Entertainment

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I've read the thread. If you don't think it's more entertaining then what precisely was your point?Are you suggesting people were wrong to want more entertaining football?

A year on, Tuesday night we started with 7 players (+ 1 on the bench) that were either signed by KM or whilst assistant to Coppell, So presumably he had some input. After all Coppell was such an understanding manager unlike his predecessor (alledgedly).

Entertainment has not improved and results are worse, team selection is still baffling as are substitutions, Who do we blame now?.

[Nibor]

A year on, Tuesday night we started with 7 players (+ 1 on the bench) that were either signed by KM or whilst assistant to Coppell, So presumably he had some input. After all Coppell was such an understanding manager unlike his predecessor (alledgedly).

Entertainment has not improved and results are worse, team selection is still baffling as are substitutions, Who do we blame now?.

I'm still at a loss as to what your point is?

The last year under Johnson we had a poor results record and the football was extremely boring. A change was needed.

Yes, the Coppell thing was a real mess. It's a pity. It makes KM's job now all the more difficult.

It doesn't change anything that went before it though.

Are you just trying to have a pop at people who thought GJ needed to go or do you have a point to make?

[red badger]

But we know how that went. 3 years was the contract length he had as assistant, so SL didn't feel it fair to shorten it (and lets be honest, it won't make any difference if he decides to change things). And just into the new season with the transfer window about to close there was no opportunity to get an experienced guy who'd done it before in.

I know SL said there were dozens of applicants, but that's just the kind of thing you say to big up the club and the new manager. The reality is the only other candidates likely to get the job other than Coppell were Millen and Burley.

But as someone who hires lots of people that bothers me.

SL and his team must surely have drawn up a job spec and looked for candidates with the necessary qualities. The differences between Coppell and Burley aren't so great...but it's hard to see how a rookie could offer anything similar. That's why I think it's a gamble...I've never seen that sort of "hey let's stick with the guy we have on the doorstep" approach work unless they happen to have the same qualities as the number one choice...and qualities which match the job requirements. Surely he could have made Millen the caretaker again and looked wider? I think dumping him in it is unfair. It destroyed Tinnion's prospects.

But maybe as you suggest he was the only option available. Only SL will know how much time he's prepared to give him.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm still at a loss as to what your point is?

The last year under Johnson we had a poor results record and the football was extremely boring. A change was needed.

Yes, the Coppell thing was a real mess. It's a pity. It makes KM's job now all the more difficult.

It doesn't change anything that went before it though.

Are you just trying to have a pop at people who thought GJ needed to go or do you have a point to make?

Johnson had to go that is obvious. KM was a major part of that failure, I believe he was the coach during this bad spell of last season. However it would also appear that the players not only instrumental in GJ's exit were instrumental in KM remaining, I wonder why? and as far as I can see nothing has changed. Today the our left sided saviour started in the middle, The defending already poor never really improved, The same problems exist and the same mistakes are being made.

[Drew Peacock]

I'm still at a loss as to what your point is?

The last year under Johnson we had a poor results record and the football was extremely boring. A change was needed.

Yes, the Coppell thing was a real mess. It's a pity. It makes KM's job now all the more difficult.

It doesn't change anything that went before it though.

Are you just trying to have a pop at people who thought GJ needed to go or do you have a point to make?

Just for a change, I agree with you.

I am truly confused at the point of the opening post.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Just for a change, I agree with you.

I am truly confused at the point of the opening post.

i'm saying nothing has changed, it's just as bad if not worse than last season and even you alluded to it in your last reply to this thread, "When people said they would prefer entertainment over results, I think they meant they wanted to be bedazzled by the slick football on the pitch, not bemused by odd team selection and schoolboy defending". So I can see where your confusion comes from, Nothing has changed.

[Drew Peacock]

Nothing has changed.

Exactly, but your opening sentence in your opening post implies that we are now playing entertaining football but still losing.

Although I would say that the final games of last season were better entertainment and better results than the earlier games. Would you agree?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Exactly, but your opening sentence in your opening post implies that we are now playing entertaining football but still losing.

Although I would say that the final games of last season were better entertainment and better results than the earlier games. Would you agree?

Just wondering if the forum users who last season wanted City to play a more entertaining style of football and also not too worried about results, I think one poster called our football 'turgid' his name escapes me. So just wondering if those posters are more or less entertained than last season?.

Sorry where is the implication in that first sentence.

in answer to your second point, Yes we did play better for a while until the hammering at S****horpe.

[Mr Popodopolous]

No. It shocking at moment. And so was last season

At least last season- well for the first half and a spurt towards the end under Millen, the football may not have been great but the results were sound- and come to that under Millen the football was fairly good too. Certainly at this stage last season things were looking markedly better.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Just wondering if the forum users who last season wanted City to play a more entertaining style of football and also not too worried about results, I think one poster called our football 'turgid' his name escapes me. So just wondering if those posters are more or less entertained than last season?.

That may well have been me, or Greebo who doesn't post on here any more. It's my sort of word, I like it, stand by it, and to my mind it describes perfectly the situation at the time.

Certainly mine and Greebo's views were the same at that juncture, and concurred with numerous other posters.

Last season, when those comments were made, we were getting neither entertaining football or results, and even as a fixture at the Gate for 40 seasons my patience was being sorely tested.

We were worried about results but we weren't getting those anyway playing turgid football so the theory was we might accumulate a few more points and actually enjoy being at the Gate again if City went out to entertain and attack the opposition, particularly at home. How could they hope to fill AG with the less keen if even long term fans like ourselves were thoroughly fed up with the ever more tedious matchday experience?

I see on various threads, including the match thread that a number of posters have actually fallen out of love with City over the last year or so, and no longer attend. This I put down largely to the fare on offer simply not being entertaining enough over a prolonged period.

I was a very long term and vocal supporter of GJ almost to the last but accepted the time had come for the parting of the ways, so could you explain your point one more time.

And, by the way, very importantly when discussing this particular subject - do you actually attend matches?