if he does go? who do we get?

[alcoblade]

I think that is unfair. People going to the games seem to be stating things are getting better and small changes are being made within his formation of choice.
What I'm asking for is that you can't be successful by continually wanting everything to work short term and making changes if this doesn't happen immediately.

I'm going to games Bob. I can see small bits of progress, in terms of aesthetics. But at this rate of progress we're 4th division bound.

I like the change in direction. I'd have taken another year in the 3rd division. I can cope with not winning every week, or even every other week.

I can't cope with 4th division football, or a realistic threat of it.

We gambled on a Rookie. The problem there is that when the wheels come off (to be fair they were never on) you have no track record to rely on. I'd ask what we can expect to see if we give Weir time, but there is no point, because we are all guessing. Given that, and that we're so poor right now, suggesting blind faith is required isn't only fair, it's factual.

UTB

 

[tyneblade]

What is certain is the David Weir is a very rich man who almost certainly doesn't need this job.

That brings a big risk in that he can afford to stick to his guns. The board must have known that and he must have stated it when he applied.

He knows as well as we do that other less difficult to play systems will bring better results in the short term. He'll also know our club's reputation in the game and that for most people inside and outside its already just a matter of time before we revert to; low cost, low risk, cheap and mediocre management. I still hope we don't.

I found something strange this season in that however much it hurts i'm starting to smile smile through the pain. I've spent 40 years watching United teams whose first, and more often than not only, priority was to avoid defeat We went on to play tactics and employ people we needed to achieve that. Perhaps its no surprise that; ambitious, talented and, to be fair, mad people didn't beat a path to our door.

I don't think that the case anymore, I think this manager only cares about imposing his tactics on other teams and winning games. Seeing Matt Hill's face up reasonably close at Carlisle was the big revelation for me, he looked genuinely scared. Scared, I suspect, of being out of his comfort zone, scared too of tactics he didn't think he could play and probably couldn't. Having players like him in the team is the price we've paid for lack of ambition and playing safe. Weir has turned that approach on its head.

There is a real prospect that this lot could end up with less than ten points and less than ten goals over 46 games. There is also a real prospct that with fit, in form, strikers we could work it out and win out last ten games 5-2. For me a punt as big as that is magnificent and for one season i'm going to buy into it and enjoy the ride.

We need to appreciate that having a manager who doesn't care about losing games or losing his job is a rare and precious thing, I'm sure i won't see anything like it again in my lifetime. I enjoyed United's last season in the bottom tier and i'd happily risk it to delay the return of a Blackwell, Wilson or even a Warnock type of safe pair of hands.

 

[alcoblade]

We need to appreciate that having a manager who doesn't care about losing games or losing his job is a rare and precious thing, I'm sure i won't see anything like it again in my lifetime. I enjoyed United's last season in the bottom tier and i'd happily risk it to delay the return of a Blackwell, Wilson or even a Warnock type of safe pair of hands.

Wow. Fair play it's an opinion and you're entitled to it.

For me, the day you lose sight of the fact that first and foremost it's about results and escaping this nightmare is the day you might as well turn on the TV and watch Man U.

The reality is, a 3rd division Sheffield United, or anyone else of our size, isn't going to generate enough pleasure (other than winning games) for winning games not to be a top priority. We should only consider what % of that priority we're prepared to trade off for footballing principles.

Right now, I'm more than happy to have made a move away from the direct end of the spectrum. To swing it to not fearing defeat for the sake of footballing principles is just too much a swing of the pendulum.

UTB

 

[Kenilworth]

Ah, fuck it. Let him have the rest of the season to experiment.
We can all laugh it off with our gallows humour if he ends up with 4 points from now until May.
At least we could be recognised as a club for achieving something extraordinary and doing it the right way for a change.
It's not as though we had any realistic expectation of anything other than shite, is it?

I say we need to applaud every clean sheet (i.e. blank goals for)
I say we need to politely applaud every defeat in the knowledge that at the end of it we will be all much better people.

It's the new Blades Way and I, for one, am prepared to embrace it.

 

[tyneblade]

Wow. Fair play it's an opinion and you're entitled to it.

I'm not sure i've convinced myself yet, but it is meant to be entertainment

How else are we going to enjoy it.?

 

[oldblade]

Have a look at our pitiful crowds under 'successful' Bassett for a definitive answer.

That is completely meaningless drivel. When Bassett was our manager attendances in general were much, much lower than they are now pretty much across all the divisions.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

In season 1990-1, our first back in the first division under Bassett, attendances in that division totalled 8,651,257. There were the same number of clubs in the division as there are now. Last season's total first (premier) division attendances were 13,649,938. That is something like a 57% increase.

Sheffield United's average attendance in 19901- was 21,451. If 57% is added to that figure it becomes 33,678.

In that season we averaged more than Chelsea and were well above the likes of Southampton, Norwich and Derby. Everton were only a few thousand higher than us on 25,000, and we were pretty comparable with Forest and Sunderland (who got 22,100 and 22,500 respectively)

Pitiful? I don't think so. In the context of football attendances of that time it was actually pretty good. But then if you weren't so fanatically biased against everything to do with Bassett you'd have worked that out for yourself.

 

[alcoblade]

I'm not sure i've convinced myself yet, but it is meant to be entertainment

How else are we going to enjoy it.?

Start winning?

Seriously, watch 89 minutes of shite and talk to the masses - "This is just shite". Put in a last minute winner, and the analysis swings to "it wasn't that bad",...."I really enjoyed it".

It's basic stuff, but we shouldn't downplay the basics - win first, play nice second.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

That is completely meaningless drivel. When Bassett was our manager attendances in general were much, much lower than they are now pretty much across all the divisions.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

In season 1990-1, our first back in the first division under Bassett, attendances in that division totalled 8,651,257. There were the same number of clubs in the division as there are now. Last season's total first (premier) division attendances were 13,649,938. That is something like a 57% increase.

Sheffield United's average attendance in 19901- was 21,451. If 57% is added to that figure it becomes 33,678.

In that season we averaged more than Chelsea and were well above the likes of Southampton, Norwich and Derby. Everton were only a few thousand higher than us on 25,000, and we were pretty comparable with Forest and Sunderland (who got 22,100 and 22,500 respectively)

Pitiful? I don't think so. In the context of football attendances of that time it was actually pretty good. But then if you weren't so fanatically biased against everything to do with Bassett you'd have worked that out for yourself.

Hmmm, I think the word "demolished" seems quite apt here.

UTB

 

[oldblade]

Hmmm, I think the word "demolished" seems quite apt here.

UTB

It's a good job he's not responsible for organising our defence. The number of open goals presented to the opposing side would be frightening.

 

[Balham]

That is completely meaningless drivel. When Bassett was our manager attendances in general were much, much lower than they are now pretty much across all the divisions.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

In season 1990-1, our first back in the first division under Bassett, attendances in that division totalled 8,651,257. There were the same number of clubs in the division as there are now. Last season's total first (premier) division attendances were 13,649,938. That is something like a 57% increase.

Sheffield United's average attendance in 19901- was 21,451. If 57% is added to that figure it becomes 33,678.

In that season we averaged more than Chelsea and were well above the likes of Southampton, Norwich and Derby. Everton were only a few thousand higher than us on 25,000, and we were pretty comparable with Forest and Sunderland (who got 22,100 and 22,500 respectively)

Pitiful? I don't think so. In the context of football attendances of that time it was actually pretty good. But then if you weren't so fanatically biased against everything to do with Bassett you'd have worked that out for yourself.

All very well but to put it in context, here are our attendances under Bassett:

1988/89 Div 3 12,222 (-12.6% year-on-year)
1989/90 Div 2 16,989 (+39.0%)
1990/91 Div 1 21,461 (+26.3%)
1991/92 Div 1 22,097 (+2.0%)
1992/93 Prem 18,801 (-14.9%)
1993/94 Prem 19,962 (+4.0%)
1994/95 Div 1 14,462 (-26.1%)*

*John Street stand demolished

The main contributing factor to attendances was the on pitch success. It's the same these days; if, by some minor miracle, we storm up through the league and back into the Championship, I'd expect our attendances to grow back towards the 20,000 mark.

As for the growth in attendances: you've pointed out Everton but the capacity of Goodison Park was reduced following the closure of the Park End by the Taylor report; Southampton were playing at the Dell (cap. 15,200), Derby at the Baseball Ground (18,300) and Sunderland at Roker Park (22,500). I'd love to see a comparison of stadium fill.

 

[oldblade]

All very well but to put it in context, here are our attendances under Bassett:

1988/89 Div 3 12,222 (-12.6% year-on-year)
1989/90 Div 2 16,989 (+39.0%)
1990/91 Div 1 21,461 (+26.3%)
1991/92 Div 1 22,097 (+2.0%)
1992/93 Prem 18,801 (-14.9%)
1993/94 Prem 19,962 (+4.0%)
1994/95 Div 1 14,462 (-26.1%)*

*John Street stand demolished

The main contributing factor to attendances was the on pitch success. It's the same these days; if, by some minor miracle, we storm up through the league and back into the Championship, I'd expect our attendances to grow back towards the 20,000 mark.

As for the growth in attendances: you've pointed out Everton but the capacity of Goodison Park was reduced following the closure of the Park End by the Taylor report; Southampton were playing at the Dell (cap. 15,200), Derby at the Baseball Ground (18,300) and Sunderland at Roker Park (22,500). I'd love to see a comparison of stadium fill.

Everton's capacity was reduced, but not to 25,000. Pre Taylor they were only getting 27,771 (1987-8). Their attendances continued to fall after 1991. 23000 in 1991-2 and 20,400 in 1992-3 (only 2,000 more than us). Derby were not filling their stadium, even with a low capacity and hadn't done so for years. Pre Taylor they only got 17,000. And Chelsea were miles from capacity.

It is a fact that attendances at that time were far lower than now, and were lower over a long period of time. In the context of that time our attendances were certainly not bad and miles away from being pitiful. Trying to claim attendances under Bassett were pitiful is pitiful in itself.

 

[Darren]

Everton's capacity was reduced, but not to 25,000. Pre Taylor they were only getting 27,771 (1987-8). Their attendances continued to fall after 1991. 23000 in 1991-2 and 20,400 in 1992-3 (only 2,000 more than us). Derby were not filling their stadium, even with a low capacity and hadn't done so for years. Pre Taylor they only got 17,000. And Chelsea were miles from capacity.

It is a fact that attendances at that time were far lower than now, and were lower over a long period of time. In the context of that time our attendances were certainly not bad and miles away from being pitiful. Trying to claim attendances under Bassett were pitiful is pitiful in itself.

A better comparism may be to point our where our attendance was comparatively in 1990-91. If memory serves, we were the 9th best supported team in the PL in 2006-07. What was the position in 90-91?

 

[oldblade]

A better comparism may be to point our where our attendance was comparatively in 1990-91. If memory serves, we were the 9th best supported team in the PL in 2006-07. What was the position in 90-91?

I thought it was 10th best in 2006-7. But that was under 'hoof' as well if you go according to the Gospel of Pinchy, so isn't a good comparison.

Under Harris would be a better comparison in terms of positioning in the attendance charts.

 

[oldblade]

A better comparism may be to point our where our attendance was comparatively in 1990-91. If memory serves, we were the 9th best supported team in the PL in 2006-07. What was the position in 90-91?

However, for those who are interested, in 1990-1 we were the 11th best supported club in the first division and the 13th best supported in the league as a whole.

In the following 3 seasons our positioning re attendances in the league as a whole was 11th, 12th and 14th. I haven't worked out what it was in just the first division for those three seasons.

In only one season under Harris did we finish higher than in those four seasons in the attendance table for the entire league. No guesses for which season that was! 1971-2. We were 9th.

 

[Darren]

However, for those who are interested, in 1990-1 we were the 11th best supported club in the first division and the 13th best supported in the league as a whole.

In the following 3 seasons our positioning re attendances in the league as a whole was 11th, 12th and 14th. I haven't worked out what it was in just the first division for those three seasons.

In only one season under Harris did we finish higher than in those four seasons in the attendance table for the entire league. No guesses for which season that was! 1971-2. We were 9th.

I suspect we were lower than that in the top tier 61-68 period. We often struggled to get 20,000 in that era.

 

[oldblade]

I suspect we were lower than that in the top tier 61-68 period. We often struggled to get 20,000 in that era.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

In 1961-2 after being newly promoted to the first division, we finished 5th. An unimaginably high position when looking at where we are now. But our average attendance was 22,526. 19th in the overall league attendance charts.

We remained in the top division for 7 seasons and our highest average attendance in that period was 22,775 in 1962-3, or 17th in the attendance charts. That and 1964-5 (when we again got 17th) was the highest attendance position we managed under Harris apart from the 1971-2 season.

 

[Darren]

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

In 1961-2 after being newly promoted to the first division, we finished 5th. An unimaginably high position when looking at where we are now. But our average attendance was 22,526. 19th in the overall league attendance charts.

We remained in the top division for 7 seasons and our highest average attendance in that period was 22,775 in 1962-3, or 17th in the attendance charts. That and 1964-5 (when we again got 17th) was the highest attendance position we managed under Harris apart from the 1971-2 season.

So you're not telling me that when we played under Satan Bassett and Beelzebub Warnock in the top division our attendances were generally better than under the archangel Harris?

I need a lie down...

 

[oldblade]

So you're not telling me that when we played under Satan Bassett and Beelzebub Warnock in the top division our attendances were generally better than under the archangel Harris?

I need a lie down...

Yes, it's a bit like getting your head around the fact that Manchester United have often played direct football when necessity demanded!

Amazingly, it does seem that in the context of the attendances of their respective eras, Bassett and Warnock often did as well or better than Harris. Mind you, in all seriousness, that is not really all that surprising, as both Bassett and Warnock gave us something that has been in short supply over the last 40 years - a certain amount of success, and some exciting football, no matter how hard that might be for the footballing snobs purists among us to take.

 

[Silent Blade]

I suspect we were lower than that in the top tier 61-68 period. We often struggled to get 20,000 in that era.

Have always wondered why our attendances were usually poor in the 1960s. Wendy's werent much better. About 1964 was the start of the big drop but it got better in 1967/68. maybe many fans of both Sheffield teams were disgusted with the bribery scandal at S6? Or that many Blades fans were fed up of Harris playing youngsters rather than sign players from other league clubs? Between April 1961 and Sept 1967, Gil Reece (from Newport County) and Bill Punton (from Norwich) were the only two I can think of that were signed from other FL clubs

 

[BerksBlade]

Willie Carlin in Sept 1967?
1968 seems to be a bit of a turning point. We already had home-grown players like Hodgy, Woody, Salmons & Badger. TC, Ted Hemsley & Eddie Colquhoun all signed in 1968 and the rest is history. With better football came better crowds.

 

[Sirius]

Willie Carlin in Sept 1967?
1968 seems to be a bit of a turning point. We already had home-grown players like Hodgy, Woody, Salmons & Badger. TC, Ted Hemsley & Eddie Colquhoun all signed in 1968 and the rest is history. With better football came better crowds.

Much as I would like to, we can't call T.C. a local player. He came to us from Watford, at a reputed 34k steal. Watford were in danger of becoming our feeder club----- Sculion, Eddy T.C. etc. Gentleman John Harris. had little managerial experience before we snatched him. IMO his way of playing football is on all fours with that at of Weir.
Call me an antipodeon know nowt, but us older Blades are used to achieving not very much. I would stick with what we have , and I will trawl the T.V. dross hoping to see that I am proved right.

 

[Sirius]

Have always wondered why our attendances were usually poor in the 1960s. Wendy's werent much better. About 1964 was the start of the big drop but it got better in 1967/68. maybe many fans of both Sheffield teams were disgusted with the bribery scandal at S6? Or that many Blades fans were fed up of Harris playing youngsters rather than sign players from other league clubs? Between April 1961 and Sept 1967, Gil Reece (from Newport County) and Bill Punton (from Norwich) were the only two I can think of that were signed from other FL clubs

Harris did play youngsters. Ferguson in 92 played youngsters. Was is Hansen who said "You won't win anything with youngsters?" Like for like Pete, I wish that we could play those youngsters of ours today, or is it rose coloured glasses time?

 

[Kenilworth]

Yes, it's a bit like getting your head around the fact that Manchester United have often played direct football when necessity demanded!

Amazingly, it does seem that in the context of the attendances of their respective eras, Bassett and Warnock often did as well or better than Harris. Mind you, in all seriousness, that is not really all that surprising, as both Bassett and Warnock gave us something that has been in short supply over the last 40 years - a certain amount of success, and some exciting football, no matter how hard that might be for the footballing snobs purists among us to take.

Without Bassett and Warnock we would have had fuck all to be cheerful about for the best part of 38 years.

Talk about long suffering.

 

[blade too long]

I agree with most of this, apart from the panic buys bit, with the possible exception of King.
One of the best things about Weir is that he has recognised the really poor players and replaced them with better players. Flynn, Murphy, Porter, Westlake, Williams & Ironside have been taken out of the team. There are still more to go, especially in defense, but I'm sure he knows this, just had more pressing priorities for signings.
The problem is how he's deploying the team and the inflexibility to change formation or style of play, even when losing is infuriating and will cost him his job, which is a shame, because I do want him succeed and think there could be a good manager there, but he's not showing it at present. Every good manager adapts to the state of the game and his current players to get results. Weir doesn't, but I really don't want to return to Warnock etc. or replace a manager, any manager, after 9 games of new season. That really is no way to run a club, but Weir has to do something, and quick because I think a defeat on Friday could be the end, not least because the following games are no easier and will probably lose them as well if nothing changes.

if hes taken out the bad players and replaced them with better ones, half a team by your list where did the LLLLLL form come from
and when going back to a previous comment elsewhere , did Currie and Woodward etc adopt kick and rush

 

[Silent Blade]

Willie Carlin in Sept 1967?
1968 seems to be a bit of a turning point. We already had home-grown players like Hodgy, Woody, Salmons & Badger. TC, Ted Hemsley & Eddie Colquhoun all signed in 1968 and the rest is history. With better football came better crowds.

Yes, Willie Carlin was our 3rd signing from a FL club since March 1961 (Len Allchurch was signed on deadline day in 1961). After Willie Carlin, it was Colin Addison, then Paddy Buckley and then TC. we did try to sign Stewart Scullion in Nov or Dec 1967 but he turned us down. Rowley might not had much success with us as manager in 1968-69 season but he did make good signings such as Colquhoun, Hemsley, Tudor, Powell and Flynn. Graeme Crawford was Rowlwt's only signing that didnt play many league matches

 

[Silent Blade]

Harris did play youngsters. Ferguson in 92 played youngsters. Was is Hansen who said "You won't win anything with youngsters?" Like for like Pete, I wish that we could play those youngsters of ours today, or is it rose coloured glasses time?

I think the current u18s squad might be the last time we will have more than one player who will play regular 1st team matches as our Academy have become level 2 so (I could be wrong as I think it is the same for Wendy, Barnsley etc) we are keeping our eye on just a few of our academy players from u16s downwards but the rest of the squad are making up the numbers (that was my impression of the current Wendy u16s squad when they played Udders two weeks ago and they did beat us 1-0 before that)

 

[Rodley]

Back to original post, I'd def take a look at Ritchie Barkee. Plays up tempo passing football. Can motivate a side as well.

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

Presuming wikipedia is correct. Pre-Dinosaur Dave:

1985-86 division two - 7th. average gate 10,798
1986 - 87 division two - 9th. average gate 9,992

Dinosaur Dave's first full season
1988-89 division three - 2nd. average gate 12,222

Doesn't look too pitiful to me.

 

[BerksBlade]

Much as I would like to, we can't call T.C. a local player. He came to us from Watford, at a reputed 34k steal. Watford were in danger of becoming our feeder club----- Sculion, Eddy T.C. etc.

Hence my full stop after Badger!
During my time supporting the Blades we've signed more players from Watford than anywhere else. Ironic given they're now a feeder club for Udinese and in the upper reaches of the Championship (again).