StudentOwl

Got some serious "Don't hug me I'm scared" vibes (Don't search on Youtube if you're easily disturbed). With the repeated six second sample of music and odd detachment I'm utterly convinced the Owls have some poor unfortunate soul locked away in the loft or something.

What's "quite laughable" is that he's 5'10''... fair enough he can't help he hasn't got another 6 inches to play with but it must have been pretty clear for the last 2/3 years that he's not going to have the physicality to make it as a CB high up in the footballing pyramid. If he wants to make it, he's got to adapt to a different position other than CB.

He'd get us attacking and be an energetic presence. There's no doubt he'd be a bit of a wildcard appointment, but I'd rather see us as some sort of attacking unit rather than a series of individuals. At least then we might get more than 2 or 3 shots on target in a game... all taken from 20+ yards

Sounds like a repeat of the play-off final...

Probably because every time he plays 3 at the back he gets absolutely slated on here by all the experts that insist we're better with 4 at the back

You can tell you've hit rock bottom when you have Rangers fans telling you how to better run your club...

For next season, the 3 year P&S period will look like: Year 1: £20m losses Year 2: Whatever is published in March. I'd estimate you're looking at approx £15m losses. We've lost a couple of contracts, made a Jack Hunt sale and obviously have no further transfer outgoings from that £20m season, but wage is still high and we're still "spending money" on transfers like Rhodes etc. that are spread over the length of their contracts in accounting terms. Year 3: Predicted values for 2019/20 season. Assuming c. £7m off the books like you say due to contracts expiring, you're looking at around £7m losses (I'll be generous) and err towards Year 2 losses being closer to £14m. Combined = total P&S loss of around £42m. The hard-and-fast rule is we're allowed to lose £39m over those 3 years (It's actually more like £15m and getting a minor sanction but we'll just focus on worst case scenario). So straight away we're pretty much there at the limit. Selling Rhodes for £10m in July 2019 won't give us £10m to spend. We'd have to put all of his wages for the remainder of his contract into the "losses" column for this years' accounts. Assume £35k p/w until July 2020, that's ~£1.8m. So in reality it gives us c.£8m from his transfer. Ditto methodology with any other sellable assets like Bannan (here til 2021, so two years' worth of wages), FF (2020) and Reach (2021) . For the OP to be even slightly correct and to achieve a transfer kitty of £15m for the 2019/20 season, we would need to raise about £25m in sales between now and July. And that's after you then cancel out the unpaid wages of these players we'd be selling that in accounting terms we need to include. And that's then ignoring the wages of the players that we bring in that would need to be calculated to give us our predicted budget for the 2019/20 season. Realistically to achieve this we would need to raise £30m in player sales to get a transfer budget even close to £15m. AND all this is ignoring the soft punishments for being over the second P&S threshold, which can include the EFL putting us under a soft-embargo I believe. And I think my figures are optimistic... I'd guesstimate £30m in player sales would probably see us get a transfer budget more like c.£12m. We'll have a better idea in March though tl;dr: OP is wrong.

I'll do it for 500 quid a week. Failing that, Holloway.

Well we all like a tiffle on Saturday night I suppose

I would argue you've made the counter-argument to your own post for me! Like you say, we don't have the players for it. From playing staff to coaching staff to management staff, it's all about the right fit. If you've got a club focussed on youth development, you want a coach that will complement that. If you've got a coach that wants to rotate formations, you need players that complement that. It works for Leeds because that's the sort of coach Bielsa is, and Bielsa bought in the sort of players that can handle the changing of formations... and they also had some pre-existing players that could handle it too. Like you say, we don't have the players for it. We need a coach that is going to remain largely tactically consistent, or we need to bring in players to complement the style. As the latter isn't doable, that leaves us with the former. I'm sure if you look back to Luhukay's Hertha Berlin squad they would have had plenty of players who could alternate between those formations. Sheffield Wednesday don't.

I know I posted this picture in a previous thread, but just to reiterate... the orange line shows the four central defensive players we have on the pitch. Between them they are meant to arrange themselves in such a way that limits the opposition's attack and covers as much width and depth of the pitch between the fullbacks as they can. That is how they positionally ended up trying to defend against Blackburn's front 4. What. The. Actual. Hell. Hector in a race to the penalty spot, Lees on a race to the left corner flag, Pelupessy on a morning jog.

Few thoughts on this: -Westwood's played 63 league games since he signed his contract extension in August of 2016. 65 or even 70 appearances might seem an odd milestone, but for an extension which guaranteed 3 more years at Wednesday, about 65 appearances = about one and a half seasons. Could easily be the source of the somewhat arbitrary number. Also, it could easily be the sort of clause where it's an automatic year extension if he makes a first-team start in his final year of contract. Could be nothing to do with total appearances -Jones has played 57 league games. Could easily be a 60 milestone -Boyd is just sh*t and his legs have gone -Hutchinson has clearly had a falling out with Jos so I wouldn't pay any credence to any possible contract extension there. Long story short, I think trying to counter conjecture by posting players' (incorrect anyway) appearance numbers followed by even more conjecture leads to a pointless conjecture salad. It's been said in national media about Westwood having a contract clause that results in an extension. You can argue that's not correct, but it will always result in a discussion and an increased likelihood of it being accurate... whether you agree with that or not is fair enough, but it'll always be the case

This is my mentality. Defended him to the hilt during pre-season, quietly defended him early doors this season wanting to give it 15 games to properly assess... now there's just no excuse. Truthfully I think any manager is on a hiding to nothing with this squad and current ownership, but the tactical naivety displayed by the players over the 90 minutes is unforgivable. The whole place is poison at the minute but I think we've now got to twist... sticking with the hand we've currently been given just isn't going to be good enough

I know this might seem painfully obvious because we've conceded four today, but positionally I've not seen such an inept defensive display since I watched non-league football. Goal 1: There isn't much danger here. Tom Lees is marking a right footer, Pelupessy is fast jogging back to force the ball carrier wide, the eventual goalscorer Danny Graham is marked by Thorniley. The only danger comes if that gap between Lees and Hector is exploited. Lees let's Dack run the long way around him and still lets him get to the ball first with the pass inside. Thorniley steps across because Hector is forced to step across and that leaves Graham free at the far post. I don't know what Tom Lees is doing letting that happen. It's three on four in our favour, there's no way one pass and a decent first touch and shot by Dack should be beating our four defensive players. This should be the sort of drill that a defending team wins 95 times out of 100. Goal 2: Look at the absolute state of this. I know we've not been out of possession long, but the spacing in this is frightening. Hector and Lees are too close together, Hector needs to be about 6-8 yards further to the left closer to Thorniley. The gap between Bannan and Pelupessy is about 10 yards too big. Thorniley should arguably be a few yards further back. In isolation I think it would be easy to assume there's another player just outside the frame to the right between Thorniley and Hector the gap is so big. The second that ball gets played into that channel and Hector has to come across, it's two on one in the middle. There's no chance for Pelupessy or Palmer to get back and support because there's no delay in the Blackburn player continuing to play forward because the starting position is so utter sheeeeite they don't even have to slow down their attack. Goal 3: This for me is the worst of the bunch. Too easily again Dack gets through the midfield, and in conjunction with Harrison Reed and their right back are threatening a 3-on-1 against our left back Thorniley. Equally Danny Graham is making a run to the right centre back position. To mitigate against our 3-on-1 situation, Hector needs to track left to make it 3-on-2 and basically then hope that that slows down the attack for long enough to allow Bannan and Pelupessy to move across and make up the numbers. Tom Lees can then cover Graham and it gives Palmer time to get back. So lord knows why Tom Lees decides to start running to the left. I think he's telling Hector to close the ball carrier down, but is then just running sideways like an idiot? Put it like this, the following picture is perhaps one of the worst bit of CB positioning I have ever seen at any level of football. It's extraordinary really. Goal 4: The story here isn't so much poor defensive positioning as opposed to midfield just dissipating. I watched a stream today (just in case anyone thinks I'm just going off 90 seconds of highlights... ) but unfortunately I can't remember the bit of play prior to this. Bannan and Reach's positioning would be perfect if Pelupessy was between the two as the midfield 3. As it is, he's not. Maybe he was doing the right thing by chasing the ball in an area he was meant to be in, maybe he went on walkabouts and needs to be lynched for not being where he should be. Irregardless, Bannan and Reach then need to compensate for their meandering teammate. The gap between them is disgustingly too big. Hector then misses an interception that maybe he should get and it's game over. I know this is a fairly long spiel about something that can be summed up in one sentence... we can't defend for sh*t. But I think today, more than most performances, have highlighted equally between a tactical ignorance, individual mistakes and downright sh*t performances from players that should be performing better. Reach is not a centre midfielder and offers nothing defensively. Neither really does Bannan in a positional sense. Normally positionally he's fine but Pelupessy is just letting people past him far too easily. Tom Lees is borderline a fraud of a CB these days. Palmer offers nothing. Thorniley isn't a left back and I think can be very positionally naive in that role. Hector I don't think knows what best to do with Lees alongside him. From players to manager, I think we're absolutely bereft of any idea on how to be a defensive unit.

Heckingbottom or Holloway for me. Preference for the latter. At least it'll be attacking intent and honest with him in charge. That's a start.