You're confusing me. You've said I didn't say Moore would be better than TW, then quoted me saying just that. You'll need to explain that one.TDS wrote:No you said:Darlogramps wrote:I didn't say he'd be less of a risk. I said I think he'd do better, which is different.Darlogramps wrote:As for replacement, there's loads we could go for. Hardy, McGurk, R.Moore, C.Moore, Flanagan. There are more. All would be better than TW......
He's also replaced the departed players with loanees, so it's hardly as if no one else has come in.I think the suggestion was let’s take a more practical approach to the situation we find ourselves in. Is it wrong to suggest we are up against it in terms of budget constraints? Nope, would apply no matter who you brought in. Is it wrong to suggest losing your talisman striker would be the difference between mid-table and playoffs? Nope, most would agree.
And I saw plenty of players NOT playing for him before Xmas, so what's your point?TDS wrote: Has TW been a bit hamstrung by Caton, Collins, Burgess all on long expensive contracts that we’ve still not fully absolved from the budget? Absolutely. Things that would be half his responsibility but would still impact his ability to compete are Hughes and Ainge weight issues (at this level you need the players to take accountability for themselves 75% of the time) along with Burn and Maddison not performing as expected (not sure many would suggest two players from the FL would be as underwhelming, although I still think both have enough to come good). Can we really throw the line the players aren’t playing for TW still? I saw none of that over Xmas.
When inconsistency has been such an issue for us, not just this season but throughout TW's tenure, selecting three out of four games over Xmas and saying it's the rule is nonsense.
Totally simplistic and reductionist take on the arguments against Wright. It's not about us not being in the play-offs. It's the tactical faults, the summer recruitment problems, allowing players not to turn up for training, failure to bring in loan signings until it was infuriatingly late.TDS wrote: I guess the overriding point is it cannot simply be about “DJ said playoffs, we aren’t in the playoffs = sack him”.
Yes he's done good things too, but to ignore the negatives is just as counter-productive.
[/quote]TDS wrote: The weird obsession with taking all positives away from TW (loan singings, Heaton, recent form) is more in line with a chip on the shoulder as opposed to being objective. He has failings, some he might overcome, some he might not. Ignoring the positives is just as bad as the head-in-the-sand happy clappers.
Ultimately, we will not be sacking him this season and there has been a counter-productive attitude building lately which we cannot afford. Let’s pull together in the same direction under the blatantly obvious fact that nothing is changing soon.
No one's taking any positives away from him. But they have to be tempered with reality. Heaton was already on our radar before TW arrived - but TW got the best out of him. We were in dire straights before the loan signings came in and rejuvenated us. It's not as simple as you're making out. I've repeatedly given TW credit, but some people are so desperate for TW to do well, they'll leap on any positives and pretend everything is fine and wonderful. It's not.
As Quakerz/Ghost_of_1883 points out, our record this season is woeful, particularly for a side that should be competing towards the play-offs (as our own chief exec + TW said in the summer). Inconsistency has dogged us throughout TW's spell in charge and we never know which side will turn up - the one v Nuneaton at home and York away, or the one v Kidderminster at home?
And saying "Nothing is changing so shut up and get on with it" is frankly the weakest discussion tactic I've seen. Like it or not, Wright has his flaws and people will continue to have their doubts. And they should continue expressing them if they so wish. These three wins over Xmas are welcome, but let's not pretend our problems don't exist, or that a good run of form means we should ignore them. It's not counter-productive to point out what he's getting wrong.