[Wooden Spoon]

bonnyman, on Feb 2 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

mark allott is good at what he does but there is the flip side too what he does well and that is that he is extremeley limited in other departments,he is too lightweight to make a proper holding midfielder and he has absolutely no pace at all.Its ok people like h harping on about team mates making runs and if they dont make a run he cannot find them but in football players prefer for midfielders too beat their man run into space and open up more spaces for them to run into,he cannot or simply will not attempt to do that

For allott to be effective, he needs wide players with pace and movement.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

death, on Feb 2 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

For allott to be effective, he needs wide players with pace and movement.

Don't talk sense.

[Eddie63]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on Feb 2 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

Just depends how he is being told to play during the game.

at long last the penny as dropped players do as they are told ,so why cant you see this when ive been banging on about the short corners ,its the manager.......lol

[BlueRover52]

death, on Feb 2 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

For allott to be effective, he needs wide players with pace and movement.

Allott is always effective and would be even more so with decent wide players. Lets hope Drew is fit soon, with Rundle on the right and Talbot on the left, Allott alongside Niv or Boshell ----something like a midfield.

[Eddie63]

BlueRover52, on Feb 2 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Allott is always effective and would be even more so with decent wide players. Lets hope Drew is fit soon, with Rundle on the right and Talbot on the left, Allott alongside Niv or Boshell ----something like a midfield.

allott+Niven =not much.......

[fishini]

bonnyman, on Feb 2 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

mark allott is good at what he does but there is the flip side too what he does well and that is that he is extremeley limited in other departments,he is too lightweight to make a proper holding midfielder and he has absolutely no pace at all.Its ok people like h harping on about team mates making runs and if they dont make a run he cannot find them but in football players prefer for midfielders too beat their man run into space and open up more spaces for them to run into,he cannot or simply will not attempt to do that

Oh for another Marcus Ebdon type player. He was a joy to watch

[BlueRover52]

Eddie63, on Feb 2 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

allott+Niven =not much.......

Think you've missed out the 2 widemen.

[Eddie63]

BlueRover52, on Feb 2 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

Think you've missed out the 2 widemen.

leave crossley and austin out of this......lol

[h again]

bonnyman, on Feb 2 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

mark allott is good at what he does but there is the flip side too what he does well and that is that he is extremeley limited in other departments,he is too lightweight to make a proper holding midfielder and he has absolutely no pace at all.Its ok people like h harping on about team mates making runs and if they dont make a run he cannot find them but in football players prefer for midfielders too beat their man run into space and open up more spaces for them to run into,he cannot or simply will not attempt to do that

It's a fair point, and in a perfect world it's what ought to happen - but the cardinal sin for a midfielder is losing the ball in midfield when players are committing themselve to an attack. It leaves the team terribly exposed to a quick counter attack via a through ball or chip over the top.
So a midfielder has to be absolutely certain he's going to succeed before he goes in for any fancy footwork to beat his man - and in the midfield there are very few certainties. Much better, generally, to play the safe ball and pass it.
In the end it comes down to the man on the ball having to make an instant decision, but - - - - - if he tries to beat his man and loses he's an idiot , and if he passes the ball on quickly he's not making space for the forwards to move into.
Just part of the fun of being a midfielder.
He's just as quick as most of the others in the team, by the way. I don't know where you get the 'absolutely no pace' bit from - so far it's about the only accusation thet nobody has thrown at Allott.

[Blueprint]

spyright, on Feb 2 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

Do you really believe he is told specifically to always make a safe pass, to never take a chance or try to make a killer pass for the front line and on no account to attempt more than two shots per game (despite starting his professional life as a forward and having a pretty hard shot on him) by a manager for whom the preferred style is fast attacking football? Would it make sense to instruct a central midfielder to effectively slow things down when the rest of the team is trying for the swift counter-attack? You might be right but I find it a bit hard to believe. I guess only MA and JS know the answer!

Do you think JS would resign Allott if he didn't like his style of play, he clearly rates him otherwise he wouldn't have wanted to manage him for a second time. He did get player of the season awards at Oldham under JS, perhaps like other players MA is more suited to league one football where teams play more attractive football, players have more time and space, and players are generally better at what they do than this level.

[Eddie63]

Blueprint, on Feb 2 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

Do you think JS would resign Allott if he didn't like his style of play, he clearly rates him otherwise he wouldn't have wanted to manage him for a second time. He did get player of the season awards at Oldham under JS, perhaps like other players MA is more suited to league one football where teams play more attractive football, players have more time and space, and players are generally better at what they do than this level.

Weve seen him play in lots of league one games he was just the same as he is in this league no better than average,and thats why we have struggled this year and when he was here before hes not a natural born winner and thats what you want in these leagues if you want to do well....

[Blueprint]

but he got player of the season for Oldham is his first season with them, givne that he came to us as a forward and was converted into a CM i would imagine that he has imprvoed gradually, but isn't particularly suited to this league (as with Leven)

or it could be to do with having a settled central midfield partner, so far this season Niven has barely played full games and Js has opted to bring in someone on loan to partner Allott, there's never much cohesion in midfield

[johnd51]

johnd51, on Feb 3 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

I make that 17 players JS has brought in on permanent, semi-permanent or loan basis since he arrived (I may have missed some). This begs a few questions:

1. Can we finally forget about blaming Rico for our current position (assuming you are unhappy with it) on the basis that Les has signed a whole new team.

2. Apart from one obvious exception have any of them been good enough to be part of you would need to win automatic promotion.

3. Is this really the way to build a squad to win promotion and compete in a higher division (and do we have any choice)

Answers on a postcard.

I posted the above on another thread and, as usual, got no responses. I thought it was worth giving another airing. Thoughts, anyone?

[spyright]

johnd51, on Feb 4 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

I posted the above on another thread and, as usual, got no responses. I thought it was worth giving another airing. Thoughts, anyone?

To reply to your questions:

1. Probably. We have to move on at some point.
2. Not sure. We didn't see enough of some of them to make a full assessment. I assume your one exception was McD.? Of the others, I thought Morris and Perkins did reasonably well whilst a few (for example, DJ) showed good potential. Maybe not good enough to be a key player in a promotion winning side this or next season but it never hurts to have some good and improving young players in the squad who will be regulars in a few years time.
3. It's probably not the best way but needs must. With a tight financial budget JS was never going to be able to 'buy' a promotion winning side (and of course, even if we did splash the cash, that doesn't guarantee the incoming players will gel into a side that gains automatic promotion - if it did then Man City would be top of the Premiership).

What does everyone else think?

[johnd51]

Thanks S. My main worry is that, without something close to a settled side, it is such a big managerial task to produce consistent performances. Even if we somehow scrape promotion, how many of the current squad will be here next year? If we don't, even more will go and JS will have to start again from scratch which is a really big ask even if he had an unlimited budget, which he won't have.
It just seems we are in a vicious circle with no way out. Good loan players we don't keep, the others aren't good enough. I always use the Adam Smith/Gareth Davies test. They were players who I liked and didn't cost much in wages but probably weren't good enough to be regulars in a successful side. However, how much better are most of the loanees we have been getting in?
See what I mean? Cheers.

This post has been edited by johnd51: 04 February 2010 - 02:30 PM

[spyright]

johnd51, on Feb 4 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Thanks S. My main worry is that, without something close to a settled side, it is such a big managerial task to produce consistent performances. Even if we somehow scrape promotion, how many of the current squad will be here next year? If we don't, even more will go and JS will have to start again from scratch which is a really big ask even if he had an unlimited budget, which he won't have.
It just seems we are in a vicious circle with no way out. Good loan players we don't keep, the others aren't good enough. I always use the Adam Smith/Gareth Davies test. They were players who I liked and didn't cost much in wages but probably weren't good enough to be regulars in a successful side. However, how much better are most of the loanees we have been getting in?
See what I mean? Cheers.

I do indeed understand your point 'johnd51' and to a large extent I agree with you. There's a lot of sense in the old saying 'if it ain't broke then don't fix it' and I think most managers still appreciate the value of sticking with a winning team rather than constantly making unforced changes. The rich Premiership Clubs always promote the merits of the squad rotation system but I suspect part of that is to do with getting permits for overseas players and keeping lots of highly paid prima donnas happy. And of course at our level we simply can't afford to have 30-40 players on our books who are all good enough to hold a regular first team place. I do think we've suffered a bit in recent months from the twin effects of injuries to key players (Lowry, Robertson, Talbot and Lester) as well as a high turnover of loan players of variable quality and consistency. In reality though I'm not sure what else JS could have done (except maybe make more use of players like Gritton, Hall, Harsley etc but then if he doesn't rate them then ultimately it's his call. As you say though, it is debateable whether or not some of the recent loan players have really been any better than these largely unused squad members).

On a more promising note, he seems to have changed his approach from signing lots of young loan players with potential on short loan deals to getting in older and more experienced players (Conlon, Boshell, Rundle and Moncur) on short-term contracts. This will give more stability to the squad for the remainder of the season so perhaps we'll see a slightly more settled team over the next few months?

Keep the faith!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Instead of a direct, point-for-point response, here's my take on events thus far.

Sheridan arrived at the Club with an idea of how he wanted his side to play the game and took two or three months to decide which of the squad he inherited would be part of those plans. He then did his best to move the players he saw as surplus to requirements on. At Saltergate the team began to put in some exhilarating performances with the 'born again' Jamie Lowry, loanee DMD, and recently arrived Wade Small linking up with Jack Lester and Drew Talbot to blow opponents away. Moreover David Perkins and Mark Little also looked like exciting additions whilst the new Manager seemed to've revitalised the likes of Gregor Robertson and Rob Page.

However despite a victory at early pace-setters Bournemouth away results were in total contrast with those witnessed at home.

Then Sheridan lost three first team regulars in the space of a fortnight, two of whom had been a major part of our impetus, whilst the initial promise of Small, Little and Perkins began to fade. It soon became apparent that though Djilali and Morris had their qualities replacing key figures, figures that'd been attracting interest from Championship clubs, would be nigh on impossible. Worse still question marks began to arise regarding Ian Breckin's contribution and the goals, goals that'd been so important in Les's 'you score one, we'll score two' approach, began to dry up. And of course our form on the road, a rare win at Rochdale aside, remained abysmal.

At that point we lost Jack, Drew Talbot, and Wade Small, leaving our attacking options severely limited to say the least.

Now it seems to me that John Sheridan then came to a simple conclusion: 'i've next to nothing up front, so i've no choice but to become tighter in defence and hope to pick up a few ground-out results'. Subsequently he adopted a far less adventurous formation, with his full backs prevented from overlapping and a more workmanlike midfield, and this, allied to encouraging performances from Downes, Gray and Goodall, not to mention the signing of a 'bread and butter' center forward in the shape of Conlon, has brought us to where we are today. Oh, and credit must also be given to Martin Gritton for knuckling down and forcing his way back into the Manager's thoughts (by the way; shouldn't Sheridan be given a pat on the back for creating the environment that elicited this response, too?).

So bottom line?

Well it's fair to say Sheridan's success in the transfer market has been mixed and it could be argued we're underachieving given finances and players available. Certainly away form MUST improve. On the other hand he does seem to've got players we/he thought were 'dead wood' performing, we've been in or around the play offs for most of the season despite suffering significant injuries, and surely the Manager must be applauded for adopting a pragmatic stance and being prepared to adapt his approach when 'needs must'.

Let's say this one more time: a repeat of our points-per-game average thus far between now and May will probably see us in the play offs, and would anyone not accept that from a Manager in his first season at a club?

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 05 February 2010 - 07:24 PM

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on Feb 5 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

Instead of a direct, point-for-point response, here's my take on events thus far.

Sheridan arrived at the Club with an idea of how he wanted his side to play the game and took two or three months to decide which of the squad he inherited would be part of those plans. He then did his best to move the players he saw as surplus to requirements on. At Saltergate the team began to put in some exhilarating performances with the 'born again' Jamie Lowry, loanee DMD, and recently arrived Wade Small linking up with Jack Lester and Drew Talbot to blow opponents away. Moreover David Perkins and Mark Little also looked like exciting additions whilst the new Manager seemed to've revitalised the likes of Gregor Robertson and Rob Page.

However despite a victory at early pace-setters Bournemouth away results were in total contrast with those witnessed at home.

Then Sheridan lost three first team regulars in the space of a fortnight, two of whom had been a major part of our impetus, whilst the initial promise of Small, Little and Perkins began to fade. It soon became apparent that though Djilali and Morris had their qualities replacing key figures, figures that'd been attracting interest from Championship clubs, would be nigh on impossible. Worse still question marks began to arise regarding Ian Breckin's contribution and the goals, goals that'd been so important in Les's 'you score one, we'll score two' approach, began to dry up. And of course our form on the road, a rare win at Rochdale aside, remained abysmal.

At that point we lost Jack, Drew Talbot, and Wade Small, leaving our attacking options severely limited to say the least.

Now it seems to me that John Sheridan then came to a simple conclusion: 'i've next to nothing up front, so i've no choice but to become tighter in defence and hope to pick up a few ground-out results'. Subsequently he adopted a far less adventurous formation, with his full backs prevented from overlapping and a more workmanlike midfield, and this, allied to encouraging performances from Downes, Gray and Goodall, not to mention the signing of a 'bread and butter' center forward in the shape of Conlon, has brought us to where we are today. Oh, and credit must also be given to Martin Gritton for knuckling down and forcing his way back into the Manager's thoughts (by the way; shouldn't Sheridan be given a pat on the back for creating the environment that elicited this response, too?).

So bottom line?

Well it's fair to say Sheridan's success in the transfer market has been mixed and it could be argued we're underachieving given finances and players available. Certainly away form MUST improve. On the other hand he does seem to've got players we/he thought were 'dead wood' performing, we've been in or around the play offs for most of the season despite suffering significant injuries, and surely the Manager must be applauded for adopting a pragmatic stance and being prepared to adapt his approach when 'needs must'.
Let's say this one more time: a repeat of our points-per-game average thus far between now and May will probably see us in the play offs, and would anyone not accept that from a Manager in his first season at a club?

Nothing pragmatic about it. He set his face against playing Martin Gritton from day one - but the Gritton we saw today would have been worth points to us over the last few weeks. He only got in the team because JS had completely run out of options - that's not pragmatism, it's sheer stubbornness ending in desperation.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on Feb 6 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Nothing pragmatic about it. He set his face against playing Martin Gritton from day one - but the Gritton we saw today would have been worth points to us over the last few weeks. He only got in the team because JS had completely run out of options - that's not pragmatism, it's sheer stubbornness ending in desperation.

You obviously saw a different MG to me , then.

But assuming your interpretation is in any way valid, why should Sheridan stubbornly exclude one player or another if they might add to the team?

Are you suggesting ulterior motives?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

h again, on Feb 6 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Nothing pragmatic about it. He set his face against playing Martin Gritton from day one - but the Gritton we saw today would have been worth points to us over the last few weeks. He only got in the team because JS had completely run out of options - that's not pragmatism, it's sheer stubbornness ending in desperation.

He only got into the team becuase he got fit