Reckon most supporter bases would ask the same pretty simple question. If the key defence of the changes is 'well he doesn't know the players' then I think the pretty simple answer is 'why not stick with what works'. For example one of his comments after the game was 'I have to figure out who the experienced players in the squad are' after having dropped Smallwood. Was just very strange. I'm not saying he should be sacked or anything silly, but I think it's fine to ask questions and be critical.
And yet he kept Docherty, probably worst on ground against Preston, in the side, and dropped Eaves, who was one of the best? Of course changes could and should have been made after Preston (with Bernard seemingly injured) but the changes were quite strange, no? Forss did very little against Preston to deserve to come into the starting XI, for instance. If it would be 'bizarre' not to make 4 changes after a close 1-0 loss, how many changes are we making after a 3-1 loss?
Precisely. I suspect he thought that we would manage the 3 points against Derby and it was a good opportunity to blood new players. Took the risk and it didn't pay off.
I expected us to beat Preston on Saturday,obviously I was wrong.After that performance I expected little or nothing last-night,a point would've been an achievement. Derby have some decent players and they are slowly but surely clawing their way out of what looked like certain relegation.
I wasn't surprised by Forss or Walsh starting. The former did little against Preston but he didn't have long and he comes with a proven record at this level so he was always going to come in sooner rather than later. I don't want to get into the minutiae of it and analyse every one individually, but my point was that changes were rightly expected and they came. Whenever we lose it's always the wrong team or wrong formation and I think people could spare themselves some frustration if they'd try to consider that the lineup they'd prefer might not necessarily be the panacea they think it would be.
I suppose my point is that when you expect changes usually you expect the poor performers dropped, not the better ones. That's all. I guess we'll have 11 changes for Fulham though.
Think this article is pretty bang on. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/spo...ews/worrying-signs-must-dealt-quickly-6625962
While agreeing that Walsh was poor, it wasn't the main reason we lost, I think we would have lost even with Smallwood in that position. Derby had done their research and targeted our two main weaknesses. 1) We're vulnerable on the flanks because the wing backs push up high (because they're told to, happened under McCann as well), and they frequently get no support from players further forward. Isn't always a problem, but if you have an excellent wide man and a midfield that can pass (both boxes ticked by Derby last night) then you can make hay even when the sun ain't shining. 2) If you press high on us and stop the CBs being able to pass into the midfield then you will frequently succeed in forcing a long pass and loss of possession. Derby did that successfully, and other teams have done the same. Walsh and Forss were both poor and both looked like players who'd had very little first team football for a while. Best thing would be to write them both off as not good enough, the way some did with Slater and Longman when they started with us.
I think Forss will be terrific once he is up to speed, and has demonstrated as such, but Walsh is surely just depth and shouldn't be near the starting XI if we can help it. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of the two previous Championship level clubs he's been at.
So that's the Allam's and McCann ? That was working wasn't it ? So it you just stick with what was working why did everyone want change ? Why didn't we stick with what we had ? Is that what you are asking ? You all clamoured for new owners, who obviously would want his own manager, and it was a decision taken months ago, not overnight, so give the bloke a chance to bring his own ideas in. He probably doesn't even know the players names yet. This will take months. If we avoid relegation this season it will be an achievement. Be patient
Was it working? I think you read a lot into posts that isn't there and then get quite worked up about it. I was clearly talking about the starting XI for the time being. Or at most one or two changes. I'd be concerned if he doesn't know the players names after 2 weeks, let alone all season as he's supposedly been watching every game as you and others told us.
And you'd pick an argument looking into the mirror. Where did I say he'd 'supposedly watching every game' ? You said it was working so why change it now you are are asking was it working ? FFS make your mind up.
I can't understand your mindset at times?.You crave debate and champion the right to say what you see...Not a problem You then fire in hand grenades like you "get quite worked up about it" as some sort of inflammatory 'you're not singing off the same song sheet as me and you should be' statement.
Our back three are too narrow to deal with the threat leaving our wingbacks to deal with their wingers. When caught out of position it is a sh1t show.
Huh? I said the three games we won in a row were working, where on earth did I mention the Allams or Grant? You and others ITK had said Shota had been studying the team for months.
No, I throw it in as a "You have read into my post something I haven't said and are now getting angry at me about it". He has persisted with some notion that I wanted the Allams to stay merely because I thought our team looked adequate over the past four matches. I don't know why you think I crave debate other than because I have the temerity to state an opinion and defend it when others call it rubbish.
