Darren in or out?

[Screen Door Slams]

14 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

Out.

 

Do i believe we will get promoted next year under him ? No i dont so he has to go.

 

My reasons are this, he has done a good job off the field and made progress there, and squad wise he has brought some good players to the club. These i understand are all reasons to keep him and there is the argument that continuity is the key. But he has shown he wont change his chop and change approach, his adapting to the opposition rather than us concentrating on us doing what we do. He should IMO have won the league with the squad he has this season. He could be in the same position again next year with a squad capable of winning the league, will we be ruthless and take it.... i dont believe we will with Moore in charge.

 

Turner built a good squad in this league, but if we hadnt have appointed Sturrock we wouldnt have gone up.

Megson turned the club around off field, but if we hadnt appointed Jones we wouldnt have gone up.

Moore has turned us round off field and build a good squad, but unless we appoint a positive ruthless manager i cant see us going up.

 

Case and point at the end of January we had our injury crisis which meant he was forced to play the same 11 week in week out, we were at that point at our best. Players came back and he reverted to type.... that is why we wont succeed with him in charge and he should be replaced.

 

Top post..........agree with all of this.

[twolaptops]

2 hours ago, GermanBird said:

 

What exactly do you mean with "tinkered"?

So you would support Moore, if he had played Kamberi instead of Windass? Did I get that right?

The answer is yes.... to most fans "on paper" his tinkering looked the ideal starting 11......in reality it wasn't.....Windass did not justify a start over Berahino....and I think Kamberi would have offered more at the outset...with Windass as a sub option

[GermanBird]

2 minutes ago, twolaptops said:

The answer is yes.... to most fans "on paper" his tinkering looked the ideal starting 11......in reality it wasn't.....Windass did not justify a start over Berahino....and I think Kamberi would have offered more at the outset...with Windass as a sub option

 

I agree that I also see Windass as impact sub and not as a starter.

 

However, I would never change a manager only because he doesn't pick my preferred lineup.  For me it's rather about, if he is good for the club or not.

Unfortunately I never find out, if my preferred lineup would have led to a better or worse result.

 

I really don't get the "tinkering" bit. What does that mean? What is tinkering? Playing different linups?

Is Pep tinkering, because he's not starting Sterling in every game (although I would)?

 

[Roy Of The Roasters]

26 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

But he has shown he wont change his chop and change approach, his adapting to the opposition rather than us concentrating on us doing what we do.

 

But this is one of those areas where DM is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. For every post made by his critics claiming he tinkers too much, there is another arguing that he is tactically stubborn and never has a Plan B.......

 

26 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

He should IMO have won the league with the squad he has this season.

 

And based on our form in the second half of the season, once we really got going, we would probably have done so.

 

26 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

 

Turner built a good squad in this league, but if we hadnt have appointed Sturrock we wouldnt have gone up.

Megson turned the club around off field, but if we hadnt appointed Jones we wouldnt have gone up.

Moore has turned us round off field and build a good squad, but unless we appoint a positive ruthless manager i cant see us going up.

 

 

The difference is that under Turner and Megson we were going backwards. With Moore, we're actually moving forwards, as demonstrated by our improved form in the second half of the season.

[Tewkesbury]

12 minutes ago, GermanBird said:

 

I agree that I also see Windass as impact sub and not as a starter.

 

However, I would never change a manager only because he doesn't pick my preferred lineup.  For me it's rather about, if he is good for the club or not.

Unfortunately I never find out, if my preferred lineup would have led to a better or worse result.

 

I really don't get the "tinkering" bit. What does that mean? What is tinkering? Playing different linups?

Is Pep tinkering, because he's not starting Sterling in every game (although I would)?

 

Tinker

 

verb

attempt to repair or improve something in a casual or desultory way.

"he spent hours tinkering with the car"

Similar:

try to mend/improve

 

Trying to superficially sort out a problem without addressing the fundamental issue.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

2 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

No, as I said, it's how he's used.

 

That's our issue.

He 'tinkers' with every player but him, and people wonder why we still have the same issues. 

 

Issues that magically disappeared when he was out.

 

I've gone into the why's and wherefores before  so I won't bother.

 

But we have the same problems offensively we had last year, they've just been masked by a couple of big wins and 10 set piece goals in 12 games. 

 

Since we addressed our defensive injury crisis by adding Storey and Dean in January, this is how we've performed with and without Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Without Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Home: 2.29 points per game

 

Away: 2 points per game

 

Total: 2.2 points per game

 

With Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Home: 3 points per game

 

Away: 1.6 points per game

 

Total: 2.3 points per game

 

 

Whatever 'issues magically disappeared when he was out', we've done better since he returned.

[pachyderm]

In.

 

Why is this even a question? 

[Tewkesbury]

3 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

We've been flattered by results in the run up, mainly due to set pieces and players pulling off something special.

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Since we addressed our defensive injury crisis by adding Storey and Dean in January, this is how we've performed with and without Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Without Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Home: 2.29 points per game

 

Away: 2 points per game

 

Total: 2.2 points per game

 

With Gregory in the starting XI:

 

Home: 3 points per game

 

Away: 1.6 points per game

 

Total: 2.3 points per game

 

 

Whatever 'issues magically disappeared when he was out', we've done better since he returned.

 

I've highlighted the sentence above about being saved by set pieces, which we weren't scoring before January.

 

So, for one, we play the same formation and tactics whether he starts or is on the bench so my numbers look different to yours, so I'll seperate the sub games.

But whatever.

 

 

 

Looks good, doesn't it.

Now without the set pieces:

 

 

 

That puts us on about 1.6 ppg, which is about where we were before Jan when we weren't scoring from set pieces.

The issue is that from those 14 goals scored, 10 were against 3 teams, 0 vs 4 teams.

 

This implies that we're good at battering certain teams and poor v others, which is the point many are trying to make, that we struggle to break down certain teams.

 

[twolaptops]

1 hour ago, GermanBird said:

 

I agree that I also see Windass as impact sub and not as a starter.

 

However, I would never change a manager only because he doesn't pick my preferred lineup.  For me it's rather about, if he is good for the club or not.

Unfortunately I never find out, if my preferred lineup would have led to a better or worse result.

 

I really don't get the "tinkering" bit. What does that mean? What is tinkering? Playing different linups?

Is Pep tinkering, because he's not starting Sterling in every game (although I would)?

 

Haven't the inclination to check but wonder how many times we had an unchanged line-up...especially after a good result.... when players from the previous game were available but Moore chose not to pick them in the next game

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

38 minutes ago, Tewkesbury said:

 

 

I've highlighted the sentence above about being saved by set pieces, which we weren't scoring before January.

 

So, for one, we play the same formation and tactics whether he starts or is on the bench so my numbers look different to yours, so I'll seperate the sub games.

But whatever.

 

 

 

Looks good, doesn't it.

Now without the set pieces:

 

 

 

That puts us on about 1.6 ppg, which is about where we were before Jan when we weren't scoring from set pieces.

The issue is that from those 14 goals scored, 10 were against 3 teams, 0 vs 4 teams.

 

This implies that we're good at battering certain teams and poor v others, which is the point many are trying to make, that we struggle to break down certain teams.

 

 

Yes, if you ignore some of the goals we scored, we wouldn't have done so well, I suppose.

 

[Tewkesbury]

4 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Yes, if you ignore some of the goals we scored, we wouldn't have done so well, I suppose.

 

So I wrote that our results when he came back were down to an increase in set piece goals. To back that up making a comparison between goals with and without set pieces is sort of required.

Also that we are scoring many v some teams and not v others.

 

Without the set pieces nothing has changed from before the end of January with regards to consistency.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, Tewkesbury said:

So I wrote that our results when he came back were down to an increase in set piece goals. To back that up making a comparison between goals with and without set pieces is sort of required.

Also that we are scoring many v some teams and not v others.

 

Without the set pieces nothing has changed from before the end of January with regards to consistency.

 

Good job we scored all those set piece goals when Gregory returned then, eh?

 

 

That run of eight games you keep referring to to back up your notion that we should have continued starting with Paterson / Kamberi instead of Gregory includes only two away games, against Donny and Burton, and then you ignore the Lincoln game which he didn't start either, as of course we lost that one.

 

I assume that was somehow because of Gregory's presences on the bench, rather than the players actually, y'know, on the pitch for the majority of the game.

 

Once Gregory returned and was part of a fully-functioning team with actual centre-backs and Johnson out wide, our home results picked up, and our overall results picked up. 

 

His run of eight goals in the final eight games was crucial to us making the playoffs.

 

I know it's not the done thing on here, but you are allowed to admit you've been wrong, you know.

 

Unless you really, genuinely, believe you understand the game of football better than our manager, who clearly thought Gregory was out best available option?

[Tewkesbury]

4 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Good job we scored all those set piece goals when Gregory returned then, eh?

 

 

That run of eight games you keep referring to to back up your notion that we should have continued starting with Paterson / Kamberi instead of Gregory includes only two away games, against Donny and Burton, and then you ignore the Lincoln game which he didn't start either, as of course we lost that one.

 

I assume that was somehow because of Gregory's presences on the bench, rather than the players actually, y'know, on the pitch for the majority of the game.

 

Once Gregory returned and was part of a fully-functioning team with actual centre-backs and Johnson out wide, our home results picked up, and our overall results picked up. 

 

His run of eight goals in the final eight games was crucial to us making the playoffs.

 

I know it's not the done thing on here, but you are allowed to admit you've been wrong, you know.

 

Unless you really, genuinely, believe you understand the game of football better than our manager, who clearly thought Gregory was out best available option?

Well, that's the thing.

 

We couldn't play what we usually play, went back when we could. We aren't really the best at changing mid game. So, yes, we went to a more slow, tappy game v Lincoln, and carried it on for the rest of the season.

 

I'm not even advocating for Pato/kamberi, just a change of roles or instruction. 

 

You're under the impression that I'm against gregory, it's again how he's used that's my issue.

Should he be an integral part of the team? Yes.

Should he play every minute of every game? No.

Should he be on the last man while a player more suited is running around pressing? No.

 

You can only play what's there, what's to say we wouldn't have won those games with a different team ? We managed just fine before, also we started conceding again as soon as we changed. We went from 5 clean sheets in 8 to 2 in 12.

 

Lastly, isn't this sort of the point of an in out thread?

Pointing out where I think he went wrong?

I said before the playoffs that if DM could beat the press, I'd be behind him getting another season, if we still had the same weakness to it, then not.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, Tewkesbury said:

Well, that's the thing.

 

We couldn't play what we usually play, went back when we could. We aren't really the best at changing mid game. So, yes, we went to a more slow, tappy game v Lincoln, and carried it on for the rest of the season.

 

I'm not even advocating for Pato/kamberi, just a change of roles or instruction. 

 

You're under the impression that I'm against gregory, it's again how he's used that's my issue.

Should he be an integral part of the team? Yes.

Should he play every minute of every game? No.

Should he be on the last man while a player more suited is running around pressing? No.

 

You can only play what's there, what's to say we wouldn't have won those games with a different team ? We managed just fine before, also we started conceding again as soon as we changed. We went from 5 clean sheets in 8 to 2 in 12.

 

Lastly, isn't this sort of the point of an in out thread?

Pointing out where I think he went wrong?

I said before the playoffs that if DM could beat the press, I'd be behind him getting another season, if we still had the same weakness to it, then not.

 

I'm out.

 

I honestly don't see what you claim to see.

 

How Gregory can have such a huge influence on our game by being sat on the bench escapes me, but I'm sure you'll stick to your guns on that.

 

But for me, we lost that Lincoln game because of the players who started the game, not the one who came off the bench when we were losing with 20 minutes to go.

 

Going forward, I think it's clear Moore wants more pace up top in some games, so if we can bring in the right forward to complement our current options, then great. Gregory shouldn't have to pay every minute of every game, and if we're able to win games by using him more sparingly, then great.

 

But for the season just gone, he was by far our best option for the majority of games.

[Tewkesbury]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

I'm out.

 

I honestly don't see what you claim to see.

 

How Gregory can have such a huge influence on our game by being sat on the bench escapes me, but I'm sure you'll stick to your guns on that.

 

But for me, we lost that Lincoln game because of the players who started the game, not the one who came off the bench when we were losing with 20 minutes to go.

 

Going forward, I think it's clear Moore wants more pace up top in some games, so if we can bring in the right forward to complement our current options, then great. Gregory shouldn't have to pay every minute of every game, and if we're able to win games by using him more sparingly, then great.

 

But for the season just gone, he was by far our best option for the majority of games.

Our tactics are based around tge ball to Gregory. When he was out, we couldn't play it, when he was back, we could.

 

Watch the lincoln game, we went from the more direct, pressing from the front previously, to the slower build up, 'going through the thirds', as some call it. Even though he didn't start, we started the tactic again from the beginning of the game, then carried it on right through to Monday.

The tactic doesn't really work without him, as he's so integral to it, probably not helping with the battering and us playing differently when he was out.

 

My issue is with those tactics.

 

Our build up tippy tappy play is countered by the press. The counter to the press is long ball.

 

With Gregory as the last man we have no long ball threat, as shown v Sunderland. DM has tried to mitigate it with NML and Windass up front.

 

I completely agree with you, he's our best option the majority of games, but DM has played him for every minute of every game, even when it's obviously not working. Gregory's form this season has been consistent, 1-2 good to great games, 2-3 quiet games.

He changes everything around him, but leaves him in the same role all game. DM subs the striker with him every game to try and  change it up, but we never actually achieve much as we're changing like for like every game, a pressing striker for a pressing striker, when the game calls for a pressing striker and a runner, or two of each.

[Inspector Lestrade]

5 hours ago, GermanBird said:

 

I agree that I also see Windass as impact sub and not as a starter.

 

However, I would never change a manager only because he doesn't pick my preferred lineup.  For me it's rather about, if he is good for the club or not.

Unfortunately I never find out, if my preferred lineup would have led to a better or worse result.

 

I really don't get the "tinkering" bit. What does that mean? What is tinkering? Playing different linups?

Is Pep tinkering, because he's not starting Sterling in every game (although I would)?

 

 

I would play Winass as a starter, so Moore can't win, one of us are going to call him useless and he needs to go.  

 

 

[parajack]

Just why????   we have done this to death.........

[parajack]

20 hours ago, striker said:

God I hate Saturdays without football. How many of these pointless threads do we need? 

This 100% lets move on FFS he is here,he is our manager,lets leave the debate about him till we see how he,and the team perform next Season....

[parajack]

20 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

That's all a bit vague, though. It's hard to know where to start in order to really understand where you're coming from.

 

Which games did we lose or draw because of his player choices, and who should he have played instead?

 

Again, I'm not sure which games you feel Moore played based on our opponents? For me, plenty of our opponents came with well-formulated game plans in order to nullify us, but I can't think of many, if any, games where it felt like we adapted our style entirely due to the opposition. 

 

We gelled pretty much by the start of November, and have topped the form table since then. The only real blip since then was when covid disrupted our games around the new year.

 

We've had our moments at the back, no doubt, but only five teams have conceded fewer goals than us this season, and since we added Storey and Dean in January, only four teams have conceded fewer than us, whilst nobody has scored more than us in the same period.

 

Again, we'll need some specifics as to which games you thought we looked 'clueless' in, why you feel this is due to Moore, and why you feel his decisions in these games 'kept us down', rather than his decisions in other games contributing to us reaching 85 points and averaging more than two points a game since the beginning of November.

TBF DM himself i believe said thats what he does ie set up to combat the opponents 'strenth's'

[parajack]

19 hours ago, Musttryharder said:

Wow, bold statement. But then there not uncommon coming from you. Folk are entitled to voice ther opinions on a FOOTBALL FORUM but because it doesnt fit with the resident high posting posters they are weird haters and holding the club back. Wow just Fuucking wow. Who is this Moore Hater Bandwagon. Sounds like something akin to the KluKluxKlan. I contribute a sunstantial amount of money into this club and that gives me a right to voice my opinion, apologies if it doesnt fit your stance. So the moaners are Moore haters. Utter shiite.

There not even 'moaners' mate even thats loaded subjective term.....just people as you say voicing an opinion that some on here dont want to have a voice.......The more they fail to silence any critique of our manager,s tactics the more desperate and vocal they become.....to SILENCE IT...

Sad really but just what our society is now......