Jim Phipps summed up our current predicament perfectly...

[Davie Blade]

was a very tall order, , our quality squad wise was not good once brayford codie and maguire were removed
perhaps had we got who we wanted in august wed have made top 2
but what good players rolled over from last season were all young , or getting to the end
was a big change of staff required, too big

We lost Brayford,Coady and Harry.
Two of which were on loan anyway, and one refused a new contract, so no surprise whatsoever that all three left.
Wouldn't a competent manager have foreseen and planned replacements for this?
Oh wait,
We only managed to get a mere 11 players in the close season and 6 more before the JTD.

Bristol City lost/replaced/got rid of 11 players, at the end of last season.
Somehow Bristol City struggled to sign just 7 players in the close season, and just 4 in the JTD.

You'll excuse me when I hear stuff like '"building a club/legacy" "couldn't get the players we wanted,'' ''mentally tired squad''
"get behind the team" "lost too many quality players" but I think it is complete and utter propagandist BS.

Clough had a few months start on Cotterill, who had progressed further in building a 'legacy' ?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

It must be lovely, being able to blindly follow and trust absolutely everyone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lip+service

It's pretty difficult to know what more he could have said, and how he could have said it better

If you feel like he's insincere then obviously that's up to you.

I'm very impressed every time I hear him speak.

 

[Worksop_Blade]

It's pretty difficult to know what more he could have said, and how he could have said it better

If you feel like he's insincere then obviously that's up to you.

I'm very impressed every time I hear him speak.

I'm not saying he's insincere I'm just saying it's wise to question everyone in a powerful position.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Bear in mind we have more money than all the other clubs in League 1, as far as I am aware.

I think the simple answer is that you and I watch better central defenders visit the Lane every home match. The opposition create space in our central defence without any apparent build up of pressure. We never get near their keeper from one home game to the next.

My direct answer to your question would be Collins and Butler, though there are many other better options I;m sure. Believe me Collins is a better defender than anyone we have played this season, not only that he is an organiser and a talker. I guess Butler is just the same. Some on here thought Butler was a bit crude the other week, so what? We hardly troubled their keeper yet they were in and amongst our defence throughout.

Who do we sign or loan. Why doesn't our Head Scout have a list as long as your arm? There must be a dozen young lads in the Prem and Championship who would jump at the chance of playing for us.

MKD signed McFadzean last summer. Bristol City signed Finch just before that.. Preston have two right bruisers back there.

My feeling was that Clough played Kennedy by default and didn't have a clue how good he was until he was forced to play him. Little situations like that speak volumes about managers and their ability to judge a player. Bear in mind we were told at the start of the season that McGahey was real quality and we started the season with him and persevered a while until it became obvious he is raw at best.

William, it's been an indefensible shambles of the highest order, spread out over all these months.

Then dont start me on about the lack of strikers FGS.

Collins and Butler were moved out for reasons we're not privy to.

Afaict it's not been suggested who we shouldn't've signed so we have to look at loans.

If there are dozens of Division 1 junior CHs banging down our doors then why are we refusing them entry?

Tbh as I've said before, I think the CH issue should have been addressed by journalists. Till it is it's just rumour and speculation.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'm not saying he's insincere I'm just saying it's wise to question everyone in a powerful position.

It's wise to question everyone.

But it's also wise imo to support the right people. For me Jim Phipps is the right person.

There are a few questions I'd have for him, which is only reasonable, but right at this moment, as he says, the focus should be on the play-offs.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Collins and Butler were moved out for reasons we're not privy to.

Afaict it's not been suggested who we shouldn't've signed so we have to look at loans.

If there are dozens of Division 1 junior CHs banging down our doors then why are we refusing them entry?

Tbh as I've said before, I think the CH issue should have been addressed by journalists. Till it is it's just rumour and speculation.

WHF:Simple question:

Do you think the manager has let himself, his team and us fans down by not recruiting central defenders plus cover there in amongst the vast numbers of players he has signed? ( In a season we were hoping to gain promotion)

YES/NO.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

WHF:Simple question:

Do you think the manager has let himself, his team and us fans down by not recruiting central defenders plus cover there in amongst the vast numbers of players he has signed? ( In a season we were hoping to gain promotion)

YES/NO.

Impossible to judge with incomplete information.

 

[itsinyerblood]

He was under severe financial constraints for a long period at Derby.

He isn't under any now.

The post in question talked of Clough's time at Derby. It's this I corrected.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The post in question talked of Clough's time at Derby. It's this I corrected.

No, you offered mitigation for the statement "(Clough) presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history".

Now that is a correction.

 

[Bladebri]

The fans expectations have been to high, if that's because how we finished last season or the media making us one of the favourites to go up then I can sympathy with how some fans are feeling, NC is our manager he knows the players and there strengths, yes a CD is needed but we have versatile players to cover this pposition, not ideal I know but it's all we have got at the moment.

 

[itsinyerblood]

No, you offered mitigation for the statement "(Clough) presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history".

Now that is a correction.

The original question inferred that Clough was responsible for what was described as 'one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history'. In providing the facts I corrected that assertion.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The original question inferred that Clough was responsible for what was described as 'one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history'. In providing the facts I corrected that assertion.

The post asserted that Clough "presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history". You did not 'correct' that. You haven't actually said you disagree with it. You have merely offered mitigation for why Clough "presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history".

 

[itsinyerblood]

The post asserted that Clough "presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history". You did not 'correct' that. You haven't actually said you disagree with it. You have merely offered mitigation for why Clough "presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history".

I think what we have here is a question of interpretation. Sorry to spoil your pedantry, but the incorrect assertion that Clough was solely responsible (note, no mention of the facts I've outlined) for Derby's dire state at that time was incorrect. By fleshing out this absence of facts and providing the context that Clough worked under I corrected this assertion.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I think what we have here is a question of interpretation. Sorry to spoil your pedantry, but the incorrect assertion that Clough was solely responsible (note, no mention of the facts I've outlined) for Derby's dire state at that time was incorrect. By fleshing out this absence of facts and providing the context that Clough worked under I corrected this assertion.

No, what we have here is you saying you 'corrected' something when you haven't.

The post you took issue with said

Serious question where would Clough get another job?
His CV is utterly appalling.
He presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history.

Your reply was

You forgot to mention - Clough was forced to sell many of Derby's most rated players. He was told by the board to encourage a policy where the team depended on youth development. So please refrain from making statements that are inaccurate. Factually incorrect, or perhaps I should rephrase, no facts at all. Just a damning statement that collapses upon examination.

So you have said nothing about Davie Blade' first point; Clough's future employability.

As for his CV being appalling, you have not 'corrected' that - its a subjective assertion which all depends on what you define as 'appalling'.

As for whether "He presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history", again, you've not 'corrected' that. I don't watch Derby enough to say whether its true or not. They have been in division three a couple of times and I imagine that was worse, but they were a steady, mid table Championship side under Clough for five years. Their other stints in Division Two of similar length have all included play off appearances, Clough's didn't. But this is one for Derby fans to answer. Either way, you have not 'corrected' owt here.

What you have done is argue against the inference that Clough was responsible for said stagnation and suggest other causal factors. Fair enough, but lets be clear; that is all you've done. You haven't 'disproved' it or 'corrected' it anymore than I can 'disprove' or 'correct' people who say we were right to get shot of Warnock after relegation.

This board is about opinions. That's what you offered.

 

[grafikhaus]

I agree entirely with the second bit, I don't think we should be always getting on the players' backs.

However, I don't understand this idea that the performances are not ultimately the players' fault(s). They were mediocre this season long before the fans became so negative. If the argument had basis, it would be that since the negativity has come in performances have got worse.

I would think the performances came first, which initiated the vicious cycle of performances, support, performances, support etc

If the players and staff don't want negativity, they should apply themselves better, and the fans will be back onside. UTB

Only after NC has left will we (possibly) find out the truth behind some baffling decisions. Are the players instructed to play in such a negative way? Have there been multiple falling-outs with players? At this stage of the season, why are our players suddenly 'tired'. (I don't hold with the last one at all. Were they 'tired' when we were playing for time with ten minutes left? At home to Crawley? On 23rd August?)

 

[Bladesway]

Judge, if you are comfortable with jobs for the family then that is up to you. I'm not and I say so.

Do you?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Impossible to judge with incomplete information.

WHF. The information is simple.

Any club with aspirations to achieve promotion needs a strong central defence plus two players in reserve plus an odd full back/midfielder who can step in when needed.

Our manager has been with us since October 2013. He has had half a season and a full summer plus more than half another season altogether including 2x JTW and various Loan windows.

That is complete information. do you think our manager has got his basics right in this essential respect? YES/NO.

I could extend this to the striker situation but I won't.

I could extend this to the central midfield situation but I won't.

YES or NO?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Do you?

You have bollocked me a few times for so doing as you well know. What do you think though B'Way?

 

[Maidenhead]

Only after NC has left will we (possibly) find out the truth behind some baffling decisions. Are the players instructed to play in such a negative way? Have there been multiple falling-outs with players? At this stage of the season, why are our players suddenly 'tired'. (I don't hold with the last one at all. Were they 'tired' when we were playing for time with ten minutes left? At home to Crawley? On 23rd August?)

Judging by the way NC was bouncing up and down on the touchline on Saturday making frantic forward gestures I very much doubt that he had instructed the players to sit deep and defend, defend, defend

 

[blade too long]

We lost Brayford,Coady and Harry.
Two of which were on loan anyway, and one refused a new contract, so no surprise whatsoever that all three left.
Wouldn't a competent manager have foreseen and planned replacements for this?
Oh wait,
We only managed to get a mere 11 players in the close season and 6 more before the JTD

Clough had a few months start on Cotterill, who had progressed further in building a 'legacy' ?

so your adding several kids weve signed in that original 11 giving a very sewed look at it
if you want it balanced add the 6 under 21 players bristol city signed

compare like with like ,

http://www1.skysports.com/football/sheffield-united-transfers

thats 17 in all season 18 out and 3 of those in are among those
out on loan

 

[alcoblade]

Judging by the way NC was bouncing up and down on the touchline on Saturday making frantic forward gestures I very much doubt that he had instructed the players to sit deep and defend, defend, defend

There are other factors that affect the players approach to the game though. For example, picking defensively minded players over offensive ones, the way they are coached, and the way they might be reprimanded for mistakes.

Either way, we are too cautious. Whether that's a direct result of the managers instruction, or an indirect result of they way he's set us up as a club, the buck stops with Clough.

UTB

 

[grafikhaus]

Judging by the way NC was bouncing up and down on the touchline on Saturday making frantic forward gestures I very much doubt that he had instructed the players to sit deep and defend, defend, defend

As I said in another thread:

That, like much of what we're seeing on the pitch, is no more than 'shadow play'. Clough and his sidekicks spend all match affecting this faux outrage when their well-rehearsed tactics such as set pieces don't come off. It's designed to portray 'Well we spent all week telling them what to do! If they've can't do it, it's not our fault.' Pass the buck.

There was a prime example yesterday. There wasn't much time left, we'd let in yet another soft goal, we had key strikers on the bench, the opposition was down to ten men (prime 'Let's hang on for a draw' territory for Clough) and we'd abandoned midfield. Defending yet another corner, the furthest United player upfield was on the edge of United's penalty area! (You read it right.) Howard claimed the ball, looked upfield in vain for an outlet, the crowd moaned and Clough et al went into a furious pantomime of 'GET UPFIELLLLDD!!!'

Hardly likely when there's about a hundred yards to go and Bradford - in their tactical naivety - have left sufficient cover in the unlikely event of United doing something tactically outrageous. Such as bringing on the speedy Done and leaving him up near the halfway line.

There was absolutely no sign that NC hadn't instructed the entire team to go back to defend this corner. On reflection, instead of Done being expected to take on the 4-5 players Bradford had left back, I think Adams + Done would be ready-made for this role.

 

[itsinyerblood]

No, what we have here is you saying you 'corrected' something when you haven't.

The post you took issue with said



Your reply was



So you have said nothing about Davie Blade' first point; Clough's future employability.

As for his CV being appalling, you have not 'corrected' that - its a subjective assertion which all depends on what you define as 'appalling'.

As for whether "He presided over one of the worst 5 years spells in Derby's long history", again, you've not 'corrected' that. I don't watch Derby enough to say whether its true or not. They have been in division three a couple of times and I imagine that was worse, but they were a steady, mid table Championship side under Clough for five years. Their other stints in Division Two of similar length have all included play off appearances, Clough's didn't. But this is one for Derby fans to answer. Either way, you have not 'corrected' owt here.

What you have done is argue against the inference that Clough was responsible for said stagnation and suggest other causal factors. Fair enough, but lets be clear; that is all you've done. You haven't 'disproved' it or 'corrected' it anymore than I can 'disprove' or 'correct' people who say we should have stuck with Warnock after relegation.

This board is about opinions. That's what you offered.

Let's look at your opinion. I referred to the point about Clough being responsible for what the poster said was possibly one of Derby's worst 5 year periods. That suggests that NC was responsible for Derby's on-field position during that time. Observant of you to notice what I didn't respond to. Those points didn't interest me, but the inference that Clough alone was responsible for Derby's position was incorrect. My response focussed on that part of Davie Blade's post. Hope that's cleared that up for you.

DB's post inferred/blamed Clough for what happened at Derby. By stating the background under which Clough was asked to work I corrected this assertion. You can repeat as often as you like that I've proved nothing. That is, of course, if the facts that were prevalent had no bearing on my point, which they did. Which is why, in spelling this out, I corrected this assertion that Clough was solely responsible for Derby's dire position at that time. He wasn't. By repeating that I've proved nothing somehow, in your opinion, seems to ensure that by mentioning facts doesn't matter and that's an end to it. I happen to think that by offering a factual background it exposes DB's view for what it is, a misleading falsehood.

One last thing, I don't think Derby fans are the only interested party in what did or didn't happen.

 

[Maidenhead]

As I said in another thread:



There was absolutely no sign that NC hadn't instructed the entire team to go back to defend this corner. On reflection, instead of Done being expected to take on the 4-5 players Bradford had left back, I think Adams + Done would be ready-made for this role.

and some people are paranoid and can't live without a conspiracy theory

 

[grafikhaus]

and some people are paranoid and can't live without a conspiracy theory

Nothing paranoid about it, Maidenhead. I sit quite near Clough and know what I see.

 

[Woodwardfan]

There are other factors that affect the players approach to the game though. For example, picking defensively minded players over offensive ones, the way they are coached, and the way they might be reprimanded for mistakes.

Either way, we are too cautious. Whether that's a direct result of the managers instruction, or an indirect result of they way he's set us up as a club, the buck stops with Clough.

UTB

Some of my main beefs about Clough and in particular Garner are their displays of outrage, disgust and disappointment with their players during the game. The opposition managers and support staff generally encourage and guide their players. Clough and Garner spend a lot of time shaking their heads and showing outward disappointment with their players.

I'm not sure which audience they are playing to, but if it's the players then the last thing they need to see is their manager and his assistant shaking their heads. A clap and an encouraging signal would be far more useful, a player knows full well when he has made a mistake.

Coaching should be done before games, bollockings should be done after games and reinforced throughout the week.What purpose is served "jumping up and down" and Clough does that time and again, or shaking a head, head in hands, slumped walk staring at the floor, which Garner does all the time. What purpose does all that serve?

Public bollockings, arms raised in agitation. anger, FFS the time to teach players is throughout the week not during the game. The thing to do in the game is tweak formations, guide individuals, encourage, push the players on to greater things.

!st team SUFC is not a comfortable place to play football. The bench at SUFC is even worse, all the subs hear every f'ing word from their bosses who show little control and clear thinking as far as I can see.

 

[Maidenhead]

Nothing paranoid about it, Maidenhead. I sit quite near Clough and know what I see.

so where does he go when he's alone in his bed?

(if you are of a certain age you will get this one )

 

[grafikhaus]

so where does he go when he's alone in his bed?

(if you are of a certain age you will get this one )

Oh, I'm more than 'of a certain age'!

Peter Sarstedt - 'Where do you go to, my lovely?'

Can't see what this has to do with this thread, though. Must be a conspiracy.

​

 

[JJ Sefton]

Let's look at your opinion. I referred to the point about Clough being responsible for what the poster said was possibly one of Derby's worst 5 year periods. That suggests that NC was responsible for Derby's on-field position during that time. Observant of you to notice what I didn't respond to. Those points didn't interest me, but the inference that Clough alone was responsible for Derby's position was incorrect. .

Davie Blade didn't say Clough alone was responsible, you're putting words into his mouth. You are 'correcting' things you made up.

 

[JJ Sefton]

DB's post inferred/blamed Clough for what happened at Derby. By stating the background under which Clough was asked to work I corrected this assertion. You can repeat as often as you like that I've proved nothing. That is, of course, if the facts that were prevalent had no bearing on my point, which they did. Which is why, in spelling this out, I corrected this assertion that Clough was solely responsible for Derby's dire position at that time. He wasn't. By repeating that I've proved nothing somehow, in your opinion, seems to ensure that by mentioning facts doesn't matter and that's an end to it. I happen to think that by offering a factual background it exposes DB's view for what it is, a misleading falsehood..

There you go again.

As I say, even if the things you say are true Clough might still bear the lions share of the responsibility for Derby's stagnation in his time in charge. Or he might not. You can argue it either way, but you haven't proved or disproved anything at all.