Indeed JR – this is what this board is all about (opinions) and we will agree to disagree here. Just one final word and you referred to it in your opening sentence:

“there’s no sentiment in managing a business”

do you think that DW has been a sentimental old fool over the last half century, letting his heart run his business? He’s not about to start now and let some junior family member undo everything he has worked so hard for. I trust his judgement and stewardship in the hand over/take over, however long that takes.

Hey blueneon – can’t you see it’s a wind-up?

How on earth could you possibly know that? And as most of these players’ perfomances were just as abject under Rosler, why would you make that leap?[/quote]

I don’t know, that is why I said “I think” and “Obviously just my opinion” ! With hindsight ( And there are many who would say ” I told you so” )it would appear that the appointment of MM has been a massive faux pas! The blame therefore lies with the person who chose him and then employed him does it not? As for the Rosler business, I said in an earlier post it is possible that Rosler ended up being resented by some players and that the appointment of MM could have been met with disapproval by some players who may have made their feelings known? Who knows, but something is seriously amiss and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion![/quote]

Not being funny fil but Malky was the overwhelming favourite with most on here before his appointment so don’t just blame Mr Whelan for it not being an instant success. He did what he thought was best for the club and who knows he may well yet be proved right. Changes must be made though and now.[/quote]

I did use the word ‘Hindsight’ ! However, there were people who feared that the appointment could backfire! In other words, with the benefit of hindsight (And I am not referring to the shite form)perhaps employing him was a bad move! I don’t know what is going on behind closed doors but there is something going on! I am just trying to make sense of it all because a combination of our squad and MM should not be performing so bad![/quote]

A combination of our squad and Coyle, our squad and Rosler, our squad and Mackay shouldn’t have been performing as bad as they did/have. Where’s the common denominator there? Oh look, it’s the squad. Go figure!

And if the poor, pampered prima donnas are a tad offended by some text messages, I’d suggest they are very quikcly reminded who is the boss and who pays their wages.[/quote]

“Go figure” ! I’m English Griff not American! You may have been working in an office environment too long man! Do you use the term ” You do the math” as well? It’s not that long ago that you were calling so called office talk! ;) Anyway, back to the subject. What do you think is the problem then, because all I see you do is shoot people down who make suggestions as to what is wrong, without actually offering any opinions of your own? If you think the squad is that bad that we should go down then just say so. Come on man, get involved in the “Think tank” ! Happy Christmas ! :)[/quote]

A number of players in that squad do not want to be here and that rubs off on others. The answer is to see what Mackay can do in the transfer window, especially in getting rid of those bad apples. It might be too late already, but that definitely is NOT Mackay’s fault. very hard to totally transform a squad in January, but he needs to pick 16 or 18 he wants (from within or the market) and either try to offload the rest or freeze the out completely. I think Holt is nailed on to be in his team come January 3rd, by the way.

And if you want names of players who don’t want to be here, I know for a FACT (and I rarely use that term) that Maloney wants to leave and is sulking and beign a big girl and I strongly suspect Ramis is another one. There are probably more who were here before Mackay’s time who don’t want to be here for various reasons, none of which probably involve Mackay.

And don’t ask me how I know it for a fact, but it hasn’t come from where you might think it has, Phil. I never get anything from there!

Anyway, you lot carry on tearing yourselves up about a football club. I’m off to enjoy my Christmas break with my family. I suggest you all do the same.

Merry Christmas to you, and I mean everybody! ;)

PS, Adkins – not a bad shout. But many of those players will still not want to be here and play for him either. Deluded? Don’t think so.

Over and out[/quote]

ITWASBACKINTHEDAY IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH GRIFF IN CHRISTMAS FESTIVE SPIRIT SHOCKER

Merry Christmas everybody

I still don’t think playing two up front is the answer – and certainly not if we’re playing four in midfield.

I can understand (in theory) why McClean is being started up front – because he will chase defenders down and pressurise them into mistakes or win the ball from them, and with his pace, if the ball is played through gaps in the middle or to his feet in space, he’ll out-sprint most defenders.

The problem on Saturday was, the midfield didn’t have enough of a grip on the game to create those chances, and half the balls played forwards were at McClean’s head.

Saying that though, I thought Fortune played well when he came on, and there was a marked improvement in the team.[/quote]

Totally agree with that statement. What some tend to forget is that in the old 442 formation it was heavily reliant on one of those strikers to continually be in the box, which to me effectively takes him out of the game for large parts – a luxury no team can afford in the modern game. Having said that, I have mentioned in the past that we should still retain the option of changing to a 442 formation during a game as part of a tactic ‘in the locker’ but changing back out of it if not working. At the moment a 4231 formation has been the best we have put out there so far.

I think it is only the top clubs who have been blessed with a good striker who get that great return of goals that everyone wants, the rest of us have to make do with goals from our lone striker (if at all possible) and from attacking midfielders – what some people forget is that Celtic played Maloney as a striker so he knows the position and should cut his cloth accordingly.

As for the midfield on Saturday, I thought it was slowed down by Watson who has reverted back to his old ways of not looking forward – his short free kicks were extremely frustrating.

For me, I too agree that Fortune played well when he came on and that it is for the likes of McClean, Maloney, McManaman and/orMcCann to contribute to the shots on target stats.

As for the thread title – Ive never heard anything so ridiculous in quite some time.

How should we start at home then. he has picked a 4 2 3 1 which is probably the most popular formation in the country. With Boyce and Barnett centre halfs they need more protection from 2 defending midfielders. Unfortunately Barnett and Boyce are not good enough. Yeah I agree he could have played players in that system who would be better but there is nothing wrong with the set up, formation. The problem is the players don’t seem to give a shit. Something may be wrong behind closed doors but they are payed to play decent football but they can’t be arsed. Maybe he his getting influenced by the back room staff, McLean played up front against Q P R, I would like to see what happens in January.[/quote]

You touched on a couple of points also picked up in the pub last night. The players attitude on the pitch was appalling at times and some also believed that the back room staff should also be held responsible for this poor attitude, and lethargy the players have slipped into. Very poor atmosphere both on and off the pitch at the moment.

No. That would have been a waste of a good education. And like you’ve said elsewhere Sammy – it’s only banter.

Have a good weekend

No you didn’t in this thread, however, if you were to read my post correctly (get someone to help if you need to) then you will realise that I was talking generally about your comments overall.

Good grief, you balloon, I did and I was not questioning the “sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t” bit – it was the fact you jumped up all wounded and clearly shouted “I never said it’s a wind up” – you can be so tetchy some times you know.

May I draw you attention to post #134491 (highlighted in case your carer has gone home) where I said that I was not the one changing topics/threads to suit a point of view – or in your case deflection. You see I am the one considered to be argumentative, however, you cannot leave it alone. I am the one considered repetitive, however, you have to keep coming back. I am the one asked to adopt a more flippant attitude when talking on the board, however, you are the one jumping up and down at the tiniest slight to your views, opinions or (cough) wind-ups. You see, I am the one considered easy prey because I’m ‘not in the fold’ – but after all that you are the one everybody considers a balloon (the fat reference is now quite apt). And as for being considered a “daft old twat”, that was a self deprecating remark that I’m quite happy to live with.

Oh! thank you for sharing your teenage and early adult angst with your weight problems – Cathartic was it?

Anyway, Merry Christmas – I hold no grievance against or distaste for any person, life is far to short for that.

No you didn’t in this thread, however, if you were to read my post correctly (get someone to help if you need to) then you will realise that I was talking generally about your comments overall.

And as if to prove a point.

T’aint me who talks codswallop on here.

Be safe fatty, not too many mince pies now.