This is my take on it too - Not ruling something out is not saying he's our number 1 contender - My guess is that he hasn't ruled anyone out. Has he ruled out Pep Guardiola? No? Oh well he must be our new manager then!
The type of manager they described being after made me think of Keane! Nobody would hold the squad and team up to a higher standard than him. I'd love to know who their top 3 choices are and who has applied for the job so far.
Haha. They did say he would be number 5 or 6 on their list. (Coleman not Pep! Just in case of any confusion ) so definitely not their top choice
Hmmm - the same Roy Keane who signed Chimbonda, Diouff and Cisse? I have no idea who they fancy, but I think the journey is going to be fun to watch as all of the mercenaries get kicked out. Donald's sidekick Charlie Mc..... was very impressive. I bet he's got a picture of Rodwell on his dart board already
With the contract that Rodwell is on there's not a chance of getting rid. Paul Daniels and David Copperfield together couldn't get him to disappear.
I think he will get paid up and told to phuck off Charlie was very clear that he didn't want players who were "taking the p1ss" out of SAFC
Didn't mean to imply I wanted him back. Having said that, yes he did sign a couple of bad players, but overall brought in some decent players during his time here. I also remember him leaving 3 players behind when they turned up late for the team bus, which is what I meant by demanding high standards
Having listened to the podcast I thinkSD was simply giving lip service to the Coleman return link. He mentioned 2 or 3 prospective managers are ahead of him in thier thoughts. That doesn't indicate to me that they are remotely serious about it and from CC's point of view he's knows without doubt he would only be a last resort. With all this in mind I think we can sleep easy knowing 5 at the back is in the past..... I ****ing hope so anyway.
Not sure why people are "anti" 5 at the back - we played 5 at the back earlier this season and won - we also played 5 at the back and lost 2-0 - both goals coming from set pieces (nothing to do with the 5 at the back - just ****e defending/goalkeeping) There are a lot of managers playing 5 at the back now - although most play 2 up front which makes it a much better formation going forward. Seeing the end of 5 at the back with 1 up front - that I agree with - but just "5 at the back" - I have no problem with that
I'm not using any of our performances this year to analyse any formation, that's not fair to formations. I don't like 5 at the back because I believe you need brilliant players to for it to be effective in both attack and defence. I find either 442 or 433, basically a back four formation, allows for more balance across the pitch and width in attack. In my opinion 532 limits attacking options and outs a heavy emphasis on those upfront.
Didn;t mean that to sound like a dig mate - it wasn't - I've done quite a bit of coaching and a lot of the FA stuff is pushing towards 5 at the back which turns into a 3 now. At the level we'll be playing this season, we should have playuers capable of doing that. That said - I also prefer 4 at the back! My point was that a lot of people blamed the 5 at the back for conceding goals when, in reality, it was more the fact that wer couldn't mark people from dead ball situations or our keepers threw the ball in the net or to the forward!
I think you're back 3 have to be almost telekinetic and you're attacking players need to be deadly. Chelsea achieved it last year but even their own best player was bemoaning it after the Cup final. As for our shower of ****e... I don't think we'd have conceded less last season if we'd played 4 at the back but I do think we had more goals in us than 532 allowed
I like your thinking. All out attack this coming season with a we'll score more than you mentality. It would be entertaining if nothing else
