What went...right?

[Darlogramps]

I disagree. Even with the bad hand he'd been dealt, it shouldn't take three and a half months (a third of the season) to come up with a strategy that you stick with.

For all the excuses people want to give him, Wright made loads of mistakes and didn't have any idea about strategy, line-up or formation. And as we've seen, the players he had at his disposal were hardly terrible. As has been proven, they are more than competitive for this division.

[jjljks]

The difference is Wheatley was back yesterday. Without him next to Turnbull then Turnbull is our only attacking midfielder. On Tuesday Mills was a winger playing as centre mid. With Portas still injured we have no cover in this area (not counting Glover who is still learning his trade).

Spot on. Turnbull needs someone to support him as he can be marked out the game if lone midfielder. This stops us creating chances. Wheatley can drive at the opposition (like Portas used to do) and this generates both chances & excitment for the fans. Hopefully Glover can grow into this role as he matures & puts some muscle on but already he is showing promising skills & great touches. If Wheatley moves on, we do have some cover in this position, albeit thin

[Quakerz]

I disagree. Even with the bad hand he'd been dealt, it shouldn't take three and a half months (a third of the season) to come up with a strategy that you stick with.

Three and a half months, a 3rd of the season?

You are ignoring the amount of matches played to make it sound even worse than it really was.

It was 9 league games. Mostly against top 7 contenders.

Don't get me wrong - an unacceptably long run of bad results, but not exactly the 14/15 matches + cup games that you might expect in that time frame.

Gray had won 1 of the previous 9 league matches so it can be argued that the team was already lost.

For all the excuses people want to give him, Wright made loads of mistakes and didn't have any idea about strategy, line-up or formation.

Don't disagree, called him clueless myself. He did have an idea about strategy, he wanted to play 3-5-2/3-4-3 with 3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. However that strategy proved to be wrong because they players weren't comfortable with it.

And as we've seen, the players he had at his disposal were hardly terrible. As has been proven, they are more than competitive for this division.

Have to (partly) disagree because some of the players were in fact terrible - others woefully out of form.

Whilst we did have some good players, some players were not up to the task.

Burgess - not good enough, in fact he was an utter liability.
Marrs - not good enough
Caton - looked lost
Scott - beyond his level when played left back
Beck - not fit and completely ineffective
Wilczinski - When Bartlett went and we had to play him, he was not NLN standard
Cartman - was playing week in week out. Despite the fact that the majority of Darlo fans bizarrely wanted to bum him - he was NOT a NLN quality striker.

Then we had other players who were not at their best...

Thompson - another one who looked to have hit his celing
Brown - injured for a long period and came back not match fit and or in form, but had to be thrown back in at the deep end.
Collins - fuck me, injury after injury. Every pissing match he would hobble off half way through with something or other.
Wheatley - hardly utilised under Gray
Syers - we weren't getting the best out of him
Gillies - see Syers.

There is no doubt that Trotman is better than Marrs.

That Heaton is better than any of Brown, Collins, Burgess.

That Styche is better than an unfit immobile Beck.

That Syers and Thompson are resurgent.

That O'Hanlon at left back and Galbraith centre back further improves us

That Pears/Talbot are/were better than Wilczinski.

Thompson and Syers are now playing brilliantly under TW.

Caton has started to show signs that he can contribute.

We've definitely had to bring better players in to turn things around because the squad contained too much dead wood and players who were not playing at their best.

Gray left because he knew that he'd signed players to 2 year contracts who were not good enough (like Burgess) and there was no more money to throw at it

I don't think we were "more than competetive" at all - the squad was full of weakness + underperforming players - and now with the benefit of hindsight we can see it was already in a death spiral before Wright came in.

[Darlogramps]

I disagree. Even with the bad hand he'd been dealt, it shouldn't take three and a half months (a third of the season) to come up with a strategy that you stick with.

Three and a half months, a 3rd of the season?

You are ignoring the amount of matches played to make it sound even worse than it really was.

It was 9 league games. Mostly against top 7 contenders.

Eh? You're talking out of your backside on this one.

Wright's run was one win in 12 (all competitions) before Leamington. The draw at Alfreton in January was a poor performance against a s*** team. Then we had Chorley which we should have won.

And yes I'm going for three and a half months. Or does the time Wright spent training the players not count? Clearly that was deficient at the time as well, otherwise we wouldn't have had dreadful performances like Gainsborough away (or are we blaming MG for this one too?)

We had a couple of postponements/free weekends in that time which you've ignored to make it sound better than it is. And you've deleted the Trophy defeat v Harrogate. It's hardly as if Wright just downed tools for a whole week when he didn't have a game.

It's not just the 90 minutes on a matchday that count as the season, all the training, planning and preparation that goes into it counts too.

[Hapag Loid]

I called for him to be sacked in January and, based on what had happened up to that point, that opinion was justifiable.

Good thing nobody listened to your - as it turns out - extremely poor judgement on that one eh!

[Darlo_Pete]

I called for him to be sacked in January and, based on what had happened up to that point, that opinion was justifiable.

Good thing nobody listened to your - as it turns out - extremely poor judgement on that one eh!

Not many posters on here supported his reactionary stance. Most posters were probably neutral towards TW & AW and there were a few of us including me that supported his through those dark hours. Gramps still won't give his blessing to them, although at least he's stopped calling for them to be sacked, which is a start.

[Darlogramps]

I called for him to be sacked in January and, based on what had happened up to that point, that opinion was justifiable.

Good thing nobody listened to your - as it turns out - extremely poor judgement on that one eh!

Nope, I called it as I saw it at the time. It was an opinion I backed up at the time and justified (however much people disagreed with me). Wright was doing a poor job up until mid-January and had a poor managerial record up until that point. One good run of results doesn't change that.

[Darlogramps]

I called for him to be sacked in January and, based on what had happened up to that point, that opinion was justifiable.

Good thing nobody listened to your - as it turns out - extremely poor judgement on that one eh!

Not many posters on here supported his reactionary stance. Most posters were probably neutral towards TW & AW and there were a few of us including me that supported his through those dark hours. Gramps still won't give his blessing to them, although at least he's stopped calling for them to be sacked, which is a start.

Hi Pete - how did your fundraising for MG's Boost the Budget go?

Given you wanted him to get MORE money (on top of the BTB) at the expense of building up infrastructure.

I'm not going to proclaim TW as the new messiah on the basis of one good run. That would make me an unprincipled hypocrite.

In the same way, you turning on MG after wanting to throw your lot in with him makes you an unprincipled hypocrite.

[Quakerz]

Eh? You're talking out of your backside on this one.

Debate if you want to, but if you think I'm wrong on something don't be incredulous or insulting about it.

There's things you've said which I think are wrong and I never felt the need to accuse you of talking out of your backside.

Conversation over man.

[Hapag Loid]

Next up: how Darlogramps sold all his shares in Apple in the nineties but was 'totally justified' because 'their computers were shite then and nobody was buying them', and absolutely did not call that one wrong, at all.

(Sorry, can't resist! )

[Hapag Loid]

Anyway...other than perhaps the season where Reynolds came in at the end where form had dropped off a cliff, I can't remember a season where there's been such a striking turnaround. Can anyone else?

As long as I've followed Darlo we've either been at least challenging for the playoffs or, quite shyte. The prospect of mid-table obscurity seems totally novel to me!

[Darlogramps]

Eh? You're talking out of your backside on this one.

Debate if you want to, but if you think I'm wrong on something don't be incredulous or insulting about it.

There's things you've said which I think are wrong and I never felt the need to accuse you of talking out of your backside.

Conversation over man.

Stop being such a softie. Are you really going to take offence at that?

You tried to delete games and ignored training in order to embellish your point. I'm sorry but I've got every right to call you out on that.

Either you've gone soft, or you're deflecting from my point.

[Darlogramps]

Next up: how Darlogramps sold all his shares in Apple in the nineties but was 'totally justified' because 'their computers were shite then and nobody was buying them', and absolutely did not call that one wrong, at all.

(Sorry, can't resist! )

Haha fair enough.

Let's see how TW gets on long term. If he ends up leading us back to the Football League, I might just consider that I was wrong.

But if he gets us relegated next season, I may well revisit this post too

[Quakerz]

Anyway...other than perhaps the season where Reynolds came in at the end where form had dropped off a cliff, I can't remember a season where there's been such a striking turnaround. Can anyone else?

Struggling to, but there will be periods where similar has happened in the past.

Actually I remember the 85/86 season where we had been promoted to division 3. We struggled really badly at the start because we had a small squad and loads of injuries. I remember us losing 7-0 and 5-1 and were in the bottom 2/3, maybe even bottom for the first 12 or so matches.

Then Cyril signed Roberts and Ward, and we started getting a few players back and suddenly we went on a run of 15 undefeated in the league and seemed unbeatable. We started by winning 3-0 at Bolton, then went to Reading who were runaway leaders with 13 straight wins and won 2-0. We then followed this by beating Swansea 6-0.

If Carlsberg did turnarounds, I think that would be it...

Coming back to this season, Wright's first 10 matches were 1-1-8, and his next 10 matches have been 6-3-1. Pretty impressive.

[Hapag Loid]

I might just consider that I was wrong.

My work is done here.

[Deletes account and walks away from the computer]

[Quakerz]

Eh? You're talking out of your backside on this one.

Debate if you want to, but if you think I'm wrong on something don't be incredulous or insulting about it.

There's things you've said which I think are wrong and I never felt the need to accuse you of talking out of your backside.

Conversation over man.

Stop being such a softie. Are you really going to take offence at that?

You tried to delete games and ignored training in order to embellish your point. I'm sorry but I've got every right to call you out on that.

Either you've gone soft, or you're deflecting from my point.

No I'm not soft, neither am I offended at being called a name. I just can't be arsed with it and neither can I see why you felt the need.

I didn't "try" and delete matches because it's fairly common practice to usually just count league matches when making comparisons between managers or periods of form.

And the reason for this is because cup matches aren't as meaningful as a guide as league matches are because you might play a lower team who is up for it or a higher team who fields reserves.

We play in a league, that's our bread and butter, and the league is the form guide because over a season all things should be equal. If you want to think I deleted or embellished then that's up to you but I prefer to use consistent markers when comparing.

Therefore league v league is usually what I will do.

But if you insist on including the FAT game, go on then you can have it, for argument's sake. Now we go from a start of 1-1-7 in our first 9 to 1-1-8 in our first 10. Then followed by 6-3-1 in the following 10.

Two 10 game blocks. Nice and easy to compare, right. Factually undeniable right?

Or are you going to add on the first two matches of the next 10 match sequence to make it 1 win in 12 and further "embellish" your point? You could argue that by doing so you are not embellishing, but neither was I embellishing.

We can also include cup matches for Gray as well then, and who can forget South Shields? Never seen anything worse in my life, never been so humiliated during or after a match, was actually worse than any performance under TW - and further backs up my point that we were already well in the crap by the time TW took over. And wasn't MG 1 in his last 11/12 if you include cups?

Now the reason I brought MG up is not to change the subject or get into an argument about who is the best manager. Neither is it about having an obsession over Gray as I've seen you accuse others of having in the past, although I freely admit that I can't stand the man and hope he fails. No, the reason I brought him up was to illustrate just how bad we had became before TW took over.

Simply put, TW did not take over a very competitive team and turn us into the worst team in the league, the team was already well on it's way.

As said, I didn't disagree that TWs start was horrific although there were many factors contributing to that which I outlined now I have the benefit of hindsight.

After 10 matches I was calling for his head just as much as you were. But for the next 10, credit where credit is due.

I'm willing to look at the bigger picture and back him based on the last 10 matches, based on his signings with a reduced budget.

Anyway I need to fuck off from this conversation because I've got too much stuff to do.

[QUAKERMAN2]

Great post Quakerz, your summary blows those of Gramps completely out of the water, far more balanced.I rarely disagree with your posts and this one is no exception.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Darlogramps]

No I'm not soft, neither am I offended at being called a name. I just can't be arsed with it and neither can I see why you felt the need.

I didn't call you a name. I said you were talking out of your backside because you were. You ignored important facts - like the fact TW still had contact time even during weeks where we hadn't had a game.

I didn't "try" and delete matches because it's fairly common practice to usually just count league matches when making comparisons between managers or periods of form.

And the reason for this is because cup matches aren't as meaningful as a guide as league matches are because you might play a lower team who is up for it or a higher team who fields reserves.

Against Harrogate in the Trophy we fielded a strong side. So your point doesn't stand up.

But if you insist on including the FAT game, go on then you can have it, for argument's sake. Now we go from a start of 1-1-7 in our first 9 to 1-1-8 in our first 10. Then followed by 6-3-1 in the following 10.

Two 10 game blocks. Nice and easy to compare, right. Factually undeniable right?

Or are you going to add on the first two matches of the next 10 match sequence to make it 1 win in 12 and further "embellish" your point? You could argue that by doing so you are not embellishing, but neither was I embellishing.

I can argue I'm not embellishing because, well I'm not embellishing. I've explained the reasons I've included Alfreton and Chorley in that run - they were poor results given the context of the games. We should have won them both and that I would contend is evidence Wright hadn't yet turned the team around. Were the performances better? Yes, but the comparison is from a low base - we were beyond dreadful against Gainsborough for instance.

Simply put, TW did not take over a very competitive team and turn us into the worst team in the league, the team was already well on it's way.

I disagree. Little over a month before Gray's departure we started very strongly, winning at Salford, tonking Alfreton and getting a good result at York. Then we went on a terrible run. Our form was poor in that month, but you don't go from potential title contenders to relegation battlers in the space of six weeks.

Yes Gray left us in a bad state, I've never denied that. But Wright's lack of a plan, lack of strategy, lack of ideas when he first came in compounded the situation.

It's an undeniable fact that our form was poor right up until mid-January. Wright was in charge for three and a half months of that period so people have to concede he has a significant amount of responsibility for the position we were in. Some have tried to clear him of all blame when he was making massive mistakes.

Nor do I think that because TW has had a good run of form, that proves beyond all doubt he is the right man for us. But it has given him the right to take us into next season and put his stamp on the team.

[Darlo_Pete]

We were poor for a while under Gray, hence me being the first calling for him to be sacked.

[MKDarlo]

I was very concerned about TW until we turned the corner at Leamington. I admit that I was wrong about him and I am happy to be proved wrong.

I think what went right is:

• Simple, straightforward and fixed formation
  Sensible shape and style
  Good signings
  Same starting 11
  Confidence returning in key players
  Man management to achieve points 3 &5.

that said things like shape and style too too long to come and the criticism i made in the first few months were valid. We were poor and had no shape or structure and it was player and formation bingo every week. TW has, however done really well to turn things around. I thought he was out of his depth and we were going down especially after Alfreton. It looks like i was wrong.

[Darlogramps]

Great post Quakerz, your summary blows those of Gramps completely out of the water, far more balanced.I rarely disagree with your posts and this one is no exception.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Cringeworthy.

[tezza]

We were poor for a while under Gray, hence me being the first calling for him to be sacked.

Pete I think the calls for Gray to be sacked came long before any poor run of this seasons form ..... have you forgotten the uproar after a certain fans forum

[Darlogramps]

We were poor for a while under Gray, hence me being the first calling for him to be sacked.

Were we? We lost only once in the first month of the season (although admittedly that included drawing at North Ferriby).We were poor during September, then Gray resigned the Sunday after the Curzon game at the end of the month.

There is an inconsistency in your argument then Pete - bad for a month under Gray means he should be sacked. Bad for several months under TW means he should be given more time.

Yes there's the context of Gray's behaviour before the start of the season, but you and many others agreed with him because you wanted him to get more money. So your position isn't standing up to scrutiny.

[Quakerz]

I disagree. Little over a month before Gray's departure we started very strongly, winning at Salford, tonking Alfreton and getting a good result at York. Then we went on a terrible run. Our form was poor in that month, but you don't go from potential title contenders to relegation battlers in the space of six weeks.

Yes Gray left us in a bad state, I've never denied that. But Wright's lack of a plan, lack of strategy, lack of ideas when he first came in compounded the situation.

It's an undeniable fact that our form was poor right up until mid-January. Wright was in charge for three and a half months of that period so people have to concede he has a significant amount of responsibility for the position we were in. Some have tried to clear him of all blame when he was making massive mistakes.

Nor do I think that because TW has had a good run of form, that proves beyond all doubt he is the right man for us. But it has given him the right to take us into next season and put his stamp on the team.

Right, we are just going to have to disagree on this.

Well, when I say disagree, in reality we are talking about several minor points that are not worth losing sleep over or debating for ever.

You seem to be trying to minimise what the last 11/12 matches under Gray meant by declaring that it was only over a month or so and that we didn't become a bad team from title contenders overnight - well, I beg to differ because we had became a bad team. As evidenced by Shields, Leamington home - they were two horror shows.

And the defensive frailties had always been there from the previous season, it was when we became unable to score freely when that became a problem. We thought we were title contenders but we weren't, not with that defence - 71 goals conceded last season.

Gray's last 11/12 matches in charge contained the same amount of wins as Tommy's first 12 - one.

To me that seems like a continuation of shiteness rather than a new man coming in and fucking it all up. It was already fucked, man

And by the way, if you compare Gray's last 11/12 v Tommy's first 12, I reckon there will be more tougher matches in the latter.

Anyway, I'm sure that we can both agree that he started off poorly but has undeniably made some canny signings and without doubt has started to turn things around.

[Darlo_Pete]

We were poor for a while under Gray, hence me being the first calling for him to be sacked.

Pete I think the calls for Gray to be sacked came long before any poor run of this seasons form ..... have you forgotten the uproar after a certain fans forum

I think people were unhappy after the fans forum, but I don't think people were calling for him to be sacked. Yes people were very unhappy, but they were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, given his record over the previous seasons.

[loan_star]

Eh? You're talking out of your backside on this one.

Debate if you want to, but if you think I'm wrong on something don't be incredulous or insulting about it.

There's things you've said which I think are wrong and I never felt the need to accuse you of talking out of your backside.

Conversation over man.

Gramps is usually the first to call someone out on being insulting! I think Quakerz has both his reasoning and his reply spot on.

[Darlogramps]

I disagree. Little over a month before Gray's departure we started very strongly, winning at Salford, tonking Alfreton and getting a good result at York. Then we went on a terrible run. Our form was poor in that month, but you don't go from potential title contenders to relegation battlers in the space of six weeks.

Yes Gray left us in a bad state, I've never denied that. But Wright's lack of a plan, lack of strategy, lack of ideas when he first came in compounded the situation.

It's an undeniable fact that our form was poor right up until mid-January. Wright was in charge for three and a half months of that period so people have to concede he has a significant amount of responsibility for the position we were in. Some have tried to clear him of all blame when he was making massive mistakes.

Nor do I think that because TW has had a good run of form, that proves beyond all doubt he is the right man for us. But it has given him the right to take us into next season and put his stamp on the team.

Right, we are just going to have to disagree on this.

Well, when I say disagree, in reality we are talking about several minor points that are not worth losing sleep over or debating for ever.

You seem to be trying to minimise what the last 11/12 matches under Gray meant by declaring that it was only over a month or so and that we didn't become a bad team from title contenders overnight - well, I beg to differ because we had became a bad team. As evidenced by Shields, Leamington home - they were two horror shows.

And the defensive frailties had always been there from the previous season, it was when we became unable to score freely when that became a problem. We thought we were title contenders but we weren't, not with that defence - 71 goals conceded last season.

Gray's last 11/12 matches in charge contained the same amount of wins as Tommy's first 12 - one.

To me that seems like a continuation of shiteness rather than a new man coming in and fucking it all up. It was already fucked, man

And by the way, if you compare Gray's last 11/12 v Tommy's first 12, I reckon there will be more tougher matches in the latter.

Anyway, I'm sure that we can both agree that he started off poorly but has undeniably made some canny signings and without doubt has started to turn things around.

There's a lot we're agreeing on. No one can deny Wright started badly and has improved things. And we agree that Gray left us in a bad state.

The point we're arguing about is the extent to which TW was responsible for his poor results in the opening dozen games. I think a lot of people are trying to rewrite history by essentially laying all the responsibility at MG's door, and that Tommy Wright was having to clear up his mess.

I don't agree with that and don't think TW had any idea what he wanted to do when he took over. That meant it took too long for this side to be performing to the level it should, endangering our league status. It made a bad situation even worse.

If TW gets us into upper mid-table, I don't think that warrants him being hailed as the new messiah, as some are doing. In reality, that's what he should have been doing anyway. But TW will, deservedly, lead us into next season. There can be no excuses or blaming MG after that.

[loan_star]

The point we're arguing about is the extend to which TW was responsible for his poor results in the opening dozen games. I think a lot of people are trying to rewrite history by essentially laying all the responsibility at MG's door, and that Tommy Wright was having to clear up his mess.

Probably a mid ground here, not as bad as you reckon but not great either.

I don't agree with that and don't think TW had any idea what he wanted to do when he took over. That meant it took too long for this side to be performing to the level it should, endangering our league status. It made a bad situation even worse.

Disagree strongly here, Wright had every idea what he wanted to do but he didnt have the players suitable for it. Admittedly he was wrong to persist when it wasnt working and chopped and changed too much but once he had players in who were comfortable with the formation we started to improve although we have ended up with 4411 formation, the basis is still very similar but with one less centre half.

[Darlogramps]

I don't agree with that and don't think TW had any idea what he wanted to do when he took over. That meant it took too long for this side to be performing to the level it should, endangering our league status. It made a bad situation even worse.

Disagree strongly here, Wright had every idea what he wanted to do but he didnt have the players suitable for it. Admittedly he was wrong to persist when it wasnt working and chopped and changed too much but once he had players in who were comfortable with the formation we started to improve although we have ended up with 4411 formation, the basis is still very similar but with one less centre half.

Can understand your point, but I disagree (there's a surprise!) Either way, he struggled for a while to find what worked with the squad and players he had. I'm saying he's responsible for that and it made a bad situation worse. If he was chopping and changing too much, that would indicate after Plan A failed, he had no idea where to go next.

[D_F_C]

The biggest thing for me is playing 4 at the back. That's been the difference for me. Most of the players we have have always played in a four and moving systems to a 3 or a 5 would take a massive transition. 4 works and even though TW doesn't favour the 4-4-2, we've improved by sticking with the 4.