Question for Jim Phipps

[Blade56]

In terms he might relate to. Would you stand by an NFL manager who failed to play Quarter Back all season?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Not a good analogy. QB runs the whole team.

 

[super_pig]

or played him as linebacker

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

And as always we don't know the situation on CHs. Maybe we gambled our CH money on Brayford. Or any other number of permutations.

 

[LS5 Blade]

I'll take a guess on the CH situation then.

We have 2, he wont play them, he prefers full backs to his CHs. He doesn't buy or loan any CHs to cover his total lack of faith in the 2 he owns. He doesnt offer any team swap deals with the numerous midfielders he has hoarded. Not possible with strikers as we have so few of them as well.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

Not a good analogy. QB runs the whole team.

So a perfect analogy. If you don't get central defence right, you may as well not bother with the rest.

 

[DI36O]

That would be about the same effect on a team as playing without a goalkeeper.

 

[Reedy1889]

I'll take a guess on the CH situation then.

We have 2, he wont play them, he prefers full backs to his CHs. He doesn't buy or loan any CHs to cover his total lack of faith in the 2 he owns. He doesnt offer any team swap deals with the numerous midfielders he has hoarded. Not possible with strikers as we have so few of them as well.

Who's the two? I can only think of Kennedy & Collins. Those two? He's tried Kennedy but in fairness he seems unable to play two on the spin due to his dodgy knee. Feck knows what happened between Clough and Collins though that one truely baffles me

 

[LS5 Blade]

My apologies 3 CHs, Kennedy, Collins and McGahey.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

or played him as linebacker

Depends if he's as good as the Beard.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

And as always we don't know the situation on CHs. Maybe we gambled our CH money on Brayford. Or any other number of permutations.

If so, it was a ridiculous decision. To spend that amount of money on a full back, when it leaves you without enough to address two gaping holes in central defence is criminal.

I agree we don't know the full situation with central defenders, but to be honest I struggle to think of any explanations which would excuse what's happened. If we'd been very unfortunate with injuries or something, I could understand it, but we haven't. It's not as if people are being wise after the event. Virtually everyone's been saying throughout the season that we had a serious gap in central defence which needed to be addressed quickly. We didn't address it, and we voluntarily got rid of the two central defenders we had.

I'm torn on whether we should sack Clough. On the one hand, I don't think changing manager with such regularity is a good thing, and Clough has turned us from a side threatened with relegation to a play-off team, so it feels as if he should be given the chance to take us the next step. There are a number of arguments against that, and they are well rehearsed here, but for me the most convincing is this situation with central defenders. I just find it bizarre, and I can't think how a professional manager can possibly get himself into the position of having to play full backs in both central defensive positions without it being due to injuries. I think it's cost us a chance of promotion, and it looks unforgivable.

 

[Blade82]

And as always we don't know the situation on CHs. Maybe we gambled our CH money on Brayford. Or any other number of permutations.

The season started way before we signed brayford and he started as RB. Clough didn't solve the obvious problem full stop

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

If so, it was a ridiculous decision. To spend that amount of money on a full back, when it leaves you without enough to address two gaping holes in central defence is criminal.

And if we hadn't bought Brayford and it was known we could've got him then he'd've been vilified for that instead.

Signing the Beard was signing a talisman, not just a RB.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

And if we hadn't bought Brayford and it was known we could've got him then he'd've been vilified for that instead.

Signing the Beard was signing a talisman, not just a RB.

If your point is that the board and management can't win, then you're absolutely right. Unless we get promotion, nothing they do will be right.

For that reason, they need to take their own decisions. If they start taking decisions to pacify the fans, it will never come good.

Signing a talisman is fine, but it should never come before building a strong spine to the team.

I like Brayford, but it always felt to me as if we paid way over the odds to keep the fans quiet for a while. The reality is that nothing will please the fans other than promotion.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Signing a talisman is fine, but it should never come before building a strong spine to the team.

I do wonder whether Clough gambled that in not finding the central defender he wanted, adding Brayford would in itself help improve the performances of those in the middle - who would be more confident than they had been.

I am guessing that there were some acceptable but not great options available in the middle, but that Clough is too picky by half to go in for them. His style is not to make quick transfer decisions. I like the fact he wants to be thorough, and that he won't be easily moved towards lesser targets when he has a player in mind. But what was required in January was to act quickly and compromise if needed. He's often stated that he won't bring anyone in that isn't better than what we already have. I refuse to believe that there were not central defenders available in January that are better than those we played in the playoffs. We don't need to be getting above average Championship players with an eye on what we do when promoted - we need effective players to operate in the division we're in.

 

[Bladepicker]

If so, it was a ridiculous decision. To spend that amount of money on a full back, when it leaves you without enough to address two gaping holes in central defence is criminal.

I agree we don't know the full situation with central defenders, but to be honest I struggle to think of any explanations which would excuse what's happened. If we'd been very unfortunate with injuries or something, I could understand it, but we haven't. It's not as if people are being wise after the event. Virtually everyone's been saying throughout the season that we had a serious gap in central defence which needed to be addressed quickly. We didn't address it, and we voluntarily got rid of the two central defenders we had.

I'm torn on whether we should sack Clough. On the one hand, I don't think changing manager with such regularity is a good thing, and Clough has turned us from a side threatened with relegation to a play-off team, so it feels as if he should be given the chance to take us the next step. There are a number of arguments against that, and they are well rehearsed here, but for me the most convincing is this situation with central defenders. I just find it bizarre, and I can't think how a professional manager can possibly get himself into the position of having to play full backs in both central defensive positions without it being due to injuries. I think it's cost us a chance of promotion, and it looks unforgivable.

Lot's of sensible posts on here, I agree with you and LoughboroBlade totally.

Can understand if we keep Clough and if he gets three centre halves in then I would be happy. However the failure to do so and to have no fit ones for over half a season would be a mistake too far for me. So personally, I would get rid but, as long as he does what he says in his interview I won't be overly gutted if he stays on.

 

[sheffielder]

Not a good analogy. QB runs the whole team.

without 2 nose tackles in a 4-3 defence.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Lot's of sensible posts on here, I agree with you and LoughboroBlade totally.

Can understand if we keep Clough and if he gets three centre halves in then I would be happy. However the failure to do so and to have no fit ones for over half a season would be a mistake too far for me. So personally, I would get rid but, as long as he does what he says in his interview I won't be overly gutted if he stays on.

It's more than three centre halves, goalie, midfielder and striker required.

That would give us a squad of 17 with Brayford long term injured and Kennedy's knees making him back up, the rest can go.

 

[grafikhaus]

I'm torn on whether we should sack Clough. On the one hand, I don't think changing manager with such regularity is a good thing, and Clough has turned us from a side threatened with relegation to a play-off team, so it feels as if he should be given the chance to take us the next step.

Changing a manager regularly is a mistake if the new bloke is no good and has no track record of success. Since Warnock, we've had nowt but dross. Do we actually interview for the position? Our selection process must be overseen by that octopus at the last World Cup.

We were nowhere near 'relegation threatened', and a year later - and four points better including the disastrous Weir regime - we may have ended up in the play-offs but are a million miles from being fit to take a place in the Championship. Clough has been lucky. For every Southampton, there's been several Crewes, Fleetwoods, Yeovils etc. His recruitment, tactics and motivational abilities are diabolical. It's all about timing. It's no use sacking a bloke if there's only The Usual Suspects available. In today's papers, QPR are sticking with Ramsey and Warburton is still available. Go get him.