The WC and DF

Numpty 28723 wrote:

I share your pain, comrade. We must never forget.

JUSTICE FOR THE READING 629!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Numpty, do you know for a fact there were 629? There might have been 630, or even 631.

I counted them in and I counted them out.

bwfc1874 wrote:I don't think that's the point of this discussion though, if we were winning nobody would care about the football it's as simple as that.

We've debated this point ad nauseam on here many times before.

Some of us older farts do still actually give a shit if the football's dire to watch.

If we win every game 1-0 but we're camped on our own 18 yard line, defending like it's Rorke's Drift for 90 minutes, some of us (me included) will not be happy.


Winning isn't the be all and end all for me.

I started watching football in an era when it was still classed as "entertainment" for the masses, rather than a "business" designed to make a privileged few very rich.

Is that so hard to understand?

Numpty 28723 wrote:I counted them in and I counted them out.

  

Why were you working the turnstile at Reading?

Breadman wrote:

We've debated this point ad nauseam on here many times before.

Some of us older farts do still actually give a shit if the football's dire to watch.

If we win every game 1-0 but we're camped on our own 18 yard line, defending like it's Rorke's Drift for 90 minutes, some of us (me included) will not be happy.


Winning isn't the be all and end all for me.

I started watching football in an era when it was still classed as "entertainment" for the masses, rather than a "business" designed to make a privileged few very rich.

Is that so hard to understand?

Couldn't agree more. I was brought up watching BWFC in the 90's when the team went out to win every game by going at the opposition. Yeah we lost games but it was never boring.

Sad that anyone would be happy with no entertainment as long as Bolton won. What is the point?

Breadman wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:I don't think that's the point of this discussion though, if we were winning nobody would care about the football it's as simple as that.

We've debated this point ad nauseam on here many times before.

Some of us older farts do still actually give a shit if the football's dire to watch.

If we win every game 1-0 but we're camped on our own 18 yard line, defending like it's Rorke's Drift for 90 minutes, some of us (me included) will not be happy.


Winning isn't the be all and end all for me.

I started watching football in an era when it was still classed as "entertainment" for the masses, rather than a "business" designed to make a privileged few very rich.

Is that so hard to understand?

I know this point has been debated plenty, I didn't bring it up though. 

Obviously it's not hard to understand. Equally obvious is that I was talking about football fans in general and not just Breadman, and I stand by what I said.

The main responsibility of management is to get the best out of each player, using a system that suits the squad. That is clearly not happening.

Instead, DF tries to impose his theories (contradictory and inconsistent as they are) on a squad whose strengths often lie in other areas. Chungy is a perfect example of a player whose considerable talent is not being utilised. Do South Korea play him wide on the left? Of course not! His role with us is a waste of his skills. He could be a consistent goalscorer. How many of our squad are being played in their optimum positions and in roles that suit? Very few, I would say! It sometimes feels as if Dougie is doing the exact opposite of what makes sense.
 
Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that the players he has brought in, whether of the required quality or not, actually fit his stated philosophy......not that this philosophy is actually much in evidence in matches. Illogicality marks his reign. He'd rather try to prove himself smarter than the average bear than stick to a policy that succeeds and entertains, chopping and changing with the wind.

okocha wrote:The main responsibility of management is to get the best out of each player, using a system that suits the squad. That is clearly not happening.

Instead, DF tries to impose his theories (contradictory and inconsistent as they are) on a squad whose strengths often lie in other areas. Chungy is a perfect example of a player whose considerable talent is not being utilised. Do South Korea play him wide on the left? Of course not! His role with us is a waste of his skills. He could be a consistent goalscorer. How many of our squad are being played in their optimum positions and in roles that suit? Very few, I would say! It sometimes feels as if Dougie is doing the exact opposite of what makes sense.
 
Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that the players he has brought in, whether of the required quality or not, actually fit his stated philosophy......not that this philosophy is actually much in evidence in matches. Illogicality marks his reign. He'd rather try to prove himself smarter than the average bear than stick to a policy that succeeds and entertains, chopping and changing with the wind.

Spot on.

 

South Korea played him wide right against Russia, he's scored six goals in 55 for them. I don't know how you've decided he could be a consistent goals scorer. Out of interest who else is being used incorrectly?

I think the argument is, play him more centrally, as opposed to on either wing.

He could do the (currently much discussed) No 10 role that everybody seems to agree is Rooney's best position for England.

DF played him there a fair few times at the top of the diamond last season, he did okay.

Chungys best position is on the right, which explains why he performs better for South Korea. It's the position he played for us under megson/coyle when his form was so good.

One of Freedmans faults was playing him on the left where he obviously struggles. Hopefully dougie will learn and switch hall to the left and lee to the right this season.

okocha wrote:The main responsibility of management is to get the best out of each player, using a system that suits the squad. 

I agree getting the best out of the players you have is important.

Mills, Ream, Spearing, Bogdan, Pratley have all performed far better under Freedman. The fitness of the squad is something we take for granted, but it's clear that it's improved massively in every player.

He's also finally making use of and improving our youth system which has been neglected for years, plus the quality of player he's brought in for next to nothing gives me the confidence that at the least he's the right man to overhaul the squad on a budget. Either he'll get the best out of them this year, or he'll be replaced and the incoming manager will be in a much better position than Freedman was when he took over.

okocha wrote:The main responsibility of management is to get the best out of each player, using a system that suits the squad. That is clearly not happening.

Instead, DF tries to impose his theories (contradictory and inconsistent as they are) on a squad whose strengths often lie in other areas. Chungy is a perfect example of a player whose considerable talent is not being utilised. Do South Korea play him wide on the left? Of course not! His role with us is a waste of his skills. He could be a consistent goalscorer. How many of our squad are being played in their optimum positions and in roles that suit? Very few, I would say! It sometimes feels as if Dougie is doing the exact opposite of what makes sense.
 
Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that the players he has brought in, whether of the required quality or not, actually fit his stated philosophy......not that this philosophy is actually much in evidence in matches. Illogicality marks his reign. He'd rather try to prove himself smarter than the average bear than stick to a policy that succeeds and entertains, chopping and changing with the wind.

Nat's right, this person needs to post more often.

Did anybody see the story about Gary Neville leaving the England v Italy tactics sheet on show and reporters were able to get a look?

One of the instructions was "when ball goes into central zone team must make at least three passes before hitting the CF".

I don't wanna make any...spurious, completely without basis accusations about Dougie's character....but this is my imagination of Freedman's tactics sheet. Not necessarily that very instruction, but a long list of ideas that rely on brainpower well beyond the capacity of the players at our disposal.
You can argue that we've not got the players to play the sort of football the fans wanna see, but we've not got the players to play Dougie's way either.
We looked like the away team in the majority of home matches last season and if the players are as confused by Freedman's tactics as we are, it's no wonder.
You overcomplicate things, you mess with the players confidence and general ability. From the outside looking in, this is happening under Freedman.

To answer 1874's query about who else has not been played in their best role: Ngog, Eagles, Ream spring most readily to mind. All the above have plenty of (wasted) ability. You play well....you get dropped or get chosen in a different role; you score.....you get dropped. We knew when we got Ngog from Liverpool that he was not a natural goalscorer yet insisted on using him as a striker when his skills wide left would have been invaluable.

How does any of this breed confidence or consistency?

 I think many of our players are bewildered and this manifests itself through nervousness when in possession because they are not being allowed to play to their natural strengths but try to conform to the straitjacket DF's tactics place upon them.

 Someone with the motor and athleticism of Pratley should have been deployed to our advantage, but DF seems to insist on trying to make a player into something he is not. The persistence in using Knight when Jimmy P had correctly axed him immediately shows DF does NOT have an eye for a player, nor an eye for their best role.

I'll give you Eagles to an extent, although I don't think his poor work rate, lack of pace and inconsistency would ever fit him into the system Freedman tries to play.

Your comment on N'gog is a joke I'm afraid, he's always been a striker he only played wide for Liverpool because Benitez played one up front and that was Torres.

Ream got player of the season, and you're suggesting he's been wasted? He did very well filling in at LB when we had little choice to play him there it's no secret we tried to bring in 4 or 5 left backs in January but failed to.

Where are you suggesting playing Pratley? Let's face it he's not good enough and as LPP correctly said in another thread, his only value is his work rate so he's used in a defensive way ie to negate the threat of a winger or provide some extra legs in midfield. He's not going to be our saving grace but he's a good squad player.

okocha wrote:To answer 1874's query about who else has not been played in their best role: Ngog, Eagles, Ream spring most readily to mind. All the above have plenty of (wasted) ability. You play well....you get dropped or get chosen in a different role; you score.....you get dropped. We knew when we got Ngog from Liverpool that he was not a natural goalscorer yet insisted on using him as a striker when his skills wide left would have been invaluable.

How does any of this breed confidence or consistency?

 I think many of our players are bewildered and this manifests itself through nervousness when in possession because they are not being allowed to play to their natural strengths but try to conform to the straitjacket DF's tactics place upon them.

 Someone with the motor and athleticism of Pratley should have been deployed to our advantage, but DF seems to insist on trying to make a player into something he is not. The persistence in using Knight when Jimmy P had correctly axed him immediately shows DF does NOT have an eye for a player, nor an eye for their best role.

I'm surprised you haven't posted more often tbh. You put forward a decent argument. I had you down as one of the ' others '.

I'm talking about getting the BEST out of a player; it was generally agreed that Ream played best when part of the midfield; he was vulnerable as a left back and was caught out too often, and he didn't present much of an attacking threat from that position.
As for Ngog, you obviously never listened to Lawrenson and Hansen discussing his qualities which were essentially as a left-sided provider and certainly not a striker. He was one of those who would have a good game and then be dropped immediately....depressing!
We should have been able to get Pratley to contribute with the natural assets he possesses. Similar story re Eagles around whom DF said he was going to build the team......hmmmm!
I've been following some of the posts on here recently and I can see why you support Dougie; it's clearly because in him you see a mirror-image of yourself:- supercilious and dismissive of others, you give the impression that you know best and all other opinions are to be derided. Learn some humility.

okocha wrote:
I've been following some of the posts on here recently and I can see why you support Dougie; it's clearly because in him you see a mirror-image of yourself:- supercilious and dismissive of others, you give the impression that you know best and all other opinions are to be derided. Learn some humility.

Wow! If you have been a Wanderers fan for any length of time you should know that possessing humility is almost a prerequisite for supporting the Trotters.