Let's sack the manager!!

[Harry]

It is widely acknowledged that the actual performances we are putting into games is generally quite good, and we have not been worthy of the results that have gone against us.
I'd tend to agree.  I think that in general, our performances have been pretty good, and certainly worthy of at least mid-table.  Preston, Ipswich, Brighton and Cardiff away we certainly deserved more than we got. Charlton, QPR & MK at home are certainly games we ought to have turned into 3 points.  Different results in just this selection of games would have us comfortably mid-table.  We played pretty well in all of these games.

Based on the performances, a lot of fans are happy to believe that the results will come.  To me, this is blind faith.  Cotterill keeps insisting we are playing well, but then asserts that the players aren't good enough and are League 1 (quoted this numerous times recently - shocking management!).

So, if we are playing so well, but the results are not going our way, this to me suggests that the players are generally good enough to compete at this level.  We've been so close in a number of games that we can't be far off the required standard hey?  So, based on this, the small margins are what matters, and what can impact results.  If performances are generally pretty good, then the subtleties of management are what will bring that extra percentage to gain positive results.

Cotterill fails on this I'm afraid to say.  The refusal to make in-game changes is his downfall.  A good manager is honest enough with himself when things need to change, but Mr Cotterill's stubbornness is playing against him.  He has one plan, and sticks to it.  He does not make the marginal changes to the game that can make a positive impact.  Setting a team out to play one way and one way only is suicide in this league.  He got away with it last year against inferior players and inferior managers (note that only 5 points from 4 games against the 2 other promoted teams last year means we'd only extrapolate to 57 points if we played those 2 weaker teams all season.  Now we are competing against even better teams and managers, that 57 points looks a long way off).

The tactics employed last season worked well against inferior teams and managers.  Even then, his unwillingness to make in-game changes was often widely criticised - we could all see the writing on the wall but were in too much of a glory-filled haze to be concerned.
The very same tactics he continues to adopt for 94 minutes every week are now signing his death warrant.  Better managers and better players are able to play against us with ease.  It's no coincidence that we are a very very poor second half team.  Cotterill likes a high tempo style and relies upon a high level of fitness in his players.  This naturally leads to tiredness.  Tiredness can be mitigated by utilising your squad properly - making substitutions, resting players, not playing 36 year olds for 90 minutes in 3 games in 8 days!!
Cotterill also refuses to change his in-game tactics, whilst other managers change theirs to exploit our weaknesses.  It's no coincidence that most of our goals against this season have in some shape or form been a result of wing-backs being out of position, exposing the back 3.  Opposition managers must not believe their luck when they see our inability to recognise our weakest area, and they revel in exposing it.  I'm not saying the players in that position are the weakest area, I'm saying that it is the chink in the armour, the achilles heel within Mr Cotterill's tactic.

The continuing refusal to change is Mr Cotterill's downfall.  Change is a constant.  If you don't change you sit still, and if you sit still, you go backwards.  Mr Cotterill certainly has something about him, he's been a success for our club and I thank him for that.  He clearly hasn't lost the dressing room, so kudos to that.  If he were willing to drop the stubborn act I'd be willing to give him time.  However, he will not change, and therefore, refusal to change means only one thing - we go backwards.  It's therefore time Mr Lansdown forced change.

I no longer care what happened in the summer and who is to blame.  As I started out on this post, a lot of our fans (and our manager) acknowledge that we are playing well at times.  This tells me the squad is actually decent enough to survive in this league.  The reason for failure at present is down to the managers stubbornness to react to what is in front of him.  The Manager is the man who can make the difference, with the decisions he makes.  Making no decisions doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Time for a change.

[Guest]

@Harry

just wondering, if you would agree it's small margins that could have seen us get over the line is SC then not worth a transfer window to make the appropriate recruitment if it's not a wholesale change needed. I just wonder if better the devil you know and who best to decide what to compliment our side with than SC? 

I'd agree a leap of faith given how the summer went and our loan recruitment too (which is inexcusably poor). But personally, I'd rather trust SC with the window, to suggest the changes needed (and make them!) and if he then can't get that working, replace. 

To put it another way; I think I'd rather SC was instrumental in the players we offer X year contracts to than some chap who has just walked through the door. 

[YorkshireSection]

9 minutes ago, Harry said:

It is widely acknowledged that the actual performances we are putting into games is generally quite good, and we have not been worthy of the results that have gone against us.
I'd tend to agree.  I think that in general, our performances have been pretty good, and certainly worthy of at least mid-table.  Preston, Ipswich, Brighton and Cardiff away we certainly deserved more than we got. Charlton, QPR & MK at home are certainly games we ought to have turned into 3 points.  Different results in just this selection of games would have us comfortably mid-table.  We played pretty well in all of these games.

Based on the performances, a lot of fans are happy to believe that the results will come.  To me, this is blind faith.  Cotterill keeps insisting we are playing well, but then asserts that the players aren't good enough and are League 1 (quoted this numerous times recently - shocking management!).

So, if we are playing so well, but the results are not going our way, this to me suggests that the players are generally good enough to compete at this level.  We've been so close in a number of games that we can't be far off the required standard hey?  So, based on this, the small margins are what matters, and what can impact results.  If performances are generally pretty good, then the subtleties of management are what will bring that extra percentage to gain positive results.

Cotterill fails on this I'm afraid to say.  The refusal to make in-game changes is his downfall.  A good manager is honest enough with himself when things need to change, but Mr Cotterill's stubbornness is playing against him.  He has one plan, and sticks to it.  He does not make the marginal changes to the game that can make a positive impact.  Setting a team out to play one way and one way only is suicide in this league.  He got away with it last year against inferior players and inferior managers (note that only 5 points from 4 games against the 2 other promoted teams last year means we'd only extrapolate to 57 points if we played those 2 weaker teams all season.  Now we are competing against even better teams and managers, that 57 points looks a long way off).

The tactics employed last season worked well against inferior teams and managers.  Even then, his unwillingness to make in-game changes was often widely criticised - we could all see the writing on the wall but were in too much of a glory-filled haze to be concerned.
The very same tactics he continues to adopt for 94 minutes every week are now signing his death warrant.  Better managers and better players are able to play against us with ease.  It's no coincidence that we are a very very poor second half team.  Cotterill likes a high tempo style and relies upon a high level of fitness in his players.  This naturally leads to tiredness.  Tiredness can be mitigated by utilising your squad properly - making substitutions, resting players, not playing 36 year olds for 90 minutes in 3 games in 8 days!!
Cotterill also refuses to change his in-game tactics, whilst other managers change theirs to exploit our weaknesses.  It's no coincidence that most of our goals against this season have in some shape or form been a result of wing-backs being out of position, exposing the back 3.  Opposition mangers must not believe their luck when they see our inability to recognise our weakest area, and they revel in exposing it.  I'm not saying the players in that position are the weakest area, I'm saying that it is the chink in the armour, the achilles heel within Mr Cotterill's tactic.

The continuing refusal to change is Mr Cotterill's downfall.  Change is a constant.  If you don't change you sit still, and if you sit still, you go backwards.  Mr Cotterill certainly has something about him, he's been a success for our club and I thank him for that.  He clearly hasn't lost the dressing room, so kudos to that.  If he were willing to drop the stubborn act I'd be willing to give him time.  However, he will not change, and therefore, refusal to change means only one thing - we go backwards.  It's therefore time Mr Lansdown forced change.

I no longer care what happened in the summer and who is to blame.  As I started out on this post, a lot of our fans (and our manager) acknowledge that we are playing well at times.  This tells me the squad is actually decent enough to survive in this league.  The reason for failure at present is down to the managers stubbornness to react to what is in front of him.  The Manager is the man who can make the difference, with the decisions he makes.  Making no decisions doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Time for a change.

Best post I've read for a very long time.

[Up The City!]

2 hours ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

It's down the the board to support him this month. As we've seen time and time again, sacking the manager doesn't work. At best we'll stay up (because we're still in touching distance) and then the cycle will repeat next season. Experienced managers like Coppell, O'Driscoll and Cotterill struggle, highly rated young-coaches like McInnes fail. What do you expect sacking the manager to achieve in the long-run? The manager that brought us our first title since 1955, and guided us to 99 points. If we won't back Cotterill after the season he led us too last year, and the fact that the board let him down completely, then when will we ever back a manager?

For God's sake that was last season get over it. We are in a real danger of returning to that league. Yes we won the league but the league was piss poor last season. Even clubs like Walsall and Burton are doing well which shows what a poor league it currently is. 

The issue is WE DID back Cotts. Yet for whatever reason he couldn't attract players here.

[Fordy62]

26 minutes ago, Harry said:

It is widely acknowledged that the actual performances we are putting into games is generally quite good, and we have not been worthy of the results that have gone against us.
I'd tend to agree.  I think that in general, our performances have been pretty good, and certainly worthy of at least mid-table.  Preston, Ipswich, Brighton and Cardiff away we certainly deserved more than we got. Charlton, QPR & MK at home are certainly games we ought to have turned into 3 points.  Different results in just this selection of games would have us comfortably mid-table.  We played pretty well in all of these games.

Based on the performances, a lot of fans are happy to believe that the results will come.  To me, this is blind faith.  Cotterill keeps insisting we are playing well, but then asserts that the players aren't good enough and are League 1 (quoted this numerous times recently - shocking management!).

So, if we are playing so well, but the results are not going our way, this to me suggests that the players are generally good enough to compete at this level.  We've been so close in a number of games that we can't be far off the required standard hey?  So, based on this, the small margins are what matters, and what can impact results.  If performances are generally pretty good, then the subtleties of management are what will bring that extra percentage to gain positive results.

Cotterill fails on this I'm afraid to say.  The refusal to make in-game changes is his downfall.  A good manager is honest enough with himself when things need to change, but Mr Cotterill's stubbornness is playing against him.  He has one plan, and sticks to it.  He does not make the marginal changes to the game that can make a positive impact.  Setting a team out to play one way and one way only is suicide in this league.  He got away with it last year against inferior players and inferior managers (note that only 5 points from 4 games against the 2 other promoted teams last year means we'd only extrapolate to 57 points if we played those 2 weaker teams all season.  Now we are competing against even better teams and managers, that 57 points looks a long way off).

The tactics employed last season worked well against inferior teams and managers.  Even then, his unwillingness to make in-game changes was often widely criticised - we could all see the writing on the wall but were in too much of a glory-filled haze to be concerned.
The very same tactics he continues to adopt for 94 minutes every week are now signing his death warrant.  Better managers and better players are able to play against us with ease.  It's no coincidence that we are a very very poor second half team.  Cotterill likes a high tempo style and relies upon a high level of fitness in his players.  This naturally leads to tiredness.  Tiredness can be mitigated by utilising your squad properly - making substitutions, resting players, not playing 36 year olds for 90 minutes in 3 games in 8 days!!
Cotterill also refuses to change his in-game tactics, whilst other managers change theirs to exploit our weaknesses.  It's no coincidence that most of our goals against this season have in some shape or form been a result of wing-backs being out of position, exposing the back 3.  Opposition mangers must not believe their luck when they see our inability to recognise our weakest area, and they revel in exposing it.  I'm not saying the players in that position are the weakest area, I'm saying that it is the chink in the armour, the achilles heel within Mr Cotterill's tactic.

The continuing refusal to change is Mr Cotterill's downfall.  Change is a constant.  If you don't change you sit still, and if you sit still, you go backwards.  Mr Cotterill certainly has something about him, he's been a success for our club and I thank him for that.  He clearly hasn't lost the dressing room, so kudos to that.  If he were willing to drop the stubborn act I'd be willing to give him time.  However, he will not change, and therefore, refusal to change means only one thing - we go backwards.  It's therefore time Mr Lansdown forced change.

I no longer care what happened in the summer and who is to blame.  As I started out on this post, a lot of our fans (and our manager) acknowledge that we are playing well at times.  This tells me the squad is actually decent enough to survive in this league.  The reason for failure at present is down to the managers stubbornness to react to what is in front of him.  The Manager is the man who can make the difference, with the decisions he makes.  Making no decisions doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Time for a change.

Being a Cotts supporter and thus someone who'd stick by him, I found that hard to read Harry. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of the sad sacks and the eternal pessimists (of which there are many on here), because they let their hate and vitriol overcome their sense. 

But that was both well reasoned and well written. I agree with a lot of it. But the Cotts supporter in me can't help but feel that we're due for some luck (you neglected to mention the ridiculously disproportionate number of 30 yard screamers we're conceding!). 

Someone on here earlier said they'd stick with him personally but couldn't fault anyone if the other decision is made. That's where I stand. 

But one thing I don't agree on is that the some commonly given opinion that this feels like the seasons under McIness & Millen. To me it doesn't. To me this season we have hope. Because we have players who are good enough to get us out of it. 

I'm afraid I can't like your post Harry. Because for now, at least, I want to stick by Cotts. But it's as good a rationale as I've read. 

[BCFC Jordan]

5 minutes ago, Just Red said:

For God's sake that was last season get over it. We are in a real danger of returning to that league. Yes we won the league but the league was piss poor last season. Even clubs like Walsall and Burton are doing well which shows what a poor league it currently is. 

The issue is WE DID back Cotts. Yet for whatever reason he couldn't attract players here.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'll continue to take into account his achievements and the success he brought us, when given the resources to succeed. I just don't see the point in replacing a manager that has proven he is suited to the club, when any incoming manager will have to face the same barriers. SC deserves to be backed this transfer window. We only end up in the same position in this division anyway, so why not back the man?

 

And this is coming from someone who was passionately against his appointment in the first place! I just appreciate what he has done over the duration of his management, and as I've stated already, I think he could bring us success in this division if backed.

 

 

[BS4 on Tour...]

7 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Being a Cotts supporter and thus someone who'd stick by him, I found that hard to read Harry. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of the sad sacks and the manic depressives (of which there are many on here), because they let their hate and vitriol overcome their sense. 

But that was both well reasoned and well written. I agree with a lot of it. But the Cotts supporter in me can't help but feel that we're due for some luck (you neglected to mention the ridiculously disproportionate number of 30 yard screamers we're conceding!). 

Someone on here earlier said they'd stick with him personally but couldn't fault anyone if the other decision is made. That's where I stand. 

But one thing I don't agree on is that the some commonly given opinion that this feels like the seasons under McIness & Millen. To me it doesn't. To me this season we have hope. Because we have players who are good enough to get us out of it. 

I'm afraid I can't like your post Harry. Because for now, at least, I want to stick by Cotts. But it's as good a rationale as I've read. 

You can't diagnose posters on here as suffering from manic depression just from their words can you?

Perhaps you are a genius doctor then.

Mental illness isn't a subject to joke about...

[Portland Bill]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

What thread?

It's on page 3 ( I think!) of the thread "now let me get this straight"

[Fordy62]

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

You can't diagnose posters on here as suffering from manic depression just from their words can you?

Perhaps you are a genius doctor then.

Mental illness isn't a subject to joke about...

You're absolutely right. It isn't. I apologise, it wasn't a deliberate act. 

[Harry]

14 minutes ago, 29AR said:

@Harry

just wondering, if you would agree it's small margins that could have seen us get over the line is SC then not worth a transfer window to make the appropriate recruitment if it's not a wholesale change needed. I just wonder if better the devil you know and who best to decide what to compliment our side with than SC? 

I'd agree a leap of faith given how the summer went and our loan recruitment too (which is inexcusably poor). But personally, I'd rather trust SC with the window, to suggest the changes needed (and make them!) and if he then can't get that working, replace. 

To put it another way; I think I'd rather SC was instrumental in the players we offer X year contracts to than some chap who has just walked through the door. 

Hi 29AR.

Simple answer is no, I wouldn't be willing to give him January.  It's not about the players he does or doesn't bring in, it's about his management style, his stubbornness and his refusal to react in a game.  If he had signed Gray, he'd more than likely have Kodj on the bench with Wilbs still playing 90 every week, because this is the strategy that he wants to employ.  He is seemingly not willing to adapt to the nuances of this division, and whomever he brings in will not make any difference.  Yes, better players will no doubt bring better results, but the underlying problem will remain.  We will not progress under Cotterill in this division.  His record at this level proves this to be true.

[Inactive user]

Sorry Cotts has got to go. He's out of his depth and clueless. I do however agree that there is a much deeper problem at our club and that needs to be accepted and addressed by those who are in a position to do so.

Feel sick in my stomach when I think Gas will probably be in the same division as us again next season. Typical City, great opportunity and we blow it.

[Portland Bill]

2 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction, what day, what thread etc...

Dont think I read on Twitter what Lansdown said about matching wages but it was down to players ambitions. I'm not guessing I believed it to be a direct quote from Lansdown but happy to be shown otherwise.

See my post just up from this one mate.

[Portland Bill]

2 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I read that, it was very interesting. But when someone refuses to give any real evidence that what they are posting is true then why should we believe them over our club's owner speaking in public and saying transfer fees and wages were not a problem in the summer?

This is the real McCoy mate, the poster knows what he's talking about. 

[Harry]

17 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Being a Cotts supporter and thus someone who'd stick by him, I found that hard to read Harry. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of the sad sacks and the eternal pessimists (of which there are many on here), because they let their hate and vitriol overcome their sense. 

But that was both well reasoned and well written. I agree with a lot of it. But the Cotts supporter in me can't help but feel that we're due for some luck (you neglected to mention the ridiculously disproportionate number of 30 yard screamers we're conceding!). 

Someone on here earlier said they'd stick with him personally but couldn't fault anyone if the other decision is made. That's where I stand. 

But one thing I don't agree on is that the some commonly given opinion that this feels like the seasons under McIness & Millen. To me it doesn't. To me this season we have hope. Because we have players who are good enough to get us out of it. 

I'm afraid I can't like your post Harry. Because for now, at least, I want to stick by Cotts. But it's as good a rationale as I've read. 

No worries Fordy, I'm not offended if you don't 'like' my post, haha.

Believe me, I completely understand where you are at the moment, a lot of my friends are similar.  But I know a lot of them would also understand if a change was made, and would get over it pretty quickly.

Luck does play a part, but you earn your luck.  Our results are not seeking luck, the tactics employed are providing the opposition with all the luck they need.

[BS4 on Tour...]

12 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

You're absolutely right. It isn't. I apologise, it wasn't a deliberate act. 

Thanks for this response Fordy, respect...

[Tjprobert]

Although I don't necessarily feel Cotts should be sacked yet I'm surprised with some of the suggestions being banded about for his replacement. 

Warnock - not a long term solution

Moyes - doubt he would drop down this far

Its one thing to suggest sacking the manager but then who do you realistically replace him with?

Although I don't feel we should get rid of him yet, I'm surprised Steve Clarke's name has not been mentioned. Overachieved in his first season at West Brom and his sacking was a result of this. Secondly, he did a decent job at Reading. Which I feel would make him a reasonable candidate for the  job if we were to sack Cotteril. But other than him I'm struggling to think of a realistic improvement on Cotteril at this moment in time.

Lets back Cotterill in January financially and see how he does!

 

[Up The City!]

31 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'll continue to take into account his achievements and the success he brought us, when given the resources to succeed. I just don't see the point in replacing a manager that has proven he is suited to the club, when any incoming manager will have to face the same barriers. SC deserves to be backed this transfer window. We only end up in the same position in this division anyway, so why not back the man?

 

And this is coming from someone who was passionately against his appointment in the first place! I just appreciate what he has done over the duration of his management, and as I've stated already, I think he could bring us success in this division if backed.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I will forever remember last season and thank Cotts for that however I think we are at a point where we are seeing Cotts limitations. Over the past few seasons we have been a lower Championship/League One club. We need someone who is able to push us up a level and to date I havnt seen any evidence Cotts can do that.

The time to sack him was over a month ago when a new man would have had the time to assess the squad and scout new players. I said this back then. Now we may be a in position where the only realistic option is to stick with what we have and hope for the best. SL has always been to loyal and often makes decisions too late. We need to become proactive to these situations.

All I know is I'm starting to become Fed up of this repeating all the time. And questions need to be asked why do they keep repeating. Why are we seemilingly unable to become an established Championship side? Charlton fans are protesting for similar.

[formerly known as ivan]

37 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

See my post just up from this one mate.

Thanks for pointing that out, very interesting reading.

Without knowing who TM is or what his/her links are to the club you would usually have to question what was said. However the amount of detail involved makes it all very possible.

Im your average season ticket holder. No connections to the club other then my 30 years support. When Lansdown comes out and says something I take it as gospel. That said, It doesn't take a genius to work out there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than we are lead to believe.

One thing I would like to know though is having all that gone on, why Cotts didn't walk like many managers do?

[Olé]

 

1 hour ago, YorkshireSection said:

ridiculous loan signings.

Sweet jesus could everyone please stop going on about the ****ing loan signings. Who did everyone expect to be available on loan, Ronaldo and Messi? By their own nature loan signings are players THEY don't want and WE don't trust enough to sign. They're always hit and miss. This is the transfer mechanic which brought you Gus Ceaser and Patrick Agyemang. If you thought that Cotterill set out to depend on loan signings to succeed at this higher level, you are utterly delusional. The sort of loans we have had are low risk last resort, second best and anyone judging our double winning manager on these sorts of players has totally missed the point.

[KeepUpLino]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

It is widely acknowledged that the actual performances we are putting into games is generally quite good, and we have not been worthy of the results that have gone against us.
I'd tend to agree.  I think that in general, our performances have been pretty good, and certainly worthy of at least mid-table.  Preston, Ipswich, Brighton and Cardiff away we certainly deserved more than we got. Charlton, QPR & MK at home are certainly games we ought to have turned into 3 points.  Different results in just this selection of games would have us comfortably mid-table.  We played pretty well in all of these games.

Based on the performances, a lot of fans are happy to believe that the results will come.  To me, this is blind faith.  Cotterill keeps insisting we are playing well, but then asserts that the players aren't good enough and are League 1 (quoted this numerous times recently - shocking management!).

So, if we are playing so well, but the results are not going our way, this to me suggests that the players are generally good enough to compete at this level.  We've been so close in a number of games that we can't be far off the required standard hey?  So, based on this, the small margins are what matters, and what can impact results.  If performances are generally pretty good, then the subtleties of management are what will bring that extra percentage to gain positive results.

Cotterill fails on this I'm afraid to say.  The refusal to make in-game changes is his downfall.  A good manager is honest enough with himself when things need to change, but Mr Cotterill's stubbornness is playing against him.  He has one plan, and sticks to it.  He does not make the marginal changes to the game that can make a positive impact.  Setting a team out to play one way and one way only is suicide in this league.  He got away with it last year against inferior players and inferior managers (note that only 5 points from 4 games against the 2 other promoted teams last year means we'd only extrapolate to 57 points if we played those 2 weaker teams all season.  Now we are competing against even better teams and managers, that 57 points looks a long way off).

The tactics employed last season worked well against inferior teams and managers.  Even then, his unwillingness to make in-game changes was often widely criticised - we could all see the writing on the wall but were in too much of a glory-filled haze to be concerned.
The very same tactics he continues to adopt for 94 minutes every week are now signing his death warrant.  Better managers and better players are able to play against us with ease.  It's no coincidence that we are a very very poor second half team.  Cotterill likes a high tempo style and relies upon a high level of fitness in his players.  This naturally leads to tiredness.  Tiredness can be mitigated by utilising your squad properly - making substitutions, resting players, not playing 36 year olds for 90 minutes in 3 games in 8 days!!
Cotterill also refuses to change his in-game tactics, whilst other managers change theirs to exploit our weaknesses.  It's no coincidence that most of our goals against this season have in some shape or form been a result of wing-backs being out of position, exposing the back 3.  Opposition managers must not believe their luck when they see our inability to recognise our weakest area, and they revel in exposing it.  I'm not saying the players in that position are the weakest area, I'm saying that it is the chink in the armour, the achilles heel within Mr Cotterill's tactic.

The continuing refusal to change is Mr Cotterill's downfall.  Change is a constant.  If you don't change you sit still, and if you sit still, you go backwards.  Mr Cotterill certainly has something about him, he's been a success for our club and I thank him for that.  He clearly hasn't lost the dressing room, so kudos to that.  If he were willing to drop the stubborn act I'd be willing to give him time.  However, he will not change, and therefore, refusal to change means only one thing - we go backwards.  It's therefore time Mr Lansdown forced change.

I no longer care what happened in the summer and who is to blame.  As I started out on this post, a lot of our fans (and our manager) acknowledge that we are playing well at times.  This tells me the squad is actually decent enough to survive in this league.  The reason for failure at present is down to the managers stubbornness to react to what is in front of him.  The Manager is the man who can make the difference, with the decisions he makes.  Making no decisions doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Time for a change.

Good post mate

[samo II]

1 minute ago, Olé said:

 

Sweet jesus could everyone please stop going on about the ****ing loan signings. Who did everyone expect to be available on loan, Ronaldo and Messi? By their own nature loan signings are players THEY don't want and WE don't trust enough to sign. They're always hit and miss. This is the transfer mechanic which brought you Gus Ceaser and Patrick Agyemang. If you thought that Cotterill set out to depend on loan signings to succeed at this higher level, you are utterly delusional. The sort of loans we have had are low risk last resort, second best and anyone judging our double winning manager on these sorts of players has totally missed the point.

I completely agree with you, on all points, but if would be fair to observe that SC does seem to be quite loan-happy - since last January we've brought in Saville, Tavernier, extended Matt Smith's initial loan, Cox, Baker, Moore, Hamer, Bennett and Robinson on loan, while buying only Kodjia, so it makes it hard to judge his transfer dealings in the last year on any other metric.  And it's also fair to say I actually think it's been pretty good, all told.

[Olé]

^ But that's just it Samo. My guess is he loans and loans and loans because he is not able to sign real improvements that he wants. I am not ITK but it seems pretty obvious to me that no manager sets out to rely on the loan market. Either people think SC has no permanent signings in mind or he has them but we're unable to sign them. Simple logic tells me its not the former and yet the mob wants to burn SC at the stake and start again.

[spudski]

5 hours ago, BCFC Jordan said:

It's clearly the best solution! Let's sack Cotterill and replace him with a new manager, and then we can let the cycle repeat iself again next year, as is always the case. It's clearly the manager at fault, not the board, after all. Let's ignore the fact that the board failed to back our most successful manager in years over the summer. Let's ignore the fact that had we acquired the targets Cotterill had desired, we'd be absolutely fine. We've dominated many a game with the poor resources available to SC, a squad so small that any manager would be performing miracles to get any more out of them. We are relying on one player to score all of our goals, we've dominated many a game this year but all the opposition have to do is make sure Kodjia doesn't get space on his right foot. The board must make amends for their disastrous summer and back SC, the man that got us 99 points and two trophies last year, when given the appropriate resources. I mean, fair enough, if the players weren't still playing for him, but they clearly are and had we had more attacking options today, we'd have most probably won. But it's a one man show up there.

Let's not repeat the cycle of blaming a manager for the board's mistakes.

Cotterill's no saint, his poorly timed subs, insistence on playing Wilbraham when he clearly shouldn't be on the pitch due to tiredness, lack of gametime for Reid when Freeman has been out of form most of the season and decision to let JET leave are all mistakes, in my opinion. But he has proven he can be successful and sacking a manager just for the sake of it, as is the modern way, won't get us anywhere. All managers have their shortcomings but SC has also showed us what he's capable of. It'd be the ultimate irony if it's the board that have the front to sack Cotterill after letting him down so badly in the summer.

SC has said he can't get anymore out of these players...if that's the case, what's the point of carrying on with him?

He's admitted he can't...so why not give someone else a chance, who just might.

No point flogging a dead horse.

If SC said he could get more out of them and tried change, then I'd sympathise with your post.

[Olé]

^ Or why not see what happens when he's successful in signing some players who have done it at this level. You moved on pretty quickly from your last SC-bash in the other thread, and started again here.

[samo II]

Just now, Olé said:

^ But that's just it Samo. My guess is he loans and loans and loans because he is not able to sign real improvements that he wants. I am not ITK but it seems pretty obvious to me that no manager sets out to rely on the loan market. Either people think SC has no permanent signings in mind or he has them but we're unable to sign them. Simple logic tells me its not the former and yet the mob wants to burn SC at the stake and start again.

I agree; I imagine there is a degree of frustration at work with the number of loans we've used this season.

But needs must when the Devil drives, and as such I don't completely disagree with how strange the Hamer, Cox, Robinson and to a lesser extent Moore loans seemed.

Knowing this was his only option to strengthen, it is either the case SC and those tasked with bringing them in erred and simply ended up with resources they found wanting (which happens; can't predict that), or these players were literally brought in to pad the squad, which was exactly what we were told would not happen.

To be quite honest; if the latter was true, I'd had preferred to see a bunch of youth on the bench to fill the space, as at least they would be getting match day experience, and with SC's reticence to make changes it would have made little difference anyway.  In fact, the goalkeeping situation shows we're happy to do that.

I'm of the mind we should keep SC, and back him to make up lost ground from the summer this January.  But it is worth keeping in mind his transfer dealings are mixed at best.  As when you take into account loads, for every Wade Elliott or Freeman (of last year, not this) there is an El Abd or Cox or Tyrone Barnnet.

I am saying stick with him and back him, but this window will be telling.

[Roe]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

SC has said he can't get anymore out of these players...if that's the case, what's the point of carrying on with him?

He's admitted he can't...so why not give someone else a chance, who just might.

No point flogging a dead horse.

If SC said he could get more out of them and tried change, then I'd sympathise with your post.

Because he'd like to strengthen in this transfer window and add a bit of quality so that the fine margin matches are more likely to go in our favour?

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Olé said:

^ Or why not see what happens when he's successful in signing some players who have done it at this level. You moved on pretty quickly from your last SC-bash in the other thread, and started again here.

How do you know he's going to sign some successful signings? Your thoughts are based on 'hope'...mine are based on fact...not bashing SC...he's admitted defeat almost.

Do you also understand what loans he can now bring in because of what he's already used this season?

[cityexile]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

SC has said he can't get anymore out of these players...if that's the case, what's the point of carrying on with him?

He's admitted he can't...so why not give someone else a chance, who just might.

No point flogging a dead horse.

If SC said he could get more out of them and tried change, then I'd sympathise with your post.

Pretty much this.

This squad, playing these tactics, with this manager, will now in my view on the balance of probabilities go down. Something has to change.

Taking TMs comments at face value the other day, he was let down somewhat over the summer. Not convinced we would ever have landed Gray in truth, but there does seem a bit of 'taking my ball home' now. A manager has to get the best out of what he had got. A case in point is Cunningham. We let him go as he did not fit our way of playing, but now a regular Championship player with a mid table team who is seen as a great free purchase by them.

The one thing that is never commented on is playing this way, how difficult it is to recruit and expect new players to be able to hit the ground running with it. We have a squad that is paper thin, and even if we had landed the two players discussed, it would still be very thin indeed in some key positions. We were over a season ten points better than Preston, still spent more than them over the summer, and are now ten points worse. Sure, if we had been able to spend the six million maybe we would be in a better position, but we should still be doing better than we are.

I have moved in to the, if not 'Cotts out' camp, certainly in to the 'would not be disappointed' camp.

 

 

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, roe said:

Because he'd like to strengthen in this transfer window and add a bit of quality so that the fine margin matches are more likely to go in our favour?

Who are these players? Who are these Loans and signings?

What type of loan...? Do you understand what we can bring in now?

Do you realise SC has used loans and hardly used them?

Do you understand how many loans you are allowed to bring in?

What players are going to come here knowing they are in for a relegation battle?

Loans gone back today...Moore, Robinson and Cox....Baker and Williams injured.

You do the maths...

We need a manager that can motivate what we have and someone who can attract new and better players.

[Olé]

^ I've seen us sign a lot of dross and I look at the players SC has signed for us Spudski, that's why no hope is needed. Our first title winning team for half a century was mostly signed in one summer. That's a pretty high standard. This year we've signed Kodjia, a bloke who was homesick from London, and a teenager from Torquay who drinks like he is back in Ireland (or is homesick also, I forget which). I don't measure loans against his record. Could one of the witchfinder generals please tell me where SC has gone wrong and which signings at this level he has had and done badly?

I enjoy your posts but you ducked my last reply about your appraisal of SCs signings and yet are here again implying he's some sort of disaster. Like I said before, any old stick!