PS tell us the Facts re Eastwood

[Jam_Man]

So why the need for this thread then if its already been explained !!

Because it was explained well after the thread started.

Then people like you come on saying why should it be explained, when it was explained pages ago :smile:

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Because it was explained well after the thread started.

Then people like you come on saying why should it be explained, when it was explained pages ago :smile:

Well I wish you'd have explained that

 

[OldBlueLady]

If you think a manager isnt answerable to fans then thats a very simplistic viewpoint. We changed the way we play because fans werent happy after all.

Really? I'm assuming you mean by the first "we", the team. I don't subscribe to the playing style being changed to please the fans at all, I'd say it's more attributable to a change of personnel and a refining of skills. If Luggy felt hoofball was the answer then you can bet your bottom dollar, that's how we'd be playing.

 

[dingleydangley]

Really? I'm assuming you mean by the first "we", the team. I don't subscribe to the playing style being changed to please the fans at all, I'd say it's more attributable to a change of personnel and a refining of skills. If Luggy felt hoofball was the answer then you can bet your bottom dollar, that's how we'd be playing.

I agree with this. Clubs change managers if they want a change in playing style. Pragmatism may sometimes lead to an appointment at odds with the desires of the faithful (see Sam Allardyce), and success can be seductive (see Sam Allardyce), leading to subtle adjustments on both sides (see Sam Allardyce).

 

[Pubey]

Really? I'm assuming you mean by the first "we", the team. I don't subscribe to the playing style being changed to please the fans at all, I'd say it's more attributable to a change of personnel and a refining of skills. If Luggy felt hoofball was the answer then you can bet your bottom dollar, that's how we'd be playing.

Ridiculous. Fan pressure did change Luggys thinking, because he knew that he needed to get the fans behind the team both home and away. Why would a manager be reacting to a change of personnel and skills? He was key in instigating those changes!

 

[Blue_Shrimper1959]

Yes sadly our style of play needs strikers who are fit and healthy (not Freddy) and who will stay on the pitch for longer than two minutes after coming on as a sub without getting sent off for a completely pointless kick (not Benyon)

I don't get why everyone is so preoccupied about our strikers. We're scoring a lot of goals in general, and Britt, Tomlin and Corr having been scoring regularly.

Instead we have a weak midfield still and some unresolved decisions in defence.

Never said they should be starting, just stating that they don't suit our style of play and anyone calling either player **** is utterly clueless.

 

[Pubey]

Never said they should be starting, just stating that they don't suit our style of play and anyone calling either player **** is utterly clueless.

I don't think I called any player ****. You've lost me there.

Personally I think a fit and healthy Freddy would be in my first 11, because he'd be creating and scoring I'm sure. I'm not sure he'd require a change in tactics. Benyon probably would I agree, because he plays on the shoulder and isn't good in the air.

Our main tactic is to get it to the wing position and score from crosses. Our strikers are important because the either drop deep to build the attack (Corr or Freddy getting the ball wide), or run the channels (Tomlin and Britt) to get the ball to the wing, and then enter the box to get on the end of the cross/pass. What we don't tend to see at the moment is a little man playing off a big man (which Benyon would probably want).

 

[Jam_Man]

Really? I'm assuming you mean by the first "we", the team. I don't subscribe to the playing style being changed to please the fans at all, I'd say it's more attributable to a change of personnel and a refining of skills. If Luggy felt hoofball was the answer then you can bet your bottom dollar, that's how we'd be playing.

My understanding is there was pressure from above for Luggy to change style, pressure he didnt appreciate because at the time didnt feel he had the players to do so.

This pressure would have been directly caused by disgruntled fans.

 

[Beefy]

So it was down to Ron then.

 

[Jam_Man]

Ron acting on fan "feedback"

 

[OldBlueLady]

Ridiculous. Fan pressure did change Luggys thinking, because he knew that he needed to get the fans behind the team both home and away. Why would a manager be reacting to a change of personnel and skills? He was key in instigating those changes!

Nope, and thanks for the "ridiculous", it's a viewpoint. Personnel changed due to the debacle with Mohsni, the moving on of certain players and other contracts not being renewed, that's the major difference. I liked Granty but he was a major "hoofer". I'm sure Luggy wouldn't conform to what Ron dictated to him on the pitch, I think he's his own man.

 

[Pubey]

Nope, and thanks for the "ridiculous", it's a viewpoint. Personnel changed due to the debacle with Mohsni, the moving on of certain players and other contracts not being renewed, that's the major difference. I liked Granty but he was a major "hoofer". I'm sure Luggy wouldn't conform to what Ron dictated to him on the pitch, I think he's his own man.

LOL:hilarious:

 

[Jam_Man]

Nope, and thanks for the "ridiculous", it's a viewpoint. Personnel changed due to the debacle with Mohsni, the moving on of certain players and other contracts not being renewed, that's the major difference. I liked Granty but he was a major "hoofer". I'm sure Luggy wouldn't conform to what Ron dictated to him on the pitch, I think he's his own man.

Luggy is his own man, that doesnt mean he doesnt react to pressure from above. Like I said above my understanding was he wasnt happy to change the style as he didnt think he had the players to be successful like that. If there had been no pressure Im sure we would still be playing like we were for 2/3rds of last season.

Change of personnel certainly had an effect though, losing Dickinson and getting Freddy meant we adapted and our form improved, which only added weight to the argument of changing style.

 

[chapperzUK]

Nope, and thanks for the "ridiculous", it's a viewpoint. Personnel changed due to the debacle with Mohsni, the moving on of certain players and other contracts not being renewed, that's the major difference. I liked Granty but he was a major "hoofer". I'm sure Luggy wouldn't conform to what Ron dictated to him on the pitch, I think he's his own man.

I would say our style changed more to the departure of Dickinson than Grant.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I would say our style changed more to the departure of Dickinson than Grant.

True, forgot about him!

 

[Pubey]

I would say our style changed more to the departure of Dickinson than Grant.

True, we lost him and then obviously didn't keep him due to his injury and probably due to his attitude. Instead of replacing him we brought in Tomlin and Britt at the start of the season, different strikers and obviously playing in a different way (not majorly, but still different) to how we did with Dickinson/Mohsni and Blair. Our style changed because of the players we brought in as replacements, not because of who left.

 

[OldBlueLady]

True, we lost him and then obviously didn't keep him due to his injury and probably due to his attitude. Instead of replacing him we brought in Tomlin and Britt at the start of the season, different strikers and obviously playing in a different way (not majorly, but still different) to how we did with Dickinson/Mohsni and Blair. Our style changed because of the players we brought in as replacements, not because of who left.

Surely that works both ways though? Cause and effect, and all of that.

 

[southend4ever]

Our style changed when Ron lost his sponsorship with Bryllcream, Tilly left the club and as Pubey rightly says when the replacements were brought in. Having a constantly wet boots and laces also meant that we practised the long ball more than we would normally. :hilarious: politics, let's not get anal about it - our style changed yes.

 

[Pubey]

Surely that works both ways though? Cause and effect, and all of that.

Not really, if he still wanted to play 'hoofball' he'd either bring in the players to do that (pretty easy because lots of clubs play that way) or he'd shoehorn what he could into that system. However he has changed the system by not replacing players 'like for like'. We've probably maxed out our wagecap and we're skint and so the change in style has taken time due to incremental changes in our squad.

Gilbert -> Straker
Dickinson -> Britt
Hall -> Hurst
Grant -> Laird
Mohsni -> Cresswell/Tomlin
Ferdinand -> Spicer

 

[OldBlueLady]

Not really, if he still wanted to play 'hoofball' he'd either bring in the players to do that (pretty easy because lots of clubs play that way) or he'd shoehorn what he could into that system. However he has changed the system by not replacing players 'like for like'. We've probably maxed out our wagecap and we're skint and so the change in style has taken time due to incremental changes in our squad.

Gilbert -> Straker
Dickinson -> Britt
Hall -> Hurst
Grant -> Laird
Mohsni -> Cresswell/Tomlin
Ferdinand -> Spicer

Hmmm, ok, put like that I take your point then.