We are in a league where Villa can offer a 36-year-old £80k a week and ****ing Birmingham offered him the same. There are some big haves now and we are very much the have nots.
If that's the activity of 'haves', I'm delighted to be a 'have not', if it meant we never have someone like him at our club.
I couldn't agree more but it also means we'd be punching well above our weight to be even in with a sniff of the playoffs.
Apparently our manager has decided: "he wants his team to be versatile. Rather than just being a one trick pony, he has said the key to getting results this season is the ability to adapt and amend their game based on the opposition, and this is something which he will be keen to get cracking on. It'll be interesting to see how quickly the squad can pick up a new style of play, and more importantly, whether it helps the team to pick up some victories." Well that idea worked really well at the end of last season. Clearly losing isn't seen as a hazard to being 'versatile'. Oh... $hhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttt
What I think Hollow means by 'versatile' is that if you cannot hoof it up to Smith then you just hoof it hoping it reaches one of our players.
What he means - clearly - is that having a plan b is a good thing. Too many sides actually don't have a clue when their usual tactics get nullified by an opposition that has them sussed. England at... well, just about any competition, Man Utd when wearing grey, Derby when the ref blows to kick off the match, that kind of thing...
The problem is if your Plan A doesn't work; your Plan B is worse than Plan A and the 'versatility' capability cant be put into action because the team formation is changing every week... your in trouble - as we found out when we endlessly kept losing games. Having a plan requires good implementation to make it work; I'm yet to see us do that capably so far and does not bode well if Holloway is planning to do the same thing and expect a different result.
Well no. if Plan A isn't working, you can't say 'we wont do plan b because that's worse' because that means there's never a plan b. Any tactics might work or might not work on a given day against a given opponent. so you pick the one (and the team) that you think has the best chance of winning the game. If it's not panning out, you look at how the opposition are playing and you counter that with plan b. Or c. Or whichever of your possible tactics has the best chance of winning against that opposition and their tactics. That's Management 101, mate. Everybody does it, all the time (well, maybe not Stoke) and it works when you have players that are confident and comfortable in what they are asked to do. That's what we've not really had in the past, so hopefully it'll be better this season.
Exactly... also by default surely Plan A must be the better plan... would be a bit bizarre to start out with what you consider to be weaker tactics! The suitability of any plan is something you can only assess through implementation - unless you are a Not 606er obvs...
