points below us in 20th.
Continuing the theme, Nottingham Forest spent £6.6m and recruited four on loan from the top division, supplemented by the not-so-cheap free transfer of former QPR loanee Ben Watson from Watford.
Forest would be considered lower end investors in the Championship, yet they've spent 12 times what we have, and finished one place below us.
Sunderland spent twice what we did and brought in nine loans from the Prem. We all know what happened to them.
Hull were supposed to be in meltdown in respect of ownership and expenditure. It didn't prevent £17.6m leaving their account. They may have beaten us 4-0 the other week but they still finished below us.
At the top end, the sums reach truly eye-watering levels.
Middlesbrough spent £50.4m and after losing their first leg Play-Off semi-final at home to Aston Villa, who boast a former England captain and Champions League winner on £100,000-a-week, they now have their work cut out to win through to the Play-Off final.
Even those who laud Neil Warnock - a manager I respect greatly - for leading Cardiff to automatic promotion and, like me, feel he should have been given the QPR job when Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink got it, will be interested to hear that he spent £11.4m. A job very well done, yes - but still no fairytale.
As documented above, we gave Holloway £530,000 to improve a squad which finished 18th the previous season.
We signed one loan from the Premier League from a side promoted from the Championship - that was Brighton's Kazenga LuaLua. He hadn't played in the top division in nearly a decade since making a handful of appearances for Newcastle.
He left us after a few months - no harm done, but he was no Alexsandar Mitrovic, who by the way cost Fulham £600,000 in loan fees alone! That's more than we spent in the entire season and he'll only be there for five months.
So if our manager gets sacked for outperforming most of his counterparts with a budget of £530,000, which he spent shopping at the likes of Barnsley, Exeter and Linfield - what should happen to the managers of Leeds, Sheff Wed, Birmingham, Hull and even Barnsley, who parted with £5.7m and got relegated?
I'm guessing they should all be burned at the stake?
Or do we accept that, actually, we were employing an experienced guy with three promotions and two Play-Off final appearances under his belt, who knew his squad and its limitations, had intimate knowledge of players coming through, had an understanding of the Championship, spent his money exceptionally well and had an historic attachment to the club?
His modest spending brought Luke Freeman, Josh Scowen, Matt Smith, Paul Smyth, Alex Baptiste and Ebere Eze to Loftus Road - all very sound acquisitions for various reasons.
How many worthwhile signings can you think of from the previous five years before Holloway returned? Charlie Austin, Ryan Nelsen, Danny Simpson, Niko Kranjcar, Matt Phillips - and you could make a case for Richard Dunne and Rob Green.
We'll be lucky to use the fingers on our second hand to count them because it's not long before you really have to start scraping the barrel.
I met up with some senior QPR employees before the Leeds game last week, and one told me that while the season as a whole represented a very respectable achievement, it's unrealistic to expect to repeat it again next year without investment.
The truth is that if we actually did have anything like a generous budget, we'd be attracting managers who aren't in the last chance saloon that Steve McClaren now finds himself in - one more bad job, and his days in front line management are probably done.
I've met McClaren at Sky a few times and he's a likeable bloke. I've even spoken to him fairly recently about his time at QPR, which he thoroughly enjoyed.
I'm doubtful that he can get more out of the squad than Holloway has. It all depends on whether he illicits the kind of response he got from his players while coaching Manchester United and QPR, and managing Middlesbrough, FC Twente, and during his first spell at Derby - rather than his unsuccessful periods with England, Wolfsburg, Forest, Newcastle and second time round at Derby.
He's experienced, respected and has plenty to prove. If QPR continue not to support their managers financially and are up front about it from the start, then at least there will be few arguments over transfer policy.
Perhaps, therefore, the job will be one that appeals to the very best of McClaren's coaching ability, which may work to our advantage.
If not, and it transpires that Tony Fernandes has yet again been seduced by a big name, then it's sadly back to square one. |  | | |  |
| This is a good read. on 10:05 - May 17 with 1316 views | Northernr |
| This is a good read. on 10:04 - May 17 by simmo |
Has to be up early to check on who you're arguing with today  |
This is my life. |  | | |
| This is a good read. on 10:19 - May 17 with 1283 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I took this news hard. Not because I think Olly is the messiah (far from it) but because it completely undid all the recent work of trying to make this club stable minded.
I'm not a happy clapper, but I just refuse to use the club, it's players, and it's manager as a punch bag for some inner unhappiness, which is what I think some supporters do. Particularly relevant in our case, as TF is no more than a populist weather vane. [Post edited 17 May 2018 10:29]
|  | | |
| This is a good read. on 10:21 - May 17 with 1274 views | essextaxiboy |
| This is a good read. on 08:54 - May 17 by Northernr |
That's because we don't have a best 11. Nobody knows it, because it doesn't exist. Freeman, Luongo, Scowen, Manning, Smyth, Samuel, Eze, Smith, Sylla and Wszolek don't fit into six positions north of the back four, and every one of them has supporters on here who think they should be in the team.
If you think a new manager, McClaren or anybody else, is going to somehow crowbar in everybody that Holloway was criticised for leaving out you're going to be disappointed. |
Just going to post exactly this , its all a matter of opinion and hindsight . Who knows who shone in training and who said they didnt feel right . Who knows what sports scientists advice was or what the info on the opposition was ... The only factual negatives were the away form and the home attendances fell because the pick and choosers didnt much fancy consolidation and chose not to bother ... |  | | |
| This is a good read. on 10:37 - May 17 with 1245 views | derbyhoop |
Excellent assessment. Over-egged the pudding on the little we spent.
And how come a journalist can't distinguish between illicit and elicit (Pedant's corner)!!! |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| This is a good read. on 10:38 - May 17 with 1243 views | stevec |
I feel like a gauntlet has been thrown down as regards the lack of urgency to find a best eleven.
So thought I'd have a look back at the gestation of the finest football team the world had ever seen under Sir Gordon Jago (total football gents) and see how that worked.
71/72 - as many as 8 first class defenders to chose from. So what did Jago do? Well apparently he picked the same 4 backs week in week out, subject to injury. Who knew? Slightly less to choose from in midfield, but again, Francis Busby Venables was a shoe in and the fourth position slightly more open to fill a gap. Up front, there was a weakness, better than we've got now but no two forwards a regular.
73/74 - The advantage of making a decision on your best 11 in 71/72, well certainly 8 of them, was you could then tackle the main issue, that of a forward line and the need for a central defender. Everything else worked and as the saying goes 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
At the start of season 72/73 the three forwards we needed came in and along with an unchanged midfield and later addition of McLintock at centre back, that stayed the team. Forever. or what seemed like it.
Throughout that period, your Abbotts, Hazells, Mancini, Watson, Ferguson, Evans, Becks and Delves would all get a run out, but only when injuries or major loss of form permitted.
And what I can categorically tell you, Gillard never played left midfield, Venables never played centre forward, and Dave Thomas was never called in as an emergency centre half.
And that, when your being paid a heavenly sum, should be what managing is all about. |  | | |
| This is a good read. on 10:49 - May 17 with 1217 views | Antti_Heinola |
| This is a good read. on 10:38 - May 17 by stevec |
I feel like a gauntlet has been thrown down as regards the lack of urgency to find a best eleven.
So thought I'd have a look back at the gestation of the finest football team the world had ever seen under Sir Gordon Jago (total football gents) and see how that worked.
71/72 - as many as 8 first class defenders to chose from. So what did Jago do? Well apparently he picked the same 4 backs week in week out, subject to injury. Who knew? Slightly less to choose from in midfield, but again, Francis Busby Venables was a shoe in and the fourth position slightly more open to fill a gap. Up front, there was a weakness, better than we've got now but no two forwards a regular.
73/74 - The advantage of making a decision on your best 11 in 71/72, well certainly 8 of them, was you could then tackle the main issue, that of a forward line and the need for a central defender. Everything else worked and as the saying goes 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
At the start of season 72/73 the three forwards we needed came in and along with an unchanged midfield and later addition of McLintock at centre back, that stayed the team. Forever. or what seemed like it.
Throughout that period, your Abbotts, Hazells, Mancini, Watson, Ferguson, Evans, Becks and Delves would all get a run out, but only when injuries or major loss of form permitted.
And what I can categorically tell you, Gillard never played left midfield, Venables never played centre forward, and Dave Thomas was never called in as an emergency centre half.
And that, when your being paid a heavenly sum, should be what managing is all about. |
70s football completely irrelevant to the discussion, I think. It was a totally different game then. |  |
| |
| This is a good read. on 10:51 - May 17 with 1214 views | essextaxiboy |
| This is a good read. on 10:38 - May 17 by stevec |
I feel like a gauntlet has been thrown down as regards the lack of urgency to find a best eleven.
So thought I'd have a look back at the gestation of the finest football team the world had ever seen under Sir Gordon Jago (total football gents) and see how that worked.
71/72 - as many as 8 first class defenders to chose from. So what did Jago do? Well apparently he picked the same 4 backs week in week out, subject to injury. Who knew? Slightly less to choose from in midfield, but again, Francis Busby Venables was a shoe in and the fourth position slightly more open to fill a gap. Up front, there was a weakness, better than we've got now but no two forwards a regular.
73/74 - The advantage of making a decision on your best 11 in 71/72, well certainly 8 of them, was you could then tackle the main issue, that of a forward line and the need for a central defender. Everything else worked and as the saying goes 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
At the start of season 72/73 the three forwards we needed came in and along with an unchanged midfield and later addition of McLintock at centre back, that stayed the team. Forever. or what seemed like it.
Throughout that period, your Abbotts, Hazells, Mancini, Watson, Ferguson, Evans, Becks and Delves would all get a run out, but only when injuries or major loss of form permitted.
And what I can categorically tell you, Gillard never played left midfield, Venables never played centre forward, and Dave Thomas was never called in as an emergency centre half.
And that, when your being paid a heavenly sum, should be what managing is all about. |
That was almost 50 years ago , the whole first team squad probably didnt exceed 18 or 20 , there was no monitoring of players fitness levels , they used to play large chunks of the season with pain killing injections .I loved the football back then but they would be run into the ground by the fitness levels of today
Those of us old enough could probably name the first 11 of all of the major teams from those days , you didnt need to be playing total football .
Whats the point of scouting the opposition if you are not going to plan and select accordingly ?
Where is the incentive for a young player to bust a gut in training if he knows that he cant shift the "first choice" | | | |
| This is a good read. on 10:53 - May 17 with 1213 views | stevec |
| This is a good read. on 10:49 - May 17 by Antti_Heinola |
70s football completely irrelevant to the discussion, I think. It was a totally different game then. |
WHAT???!!!
Round ball, 11 v 11, defenders, midfielders, forwards, I'll give you the back pass rule but what else has changed?
The fundamentals are exactly the same.
I'm probably wasting my time here but can I give you two words.... SEAN DYCHE. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is a good read. on 11:01 - May 17 with 1193 views | stevec |
| This is a good read. on 10:51 - May 17 by essextaxiboy |
That was almost 50 years ago , the whole first team squad probably didnt exceed 18 or 20 , there was no monitoring of players fitness levels , they used to play large chunks of the season with pain killing injections .I loved the football back then but they would be run into the ground by the fitness levels of today
Those of us old enough could probably name the first 11 of all of the major teams from those days , you didnt need to be playing total football .
Whats the point of scouting the opposition if you are not going to plan and select accordingly ?
Where is the incentive for a young player to bust a gut in training if he knows that he cant shift the "first choice" |
Yes, if the young player is better than what you've got then he gets in. I'd be the first to ask why Smyth would get a game, play well, then get dropped. As per a few other players.
If you look at the teams who win stuff, by and large they are the teams who stick with a settled side, the further you go away from the top six the more that is true.
Burnley are a case in point, or Leicester with bells on. This season I suspect Millwall exceeded their wildest plans by having a settled side. Taraabt side, did we swap the team about much, no. We had a settled side, a back four had played to the same instructions week after week. A midfield told to get it to Taraabt week after week, play to your strengths not the oppositions. | | | |
| This is a good read. on 11:05 - May 17 with 1186 views | isawqpratwcity |
| This is a good read. on 10:04 - May 17 by simmo |
Has to be up early to check on who you're arguing with today |
 |  |
| |
| This is a good read. on 11:14 - May 17 with 1173 views | essextaxiboy |
| This is a good read. on 10:53 - May 17 by stevec |
WHAT???!!!
Round ball, 11 v 11, defenders, midfielders, forwards, I'll give you the back pass rule but what else has changed?
The fundamentals are exactly the same.
I'm probably wasting my time here but can I give you two words.... SEAN DYCHE. |
You are not wasting your time , we have two different opinions thats all .
Dyche is a very good example, why doesnt everyone follow his template ? It seemingly gets you into Europe.
They get very few injuries , in the season they went up the first time almost none until the last few games .Have they got credible alternatives in every position or is he forced too play people back into form ? and of course they play less games.
Of course I could use Dyche as an example of sticking with the manager when things dont go well all of the time ... | | | |
| This is a good read. on 11:19 - May 17 with 1160 views | Antti_Heinola |
| This is a good read. on 11:01 - May 17 by stevec |
Yes, if the young player is better than what you've got then he gets in. I'd be the first to ask why Smyth would get a game, play well, then get dropped. As per a few other players.
If you look at the teams who win stuff, by and large they are the teams who stick with a settled side, the further you go away from the top six the more that is true.
Burnley are a case in point, or Leicester with bells on. This season I suspect Millwall exceeded their wildest plans by having a settled side. Taraabt side, did we swap the team about much, no. We had a settled side, a back four had played to the same instructions week after week. A midfield told to get it to Taraabt week after week, play to your strengths not the oppositions. |
Absolutely a settled side with a regular spine. But the days of using 13 players in a season as Liverpool once did I think, are long gone for innumerable reasons. I'd also completely agree that a settled back four and keeper is important. But I absolutely don't buy the idea of a 'best XI', because as Essex says, it depends on the opposition. You're right with Leicester, but that's a bit of an outlier, where they were fortunate with injuries, had an extra player with Kante, and teams took a year to work them out. They've shown since the idea isn't quite sustainable.
comparing to the 70s is interesting and instructive, but you only have to look at the pace the game was played at then compared to now - it really is a different game. In terms of last season, the team evolved, but by the end, I think all of us could name our preferred XI and you'd barely get two people saying the same thing and sometimes it is very much horses for courses. | |
| |
| This is a good read. on 11:31 - May 17 with 1124 views | robith |
is there a tl;dr precis of the OP - it's incredibly long |  | | |
| This is a good read. on 11:43 - May 17 with 1089 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| This is a good read. on 11:19 - May 17 by Antti_Heinola |
Absolutely a settled side with a regular spine. But the days of using 13 players in a season as Liverpool once did I think, are long gone for innumerable reasons. I'd also completely agree that a settled back four and keeper is important. But I absolutely don't buy the idea of a 'best XI', because as Essex says, it depends on the opposition. You're right with Leicester, but that's a bit of an outlier, where they were fortunate with injuries, had an extra player with Kante, and teams took a year to work them out. They've shown since the idea isn't quite sustainable.
comparing to the 70s is interesting and instructive, but you only have to look at the pace the game was played at then compared to now - it really is a different game. In terms of last season, the team evolved, but by the end, I think all of us could name our preferred XI and you'd barely get two people saying the same thing and sometimes it is very much horses for courses. |
––––––––Smithies––––––––
Furlong Onuoha Robinson Bidwell
Wzolek Scowen Freeman Luongo
––––––Smith Smyth––––––
This was clearly our best starting 11 over the season. No arguments. End of! |  |
| |
| This is a good read. on 11:47 - May 17 with 1080 views | kensalriser |
| This is a good read. on 11:31 - May 17 by robith |
is there a tl;dr precis of the OP - it's incredibly long |
"Holloway was really hard done by because he only spent £530k on transfer fees and loads of other clubs who were also not very good spent loads more and I'm going to ignore the total playing budget including wages." |  |
| |
| This is a good read. on 11:51 - May 17 with 1064 views | Juzzie |
Interesting read. As fans we, of course, are primarily consumed with our own club. What happens elsewhere is of less importance. But it is relevant especially when you see the amounts spent by other clubs who have fared little better or even worse than us.
I think we as fans should know what is going on around us as it may help put into perspective what's going on at our our club as it's too easy to be inward looking and judge everything without that needed perspective.
It does irk me a little when I hear how we are a special club with special fans that no other club matches etc etc. There's no doubt our club and fans do special things but do no other clubs do the same? Football has been part of communities up and down the country for over a century and I suspect a lot goes on that's just as good that we don't know about.
It does also feel that people in charge listen to what fans say especially as we are now so immersed in social media. Is what can often be said be really that powerful as to influence things? If so, I worry.
IMO the club should operate a policy of actions speak louder than words.
It's their club, their money, their decisions. If they feel the're doing a good job when you take the whole picture into account then don't make knee-jerk reactions 'cos a bunch of people on Twitter moan we're not in the top 6 and not buying a clutch of £5m+ players irrespective of the fact we can't. |  | | |
| This is a good read. on 11:53 - May 17 with 1060 views | isawqpratwcity |
| This is a good read. on 11:47 - May 17 by kensalriser |
"Holloway was really hard done by because he only spent £530k on transfer fees and loads of other clubs who were also not very good spent loads more and I'm going to ignore the total playing budget including wages." |
"Even if we had come 24th, I'd find a League One club that spent more." | |
| |
| This is a good read. on 11:56 - May 17 with 1047 views | ngbqpr |
| This is a good read. on 11:19 - May 17 by Antti_Heinola |
Absolutely a settled side with a regular spine. But the days of using 13 players in a season as Liverpool once did I think, are long gone for innumerable reasons. I'd also completely agree that a settled back four and keeper is important. But I absolutely don't buy the idea of a 'best XI', because as Essex says, it depends on the opposition. You're right with Leicester, but that's a bit of an outlier, where they were fortunate with injuries, had an extra player with Kante, and teams took a year to work them out. They've shown since the idea isn't quite sustainable.
comparing to the 70s is interesting and instructive, but you only have to look at the pace the game was played at then compared to now - it really is a different game. In terms of last season, the team evolved, but by the end, I think all of us could name our preferred XI and you'd barely get two people saying the same thing and sometimes it is very much horses for courses. |
Kenny
Orr / Gorkss / Connolly / Hill
Derry / Faurlin
Mackie / Taarabt / Smith
Helguson
Injuries / suspensions / losses of form? Why not try "like for like / round pegs in round holes" replacements, eg Walker for Orr, Routledge for Mackie , Ephraim for Taarabt or Smith, Shittu / Hall for Gorkss / Conolly, Hulse for Helguson.
This wasn't 50 years ago.
I accept that the purse strings weren't so tight then as now, that NW was allowed to delve into the Prem for quality loans, and was also allowed to marginalise contracted players who didn't fit his blueprint. But the principle remains the same. Pick a system, coach it, stick with it, have a guide 'best XI', and like for like replacements.
It was like a Pound Shop version of what, if I dare to mention it here, J**e M******o did when he first came to Che***a...he said he aimed to have 20 outfield players...2 quality ones for every position...he could then rotate when needed but keep the system the same. I'd suggest that failing to implement a similar plan at Ch***a second time round or at Man U now hasn't done him any favours.
Whether its Schteve or someone else, I'd love to see them shape a squad the way Warnock did. |  |
| |
| This is a good read. on 12:47 - May 17 with 976 views | Juzzie |
"2 quality ones for every position" - it wasn't just 'quality ones' he was after, his mantra was the best two in the world for each position.
We could all do this with a limitless fund but the hard work is when you have a budget, a probably a really tight one at that, to work with. | | | |
| This is a good read. on 13:11 - May 17 with 947 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| This is a good read. on 11:56 - May 17 by ngbqpr |
Kenny
Orr / Gorkss / Connolly / Hill
Derry / Faurlin
Mackie / Taarabt / Smith
Helguson
Injuries / suspensions / losses of form? Why not try "like for like / round pegs in round holes" replacements, eg Walker for Orr, Routledge for Mackie , Ephraim for Taarabt or Smith, Shittu / Hall for Gorkss / Conolly, Hulse for Helguson.
This wasn't 50 years ago.
I accept that the purse strings weren't so tight then as now, that NW was allowed to delve into the Prem for quality loans, and was also allowed to marginalise contracted players who didn't fit his blueprint. But the principle remains the same. Pick a system, coach it, stick with it, have a guide 'best XI', and like for like replacements.
It was like a Pound Shop version of what, if I dare to mention it here, J**e M******o did when he first came to Che***a...he said he aimed to have 20 outfield players...2 quality ones for every position...he could then rotate when needed but keep the system the same. I'd suggest that failing to implement a similar plan at Ch***a second time round or at Man U now hasn't done him any favours.
Whether its Schteve or someone else, I'd love to see them shape a squad the way Warnock did. |
It takes a great manager like Warnock to win promotion, but lets not pretend he didn't financially dope the league that year:
 | | | |
| This is a good read. on 13:21 - May 17 with 937 views | Phildo |
| This is a good read. on 09:56 - May 17 by Northernr |
Where Holloway fell down was the sheer number of changes, and the lack of logic behind them. Smyth plays well and scores v Sheff Wed, then dropped for the next match. Likewise Samuel v Birmingham. That's just stupid. But this idea that we have a best 11 that he should have been picking every single match with no changes at all is wrong. If you started a best 11 thread on here I'd wager everybody would say something slightly different - apart from we'd all go for a back four. |
I heard Paul Parker (the real one not our brother in posting) saying exactly this on the radio a few days ago and I assume he and Holloway are mates. He made the point championship teams tend to have a settled side- 1-2 changes not 3-4 per game. I think this is what did for him. [Post edited 17 May 2018 13:21]
|  | | |
| This is a good read. on 13:52 - May 17 with 893 views | ngbqpr |
| This is a good read. on 12:47 - May 17 by Juzzie |
"2 quality ones for every position" - it wasn't just 'quality ones' he was after, his mantra was the best two in the world for each position.
We could all do this with a limitless fund but the hard work is when you have a budget, a probably a really tight one at that, to work with. |
...which is why I said Warnock did a Pound Shop version
My point was about a balanced squad playing a set system regardless of available personnel...I did say the purse strings weren't so tight for Warnock as they are now (Bazza's post reinforces this)....but 18 months in Olly was constantly tinkering with not just player selections but formations & game plans almost weekly...as Clive has said, arguably trying to show he was tactically switched on, where the more pragmatic Warnock approach (or Harris at Millwall, Neal at Preston etc) may have worked better | |
| |
| This is a good read. on 14:06 - May 17 with 872 views | Dorse |
If we have a 2-for-1 based squad, that just makes good sense. In many ways, we have something like that going forward but with a few areas for discussion:
GK: Smithies / Ingram / Lumley
RB: Furlong / Kakay
LB: Bidwell / Hamalainen
CB: Baptiste / Hall / .... / ....
DM: Scowen / Manning
CM: Luongo / Chair / Cousins
AM: Eze / Oteh / Freeman
RW: Wszolek / Wheeler
LW: Samuel / ....
CF: Washington / Smith / Smyth / Sylla
There are glaring omissions in the list obviously but this 24 man squad is probably going to change its shape over the summer with a few out and a couple in - it is the way of our people - but the basic structure is in place. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| This is a good read. on 14:32 - May 17 with 848 views | Northernr |
| This is a good read. on 13:11 - May 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
It takes a great manager like Warnock to win promotion, but lets not pretend he didn't financially dope the league that year:
|
Absolutely amazing how the wages at this level have sky-rocketed in even that short period of time. Not sure 29.7m wage bill would even be halfway up that table these days. | | | |
| This is a good read. on 14:32 - May 17 with 845 views | Northernr |
| This is a good read. on 13:21 - May 17 by Phildo |
I heard Paul Parker (the real one not our brother in posting) saying exactly this on the radio a few days ago and I assume he and Holloway are mates. He made the point championship teams tend to have a settled side- 1-2 changes not 3-4 per game. I think this is what did for him. [Post edited 17 May 2018 13:21]
|
More damningly for him, Ferdinand doesn't think multiple team changes work either. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
