Another Striker

[BCFC_Dan]

We punted it less without a target man and got better results. We should change the players who can't distribute but just because we have them doesn't mean we should encourage them to give the ball away by putting a big target for them to aim at and miss on the field. Give them a 10 yard option if they can't pass it 30, like we did in the first half the our first season at this level.

I think we punted it more because the opposition sides upped their game against us and pressurised our players. I agree that the long ball is a more attractive option if there is a big man up front but I think a hassled and under pressure defender will naturally look to hoof the ball. It's the English way after all: "if I kick the ball far away from our goal they probably won't score and if they do it won't have been my fault".

I don't think Akinde is much use because, though big, he can't hold the ball up better than anyone else in the side. I agree with you when you say we need a Brooker style player who isn't necessarily a giant but who can hold the ball up and play a bit. I've not seen much of Clarkson but I wonder if he could be a bit Brooker-esque, in which case we might not need to sign a big player at all, though Johnson seems to like having at least one.

[Snufflelufagus]

Disagree with this.

Last season, all I saw McCallister do was knock 30-40 yard punts upfield towards Dele.

I didn't see him do this anywhere near as regularly pre-Dele. Problem was, when Dele was out, they were all still playing in 'Dele-mode' and continued knocking s**t, aimless balls upfield.

We never used to do it with anywhere near as much frequency, and our back four has remained a constant (whether JMcA/LC/JMcC/LF/BO). They're all capable of playing football (well maybe not McCombe), but they were doing it 18 months ago, they just need to be psyched out of Dele-mode.

It'll also help ball retention having someone like Hartley in the middle, and his strength and ability should negate the need for wingers to tuck in, thereby giving more passing options to our full-backs, so I think the days of by-passing the midfield should be over.

Harry in the 6 months BFD (before Dele) and the following time what was the points scored?

[BCFC_Dan]

Harry in the 6 months BFD (before Dele) and the following time what was the points scored?

Sorry but that's a poor argument. Our form last season was better without Marvin Elliot than it was with him, but do you think we're really better off without him?

[Nibor]

And Adebola arrived in January not March. The stand out midfielder I was actually referring to was Marvin's absence last season. But thanks for validating my point that Johnson's absence the season before was another example of form dipping when the midfield was weakened. And if you think Noble was the stand out midfielder then your need for help is greater than mine. :tongue:

Our change of style happened during after January and led to worse results. The presence of Adebola did encourage the likes of McAllister, McCombe and Orr to punt it, we did become more direct and consequently had far less possession. That's not Dele's fault and that's not what I am implying. But we were gash after Feb and stumbled into the playoffs.

Noble definitely stood out when he played in the hole - Elliott stood out for most of the season as well. Johnson never has.

[Snufflelufagus]

Sorry but that's a poor argument. Our form last season was better without Marvin Elliot than it was with him, but do you think we're really better off without him?

At the end of the day its how many points you get.

[BCFC_Dan]

At the end of the day its how many points you get.

So you do think we're better without Marvin then?

[surreyred]

Having a big man up front shouldn't be an excuse for punting the ball route 1 but used as a target for our wingers. Remember Bob Latchford and Malcom McDonald back in the 70's. Everton nor Arsenal have every been renowned for playing the long ball game, likewise Alan Dicks never played the pumped ball to Paul Cheesley. But with quality wingers getting to the by-line and crossing for the big man Maynard will thrive feeding off of him. So I have no problem with a "Target" man but play to his and the teams strengths.

I think time might have "rose tinted" the specs a bit. Whilst we were never a long ball team, in that it was are only tactic, we did use the long ball out of defence to Cheesley a lot. There are plenty of quotes from our defenders of the time saying that how often when the defence was under pressure they could just punt a ball anywhere upfield and Cheesley would get on the end of it, and hold on to it.

[SE23Red]

Our change of style happened during after January and led to worse results. The presence of Adebola did encourage the likes of McAllister, McCombe and Orr to punt it, we did become more direct and consequently had far less possession. That's not Dele's fault and that's not what I am implying. But we were gash after Feb and stumbled into the playoffs.

Noble definitely stood out when he played in the hole - Elliott stood out for most of the season as well. Johnson never has.

It's interesting when you look at the most effective strike partnerships in that season by points scored.

2.50 Noble and Byfield

2.33 Carle and Adebola

2.00 Trundle and Sproule

2.00 Noble and Showunmi

1.60 Trundle and Showunmi

The most striking thing is no partnership played more than 6 games together. The next most obvious thing is that no one style of striker stands out in terms of making us more effective. Finally, and probably most tellingly, not one of the top four most effective partnerships were two strikers paired together.

I completely agree that Noble did stand out in the hole in a 4-4-1-1. If we were committed to this formation I could understand the argument to still have him at the club. But with that being the only role in which he ever added any value to the team then I wouldn't personally class him as a midfielder as he is competing with strikers for his place in the side.

I'd love to see us playing great football in a 4-4-2 without a target man but think GJ has it absolutely right with his clubs in the bag analogy. I'd rather we had a championship quality target man in the squad and blended him into the side without becoming predominantly route one. If we did find ourselves launching the ball from back to front I'd be looking at why the culprit launched the ball before why the innocent victim received it. 9 times out of ten the solution would be at the back or in midfield. I'd also rather we had a big striker playing up front in the last ten minutes than a big defender.

[Nibor]

So you do think we're better without Marvin then?

A 50% fit Marvin compared to 100% fit Skuse? Yep.

[Pederho ll]

Our change of style happened during after January and led to worse results. The presence of Adebola did encourage the likes of McAllister, McCombe and Orr to punt it, we did become more direct and consequently had far less possession. That's not Dele's fault and that's not what I am implying. But we were gash after Feb and stumbled into the playoffs.

Noble definitely stood out when he played in the hole - Elliott stood out for most of the season as well. Johnson never has.

I agree Nibor and have stated such previously on this forum. The question I often wonder is, did we need to buy Adebola that season?

We were flying high and looking like a decent side....we wouldn't have been top and near top of the Championship if we weren't. When he arrived our entire play seemed to change style. The first half of that season MM and Sproule were wide and really giving the opposition full-backs something to think about, although not prolific, Byfield and Trundle were doing alright together.......Adebola arrives and everthing got narrow and as has been stated time and time again, we played a greatly increased amount of long balls, by-passing our midfield, direct to our strikers.

Our play and subsequently our results deteriorated dramatically and ultimately we through away a very realistic opportunity of automatic promotion.

[Snufflelufagus]

So you do think we're better without Marvin then?

Well points wise yes!

[Nibor]

It's interesting when you look at the most effective strike partnerships in that season by points scored.

2.50 Noble and Byfield

2.33 Carle and Adebola

2.00 Trundle and Sproule

2.00 Noble and Showunmi

1.60 Trundle and Showunmi

The most striking thing is no partnership played more than 6 games together. The next most obvious thing is that no one style of striker stands out in terms of making us more effective. Finally, and probably most tellingly, not one of the top four most effective partnerships were two strikers paired together.

I completely agree that Noble did stand out in the hole in a 4-4-1-1. If we were committed to this formation I could understand the argument to still have him at the club. But with that being the only role in which he ever added any value to the team then I wouldn't personally class him as a midfielder as he is competing with strikers for his place in the side.

I'd love to see us playing great football in a 4-4-2 without a target man but think GJ has it absolutely right with his clubs in the bag analogy. I'd rather we had a championship quality target man in the squad and blended him into the side without becoming predominantly route one. If we did find ourselves launching the ball from back to front I'd be looking at why the culprit launched the ball before why the innocent victim received it. 9 times out of ten the solution would be at the back or in midfield. I'd also rather we had a big striker playing up front in the last ten minutes than a big defender.

The stats are interesting. There are some missing - Byfield/Adebola Trundle/Adebola Noble/Adebola. The point about partnerships is key here I think. We need a regular starting pair up front, that can over the season develop an understanding. We won't get that swapping them every five minutes, which is why I only really want 4 strikers at the club and one of those being a youngster.

4-4-1-1 for me worked for a key reason, we got the ball into opposition territory and kept it there largely due to Noble's ability to retain possession under pressure. The disadvantage was that we weren't scoring much. When we swapped to playing Adebola instead of Noble we lost that, the ball came back far faster and we found ourselves on the back foot. We scored less, got worse results, and the same trend continued last season.

I'm fine with clubs in the bag, I'm just saying I want a powerful striker with some ability, not a giant player there only for his height. Brooker was only 5ft11, won his share in the air and beat up the opposing centre halves, but to my mind he was a much bigger goal threat and better player on the deck than Adebola. I'd like a player in the Brooker mould not the Iwelumo one is what I'm saying.

[SE23Red]

The stats are interesting. There are some missing - Byfield/Adebola Trundle/Adebola Noble/Adebola. The point about partnerships is key here I think. We need a regular starting pair up front, that can over the season develop an understanding. We won't get that swapping them every five minutes, which is why I only really want 4 strikers at the club and one of those being a youngster.

The rest - initially omitted either because they were partnerships best forgotten or didn't get to see enough of them:

Trundle + Byfield 0.83

Byfield + Adebola 0.25

Noble + Adebola 1.33 (3 games)

Trundle + Adebola 1.33 (3 games)

Noble + Trundle 3 (1 game)

Carle + Showunmi 0 (1 game)

Byfield + Brooker 1 (1 game)

4-4-1-1 for me worked for a key reason, we got the ball into opposition territory and kept it there largely due to Noble's ability to retain possession under pressure. The disadvantage was that we weren't scoring much. When we swapped to playing Adebola instead of Noble we lost that, the ball came back far faster and we found ourselves on the back foot. We scored less, got worse results, and the same trend continued last season.

It is hard for me to understand how anyone can claim we went from Noble to Adebola. We went from Noble to Carle, and from Showunmi or Byfield to Adebola at a similar time.

I'm fine with clubs in the bag, I'm just saying I want a powerful striker with some ability, not a giant player there only for his height. Brooker was only 5ft11, won his share in the air and beat up the opposing centre halves, but to my mind he was a much bigger goal threat and better player on the deck than Adebola. I'd like a player in the Brooker mould not the Iwelumo one is what I'm saying.

But if we could well have our 'Brooker club' in Clarkson, why not have an 'Iwelumo club' as well? I'd also have four, but not including Akinde at this stage as his development will be best suited with some more time away from the club at L1 level this season.

[SE23Red]

We were flying high and looking like a decent side....we wouldn't have been top and near top of the Championship if we weren't. When he arrived our entire play seemed to change style. The first half of that season MM and Sproule were wide and really giving the opposition full-backs something to think about,

Completely agree - Sproule-Johnson-Elliott-McIndoe (along with a settled defence) were the heart of our early success at this level.

although not prolific, Byfield and Trundle were doing alright together

. Check the facts.

Adebola arrives and everthing got narrow

No it didn't. Debut QPR away coincided with Sproule being dropped and Carle being played out of position on the right. We lost.

The next six games we went back to Sproule-Johnson-Elliott-McIndoe in midfield with Carle in the hole and Adebola up front. We played good football and picked up two points a game. Johnson inexplicably then dropped Sproule and went back to the QPR formation with Carle on the right and we were very lucky to come back with a 0-0 draw (Leicester A).

So while I understand your confusion about Adebola arriving and everything going narrow the two are actually entirely separate. I'm sure at some stage I'll check out how many games Adebola played in front of this 'first choice' midfield with balance and width but my guess is we didn't get to see it that often in 18 months and when we did we will have done quite well.

and as has been stated time and time again, we played a greatly increased amount of long balls, by-passing our midfield, direct to our strikers.

And as I've stated time and time again he is not to blame for that! I think the solution to this problem has just arrived from Celtic, along with a hopefully rejuvenated ME. All we need now is the winger(s).

[Nibor]

It is hard for me to understand how anyone can claim we went from Noble to Adebola. We went from Noble to Carle, and from Showunmi or Byfield to Adebola at a similar time.

We went from Trundle/Byfield plus Noble in a 4411 to Adebola plus Byfield/Trundle in a 442. Carle played out wide until LJ got injured at the end of the season.

But if we could well have our 'Brooker club' in Clarkson, why not have an 'Iwelumo club' as well? I'd also have four, but not including Akinde at this stage as his development will be best suited with some more time away from the club at L1 level this season.

Because I hate watching that sort of s**t and it doesn't work very well IMO.

[SE23Red]

We went from Trundle/Byfield plus Noble in a 4411 to Adebola plus Byfield/Trundle in a 442. Carle played out wide until LJ got injured at the end of the season.

Check out the post above. We didn't.

Because I hate watching that sort of s**t and it doesn't work very well IMO.

But as I've made quite clear I want this player as well as good football not instead of and I believe we can have both. We've struggled in midfield for over 12 months and, if the wide left position gets resolved, I'm optimistic we'll see some better football this season whoever plays up top.

[Harry]

Harry in the 6 months BFD (before Dele) and the following time what was the points scored?

Snuffles - In that 1st season up :

BD (Before Dele) - Played 29, Points 51 = 1.76 per game.

WD (With Dele) - Played 17, Points 23 = 1.35 per game.

Averaged across a whole season, that's an additional 19 points!

[Harry]

I don't know who is rewriting history more!

I'd forgotten about Showunmi's injury but you have lost some of his starts along the way (10).

Trundle and Byfield with a record of P6 W1 D2 L3 (0.83 pts per game) were hardly a bundle of fun!

And we lost only one of Dele's first 9 games so the dip in form didn't start with his arrival. It did however directly coincide with Johnson's absence through injury.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to re-write history. It was late at night and I missed a couple of games off!

Here's the strikers stats Pre-Dele :

Trundle : Starts 18, Points won 28 (Average Points Per Game 1.56)

Byfield : Starts 12, Points won 20 (Avg PPG 1.67)

Enoch : Starts 10, Points won 16 (Avg PPG 1.6)

However, we also saw Noble play in the hole from the start on 11 occasions, so :

Noble : Starts 11, Points won 26 (Avg PPG 2.36).

And with Dele :

Trundle : Starts 3, Points won 3 (Avg PPG 1.00)

Byfield : Starts 5, Points won 2 (Avg PPG 0.4)

Dele : Starts 16, Points won 22 (Avg PPG 1.38)

We also saw Noble & Carle both play in the hole, so :

Noble : Starts 3, Points won 4 (Avg PPG 1.33)

Carle : Starts 6, Points won 14 (Avg PPG 2.33)

Now, what I ascertain from those stats, is the following :

Before we signed Dele, all 3 regular strikers gained a pretty decent Points Per Game ratio, meaning we were consistently picking up points. Probably not surprisingly, when Noble was played in a 4-4-1-1, we were almost unbeatable!

After Dele arrived, we clearly changed our play to suit him.

All of our strikers PPG ratio dropped significantly (mainly because they hardly got a game), but Dele's ratio was lower than any of our strikers from earlier in the season.

And quite interestingly, Noble's influence on the game reduced massively.

This suggests to me that we were not playing to our strengths as a team, but instead were trying to accommodate the style of play of just one man, Adebola.

And it simply didn't work.

This is not a knock at Dele, I thought he played his part last season, but I do think his arrival the season before last caused us to change our play and ultimately, we didn't pick up as many points.

Blimey - I always hated stats before today!!

[Guest Eamer]

Here's the strikers stats Pre-Dele :

Noble : Starts 11, Points won 26 (Avg PPG 2.36).

And with Dele :

Carle : Starts 6, Points won 14 (Avg PPG 2.33)

So basically we need someone to play that attacking midfield role that the two of them played. Lets hope Hartley can do it then.

[SE23Red]

Sorry - I wasn't trying to re-write history. It was late at night and I missed a couple of games off!

Here's the strikers stats Pre-Dele :

Trundle : Starts 18, Points won 28 (Average Points Per Game 1.56)

Byfield : Starts 12, Points won 20 (Avg PPG 1.67)

Enoch : Starts 10, Points won 16 (Avg PPG 1.6)

However, we also saw Noble play in the hole from the start on 11 occasions, so :

Noble : Starts 11, Points won 26 (Avg PPG 2.36).

And with Dele :

Trundle : Starts 3, Points won 3 (Avg PPG 1.00)

Byfield : Starts 5, Points won 2 (Avg PPG 0.4)

Dele : Starts 16, Points won 22 (Avg PPG 1.38)

We also saw Noble & Carle both play in the hole, so :

Noble : Starts 3, Points won 4 (Avg PPG 1.33)

Carle : Starts 6, Points won 14 (Avg PPG 2.33)

Now, what I ascertain from those stats, is the following :

Before we signed Dele, all 3 regular strikers gained a pretty decent Points Per Game ratio, meaning we were consistently picking up points. Probably not surprisingly, when Noble was played in a 4-4-1-1, we were almost unbeatable!

I agree with all of that...

After Dele arrived, we clearly changed our play to suit him.

...but that I don't agree with at all. What is your explanation for the fact we continued our good form after he arrived? It only dipped once GJ started messing with the midfield. First through playing Carle out of position on the right and then the forced change when he lost Johnson and then Elliott through injury. I asked earlier in the thread how many times Adebola played in front of the midfield of Sproule-Johnson-Elliott-McIndoe midfield last season. The answer is only once! So if I'm asked why we've not seen much football last season with a narrow midfield I'm not going to blame Adebola who coincidentally joined at the same time as the manager decided to stop playing our one right winger and replace him with a succession of central midfielders and fullbacks.

All of our strikers PPG ratio dropped significantly (mainly because they hardly got a game), but Dele's ratio was lower than any of our strikers from earlier in the season.

And quite interestingly, Noble's influence on the game reduced massively.

This suggests to me that we were not playing to our strengths as a team, but instead were trying to accommodate the style of play of just one man, Adebola.

And it simply didn't work.

Dele's ratio when played in front of the same midfield is actually better than all of them. So why wasn't it allowed to continue? Noble's dip in influence was more to do with Carle's arrival than Adebola's as he only played when Sproule didn't so someone other than a winger was on the right.

This is not a knock at Dele, I thought he played his part last season, but I do think his arrival the season before last caused us to change our play and ultimately, we didn't pick up as many points.

It sounds like a knock at Dele - especially when you blame him for Noble's drop in influence. And last season we'd have struggled with anyone up front as our midfield was put together in a way that couldn't feed any striker.

[Harry]

What is your explanation for the fact we continued our good form after he arrived? It only dipped once GJ started messing with the midfield. First through playing Carle out of position on the right and then the forced change when he lost Johnson and then Elliott through injury. I asked earlier in the thread how many times Adebola played in front of the midfield of Sproule-Johnson-Elliott-McIndoe midfield last season. The answer is only once! So if I'm asked why we've not seen much football last season with a narrow midfield I'm not going to blame Adebola who coincidentally joined at the same time as the manager decided to stop playing our one right winger and replace him with a succession of central midfielders and fullbacks.

I agree that Dele's first 9 games saw us continue our good form (W4, D4, L1).

In the 4 games which were won, Dele played in front of a midfield 4 of Sproule-Johnson-Elliott-McIndoe, with Carle playing in the hole. 2 draws were gained with the same set up, + one further draw saw only Wilson in instead of Sproule.

So clearly, when playing our strongest midfield 5, the results were still ok. However, during those 9 games, we only scored 9 goals (i.e. a ratio of only 1 goal per game). The signs were there that things weren't quite right, but we were just about getting away with it (McCombe scored 3 of those 9 goals, Orr got 2 of them), a number of them were very very late too!

So our most efficient scorers during Dele's initial 'good spell' was the defence? Something clearly not right!

That 9 game spell ended with the 0-0 v Watford, where LJ got injured.

I agree that from then on, we had midfield problems, with LJ/ME not teaming up again that season. That's when the poor form started in terms of the results, but we had clearly seen the problems developing over those first 9 games with Dele.

I'm not sure I can work these stats any more! But, I can honestly say that I saw a difference in our style after a couple of games with Dele on board.

Ultimately, across that whole season, our best results came when playing 4-4-1-1, and mostly when Noble was playing as the hole-man. It made no odds whether the lone striker was Trundle/Byfield/Enoch, and therefore it was not essential for that 1 striker to be a target man (which most people incorrectly believe it has to be in that formation).

The games in which Dele played in a 4-4-2, we invariably lost, meaning there isn't really a necessity for a big man in that formation either.

So, in terms of my initial ponderation, why are people crying out for a target man, when we proved in our first season at this level that it is not necessary.

[Nibor]

So, in terms of my initial ponderation, why are people crying out for a target man, when we proved in our first season at this level that it is not necessary.

And that's the bottom line. We've had our best results in this division without a target man. We were in automatic promotion spots without one. Therefore we don't need one.

Personally I thought the football last season was really quite s**t to watch so please let's not bring a target man in, for once gary please start the season without a 6ft4 plus beast up front and encourage the team to keep the bloody ball on the deck.

[SE23Red]

And that's the bottom line. We've had our best results in this division without a target man. We were in automatic promotion spots without one. Therefore we don't need one.

Personally I thought the football last season was really quite s**t to watch so please let's not bring a target man in, for once gary please start the season without a 6ft4 plus beast up front and encourage the team to keep the bloody ball on the deck.

We've had our best results in this division with two wingers. We were in the automatic promotion positions with them. Therefore we can play with them.

Personally I thought the football last season was really quite s**t to watch so please let's not play with a narrow midfield, for once Gary please start the season with some width on the right and encourage the team to keep the bloody ball on the deck.

[BCFC_Dan]

And that's the bottom line. We've had our best results in this division without a target man. We were in automatic promotion spots without one. Therefore we don't need one.

Personally I thought the football last season was really quite s**t to watch so please let's not bring a target man in, for once gary please start the season without a 6ft4 plus beast up front and encourage the team to keep the bloody ball on the deck.

The whole team was playing well so one wasn't needed.

I agree entirely that we should be looking to play without one and as long as the team is playing well I don't think we need a big striker in the team.

I am concerned, however, about what would happen if we went into the season without one and it all went wrong. The target man is out get out of jail card. If everything goes wrong and the team starts playing terribly he at least gives us the chance to salvage something and maybe avoid disaster.

I suppose we could loan one if the worst happens but that strikes me as risky because one might not be available. We might just end up with Stern John again.

[internetjef]

striker doesnt need to be a absolute monster but i do feel we need someone with a bit more physical presence, as akinde is still relatively unproven

someone in the mould of shearer would be perfect, not a towering giant but very strong and good all rounder

However saying that if we can attract the likes of JVOH that would do nicely

[Nibor]

We've had our best results in this division with two wingers. We were in the automatic promotion positions with them. Therefore we can play with them.

Personally I thought the football last season was really quite s**t to watch so please let's not play with a narrow midfield, for once Gary please start the season with some width on the right and encourage the team to keep the bloody ball on the deck.

The narrow midfield happened because we started playing two up front and the middle of the park was too weak. With Hartley signed that hopefully won't be an issue. I'd rather play with two wingers as well. That wasn't what caused our form to disappear though, it was our change to a direct style.

I am concerned, however, about what would happen if we went into the season without one and it all went wrong. The target man is out get out of jail card. If everything goes wrong and the team starts playing terribly he at least gives us the chance to salvage something and maybe avoid disaster.

I don't agree that a target man gives us a get out of jail card, how does it follow that if we're playing badly, changing to a poor style of football that tells the players they can't be trusted to pass the ball is going to improve results? For me if we need to get some solidity we should play an extra man in midfield.

[BCFC_Dan]

I don't agree that a target man gives us a get out of jail card, how does it follow that if we're playing badly, changing to a poor style of football that tells the players they can't be trusted to pass the ball is going to improve results? For me if we need to get some solidity we should play an extra man in midfield.

I think we're looking at the problem from different perspectives.

I don't believe that Gary ever tells the players to play a poor style of football. They do that themselves when they're struggling. They're not being instructed to do it, they're ignoring instructions.

Gary has to fix that before we can make any progress, on that I agree with you.

However, *if* he doesn't fix it and things go wrong the players will start hoofing it again. If we have a striker who can make something of it (and he doesn't have to be a monster so long as he can hold the ball up) we have a chance.

If we go into the season without a striker able to hold the ball up and the players lose confidence we will struggle to win any games at all. There will still be terrible long-ball football but it'll be aimed at Maynard and he'll get nowhere near anything.

[citynut54]

I don't want a 6ft 8 monster with a 50p head, it gives our full backs an excuse to punt balls into orbit and let's face it they don't need much encouragement.

What I do want is a physically strong player who can hold the ball up with his back to goal and also has some goal threat outside the box. An old fashioned centre forward - Steve Brooker without the busted knee - someone like that who is strong but not one dimensional and scores regularly. Doesn't have to be fast or full of tricks, just strong, steady and capable of shooting and playing someone in.

Couldn't agree more!! right on the button.

[Snufflelufagus]

Snuffles - In that 1st season up :

BD (Before Dele) - Played 29, Points 51 = 1.76 per game.

WD (With Dele) - Played 17, Points 23 = 1.35 per game.

Averaged across a whole season, that's an additional 19 points!

No 'big man' then. With Hartley now signed i say play Lee Johnson up front

[Robbored]

I don't believe that Gary ever tells the players to play a poor style of football. They do that themselves when they're struggling. They're not being instructed to do it, they're ignoring instructions.

Gary has to fix that before we can make any progress, on that I agree with you.

I agree that most of the time Johnson doesn't tell the defenders to hoof the ball forward. On occaisions in the past he's put McCombe up front when chasing a game and then lumped ball but its a rare event.

Given that most fans loathe the unproductive long ball surely Johnson can impress upon his players its one thing to 'clear your lines' but another to whoosh a 40 yard ball up the pitch when its not necessary. Keeping the ball is essential if a team wants to play football.

I know its sound drasctic but maybe enforcing a fine system for wellying a long ball without needing to should be introduced.