graham b Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 ..... would it be because the manager chose a poorly balanced side and spent the game trying to correct it by poorly considered substitutions! To go into the game with no width or pace on the left side and relying on an defensive minded left back to overlap (which he didn't do once) was tactically flawed. To realise it was good. However to replace an attack minded midfielder with a now paceless left back being asked to play wide midfield was not correecting the problem. Peacock was obviously injured (from the start?) So we now had the fans choice front two. Miller to be the target man and Lita running the channels. No not in Wilson land. Lita played the front target role and Miller endeavoured to fill the gaping hole which we always have between the front two and central midfield. Result totally ineffective front line. Goodfellow comes on for Hill. Was Hill fully fit as he was certainly well below par. Goodfellow on left and Roberts on right. At least we are attacking down both flanks now. But wait, five minutes after Goodfellows introduction Roberts and Goodfellow switch wings. So now they both naturally cut in, we play narrow and, guess what, we're ineffective. This season we have spent more than any other club in the division. For the Rushden game all three of this seasons purchases were on the bench. Yesterday two were and the other replaced early second half. Wilson must have bought or loaned six or more strikers in his four year spell here. What level of confidence would you have in his ability in the transfer market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 I think Wilson has taken the team as far as he can. He made improvements the previous three seaosns but this season its gone backwards. He cannot do anything more in my opinion and has therefore reached the limit of his usefulness. Any continued tenure at the helm will only do damage. Wilson does not have the man management skills the good managers have (take Paul Sturrock as a good example of that) neither can he raise the team's fighting ability (as Brian Talbot obviously can). Both managers I have quoted I'd rather have as City manager from this point onwards as I don't think Wilson can do anything more of use. Wilson's tactical deficiencies are well known and his stubbornness is another minus point. All in all I think his time here is coming to an end but its a shame we'll have to endure another two seasons of this mediocrity (and yes, the performances overall this season are mediocre) as Wilson's contract has two more seasons to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipps Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Wilson does not have the man management skills the good managers have (take Paul Sturrock as a good example of that) neither can he raise the team's fighting ability (as Brian Talbot obviously can). Both managers I have quoted I'd rather have as City manager from this point onwards as I don't think Wilson can do anything more of use. Oldham's players were always going to fight to the death in this one, Talbot has only just joined and all the players are out to impress their new manager. May be it is a case of the City players being in the comfort zone, knowing that they are unlikely to be dropped etc, that is why a loan signing or 3 wouldn't go a miss, it would give the whole squad the fear that they were going to be in the stiffs and may be that would kick them into action. This week will be the make or break of our season, Tranmere on Wednesday, transfer deadline day on Thursday and Port Vale on Saturday........I would like to think that we won't have to wait until Thursday to get anyone in and that we would have someone with us for the Tranmere game but only time will tell and that is fast running out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Things that baffled me: 1) how come the whole world and its mother were asked to patrol the left flank at various stages of the match but the best crosser of the ball in the club remained glued to the bench? (was conceding a throw-in we didn't defend at Hillsborough really such a big crime?) 2) given the absence of a big'un up-front for Oldham why was Tony Butler given the chance to show how slow and clumsy he can be? With our record of defending set pieces this season anybody conceding the sort of stupid fouls he was guilty of all afternoon needs their head examined (and I don't mean the stupid hair thing)! 3) given that he'd set up both of our only clear-cut scoring chances what was to be gained by removing Luke Wilkshire from the action exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham b Posted March 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Things that baffled me: 1) how come the whole world and its mother were asked to patrol the left flank at various stages of the match but the best crosser of the ball in the club remained glued to the bench? (was conceding a throw-in we didn't defend at Hillsborough really such a big crime?) 2) given the absence of a big'un up-front for Oldham why was Tony Butler given the chance to show how slow and clumsy he can be? With our record of defending set pieces this season anybody conceding the sort of stupid fouls he was guilty of all afternoon needs their head examined (and I don't mean the stupid hair thing)! 3) given that he'd set up both of our only clear-cut scoring chances what was to be gained by removing Luke Wilkshire from the action exactly? 1) Yes if Tinnion was to play to the left then Woodman would have been the natural to play alongside him. 2) In the wind of yesterday quick reactions and adjustments were essential assets for a defender. To watch Butler struggling with both the conditions and two nippy forwards was an embarassment. Coles and Hill would have been so much better. 3) Wilkshire attacking game is a natural balance to Burnells defensive play. Our problems yesterday stemmed from our left side selection. To take off your most inventive player does not overcome it. Tinnion and Burnell both play too deep. Things must be bad Red Un if we're in agreement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrT Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 would it be because the manager chose a poorly balanced side and spent the game trying to correct it by poorly considered substitutions! SPOT on. Summed it up perfectly. You could have cut and pasted that statement to loads of bcfc games under Wilson. Wilson even makes team selection under Benny L seem amazingly good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham b Posted March 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Wilson even makes team selection under Benny L seem amazingly good I wouldn't take it that far!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filton Red Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 So lets put our head on the line's now. We all know what team Danny started with, but what would all of started with if we were manager... (and yes I know I'm openeing a big can of worms here...) Danny's Team - Phillips Carey, Coles, Butler, Hill Roberts, Wilkshire, Burnell, Tinnion Peacock, Lita My Choice - Phillips Carey, Coles, Hill, Woodman M. Brown, Wilkshire, Burnell, Goodfellow Roberts, Miller Bench - Tinnion, Lita, Butler, Bell, Stowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 philips carey coles hill m.brown wilkshire burnell tinnion goodfellow lita miller subs stowell woodman roberts peacock/loan striker fortune[if fit] /butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.