All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
Silent did you every come across a gang of deaf and dumb scaffolders who use to frequent the Cricketers in the 70s great lads
Agreed. Robson's complete fuck up was so bad it doesn't even need stating as "the worst" anymore. Everyone else will always be certain of staying off top spot.
Yes, met him often as he and Richard would allow me in Josie's for free! I posted a you tube video of Jim in a wrestling match a few weeks ago. Did you see it?
Just a point from your first paragraph - we should not forget the number of Sheffield and Don & Dearne lads that came through under Harris. I wonder how many managers would have the balls to do that now that money rules the roost at every level.
My cut-off was after Blackwell - the worst football I've witnessed in his second season. I didn't think Adams' football was particularly direct, though it's repeated so often it became "fact". Either way, it was shite and ineffectual.I'll give you 5 years but you aren't having Mickey "Gerritforrad Bladiness" Adams (with Dinosaur Dave on the blower), Muck N Nettles taking over from DW I or the Hoofwaffe General himself, Kevin "Semi-Pro" Blackwell as Anti-Hoof
This post is brought to you in association with Pinches nicknames incorporated.
I think you've addressed the wrong man there, surely.Hang on - you just liked Bladepicker's post which partly attributed our lack of success to hoof.
I'm kidding, but where Pinchy is unequivocally correct is that long ball football should never be a strategy in itself. I'd suggest Blackwell and others fully hold that belief. At almost every level, teams win games and leagues playing a passing game, and some also do it by long ball grot. Given that, why choose the latter? There's a genuine ceiling to where it can take you. I can handle a bit of it as short term expediency, but as a strategy, it's second best.
I fully accept that managers who advocate passing football can turn out utter drivel too. We've seen plenty of that. But if we're talking about false propositions, the idea that passing teams are antithetical to graft and putting a foot in is as daft as the idea that the long ball is a shortcut to success.
In summary - everything is up for grabs as a tactic, but as a strategy it's poor. And in truth, I'm amazed how quickly Wilder has got us playing football that's not only winning games, but also sophisticated enough to (hopefully) carry us even higher.
) bullshit that got us onto this mess. We've been so desperate to deliver anti-hoof that we've lost the plot. Anyone who asked for an alternative was rubbished. Thankfully Wilder arrived to prove that there really is an alternative to the utter rubbish anti hoof has delivered.
Brian Rodgers, Jimmy Lapper and George "Max" Moseley? They all are deaf but not dumb! Know them all. Yes they played for Sheffield Deaf in the 1960s and early 1970s. All are Wendy fans but Jimmy's son, Ashley, is a big Blade. Will look for a photo of Sheffield Deaf FC in 1960 with all three of them in it plus the late Cyril Davies (Kevin Davies dad) who was the best of all and Derek Dooley mentioned him in his autobiography and post it in here
I think you've addressed the wrong man there, surely.
I wasn't a big fan of the football Bassett delivered, but wholly respected the returns he delivered with such little backing - truly legendary. Warnock's football was better for me, and again the return versus the investment was to be respected. The football under Blackwell was totally dire.
I've never been a proponent of hoof, but I've argued against the anti hoof and those who got all wrapped up in the "change in ethos" (you?
How did you reckon the Robson and Speed experiments with "passing" went?
I started in the building game 1972 as an apprentice bricklayer they were renowned names especially on town centre jobs.
My point has always been that "ethos" means absolutely fuck all. Yet plenty wanted a change in it, whatever the hell that meant - but it manifested itself in anti hoof - and a period when the ball being on the floor became the be all and end all - with predictable (non) results.I wasn't really addressing it to you - it was just a handy in for me to proselytise for a bit.
Oh for the love of biscuits, not the ethos thing again! I never thought our descent into third tier crap was due to the ethos stuff. It was due to crap management. To me, "ethos" means a consistency of approach which spans managerial changes and permeates all levels of the club. To you I suspect it means a Weir-esque devotion to passing, regardless of efficacy. Obviously my preferred ethos would involve passing football, but I've covered that in the previous sermon.
But I'd just pick out the above and suggest that if you've little cash, you also can't afford to swap out your whole squad when you change managers. So some consistency in managerial appointments is important, and that's a key way in which I'd choose to define the E word.
The best players are the best athletes with the best technical ability. It doesn't need any philosophy to define that. You end up with shit players and a percentage game because you're potless, not by design. Warnock and Basset came in under dire circumstances, the players were acquired under a needs must philosophy, not because they didn't want more technically gifted ones.There's little room for argument when we define the term differently.
But you're right about straw men - that's a tactic employed for folk's amusement isn't it?
The other point I didn't make was that the managers who will base there style of football around players like Henderson are few and far between, and not something we should base any footballing plan on. Basset, Blackwell and Warnock (less so) were at an extreme. They were employed, functionally, because we were potless, not really by design (less so Blackwell).
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
