The manager's performances

Agree with the tactics or not, he is the person entrusted with managing our side and is in a better place to do it than us keyboard warriors, if his tactics had worked and we had won or drawn we would be saying great tactics. However they didn't. That is football. Game of two halves, you win some you lose some, the rub of the green wasn't there yesterday.

philevs":2ejhpim7 said:

Is there anyone on here who is in full agreement with the manager's tactical decisions yesterday?

Before someone says it: no, you won't get comments such as these when we are winning, because there is no need for them, but when we get performances like yesterday's, of course people are going to bring this topic up again. These comments are my possibly futile attempt to try to get things to improve. I feel entitled to make them because, at the end of the day, I am a customer, and what I am paying to see is not always up to much. Over 7000 people paid over £100,000 to watch yesterday's display, and they are entitled to feel pi$$ed off if that is how they feel. I live a long way away, so don't get to many home matches, but the last home game I went to (Morecambe) cost me over a hundred quid, and it was dire. I shall go to Dagenham and it will cost me about seventy quid.

My specific questions about yesterday would be:
Why was Cox started in place of Lee, and ahead of Norburn? Surely a defensive strategy from the outset. As proven. Lee was suspended.
Why was Blizzard brought on, again ahead of Norburn? Hardly an attacking strategy. When does Norburn in fact get a game at all, if not today?
Why was Mellor put on as a striker ahead of Harvey, or indeed why not put Nelson up front? An incomprehensible move. As proven when Mellor fluffed a great chance.
Why did he put on all three subs at the same time? As proven when we lost Mellor for five minutes injured. How was he to know Mellor would get injured?
Why bring on subs ten minutes after they scored, and only give them thirteen minutes on the pitch? And?


Such baffling decisions on the manager's part are the reason why many on here think he is quite probably not tactically up to the job. There is a consistent pattern of bewildering decisions taking place, this is not just a one-off occurrence. One win in two seasons after going behind, does say an awful lot. He occasionally manages to get the team playing well, but then presides over it going to pieces, just at the wrong moments, and usually in front of a decent crowd.


Leaving aside such comments as "Who else are we going to get?" or "It's the best season we've had in years", is such a view of the manager's performances unreasonable, based on what we often see taking place?

Click to expand...

And why not mention that these threads don't happen when we're winning? He could be making 'mistakes' when we win, we just don't see them. Why after 1 loss in 5 do people have to propose a change of manager? and yes we have the best chance of getting in the playoffs this season then we've had for a few years and you'd have the team and club upset now? We're nearing the business end of the season and come what may, we have to ride out this wave and see where it takes us.

Oh, and when you start a discussion, it's polite to let someone else answer instead of throwing out arguments that can't be used! You could always come up with a name of this messiah you believe is out there. That could be a showstopper.

philevs":9vskcuoz said:

Is there anyone on here who is in full agreement with the manager's tactical decisions yesterday?

Before someone says it: no, you won't get comments such as these when we are winning, because there is no need for them, but when we get performances like yesterday's, of course people are going to bring this topic up again. These comments are my possibly futile attempt to try to get things to improve. I feel entitled to make them because, at the end of the day, I am a customer, and what I am paying to see is not always up to much. Over 7000 people paid over £100,000 to watch yesterday's display, and they are entitled to feel pi$$ed off if that is how they feel. I live a long way away, so don't get to many home matches, but the last home game I went to (Morecambe) cost me over a hundred quid, and it was dire. I shall go to Dagenham and it will cost me about seventy quid.

My specific questions about yesterday would be:
Why was Cox started in place of Leeand ahead of Norburn? Surely a defensive strategy from the outset. As proven.
Why was Blizzard brought on, again ahead of Norburn? Hardly an attacking strategy. When does Norburn in fact get a game at all, if not today?
Why was Mellor put on as a striker ahead of Harvey, or indeed why not put Nelson up front? An incomprehensible move. As proven when Mellor fluffed a great chance.
Why did he put on all three subs at the same time? As proven when we lost Mellor for five minutes injured.
Why bring on subs ten minutes after they scored, and only give them thirteen minutes on the pitch?


Such baffling decisions on the manager's part are the reason why many on here think he is quite probably not tactically up to the job. There is a consistent pattern of bewildering decisions taking place, this is not just a one-off occurrence. One win in two seasons after going behind, does say an awful lot. He occasionally manages to get the team playing well, but then presides over it going to pieces, just at the wrong moments, and usually in front of a decent crowd.


Leaving aside such comments as "Who else are we going to get?" or "It's the best season we've had in years", is such a view of the manager's performances unreasonable, based on what we often see taking place?

Click to expand...

:facepalm:

If we had won then his actions wound have been labelled as brilliance.

We got it wrong yesterday, the focus now has to be on the next match with getting at least a point.

StaddyGreen":38n651hk said:

Agree with the tactics or not, he is the person entrusted with managing our side and is in a better place to do it than us keyboard warriors, if his tactics had worked and we had won or drawn we would be saying great tactics. However they didn't. That is football. Game of two halves, you win some you lose some, the rub of the green wasn't there yesterday.

Click to expand...

Pulled out some top drawer football clichés!

StaddyGreen":15om4otd said:

...if his tactics had worked and we had won or drawn we would be saying great tactics. However they didn't. That is football. Game of two halves, you win some you lose some...

Click to expand...

Surely that's like saying there's a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery - you either win it or you don't. Which we all know isn't true.

Putting a natural finisher in place of the chance Mellor had, odds are they would have done better. It's not rocket science is it?!

The reason we lost yesterday is as simple as this for me. No Reuben Reid.

It proves to me that even when Reuben's not on tip top form he is vital to the team as his presence, power and ability gives others more space. Bury had Brunt in their pockets all day and Etuhu controlled the game.

We may not have won with Reuben but we would have stood a much much better chance with him.

I know when you look at it bringing Mellor on instead of Harvey seems strange but would Harvey have really made a difference?

Hopefully Reuben back in for Tuesday and we can get a result.

Ade the green":7uu59qhg said:

philevs":7uu59qhg said:

Is there anyone on here who is in full agreement with the manager's tactical decisions yesterday?

Before someone says it: no, you won't get comments such as these when we are winning, because there is no need for them, but when we get performances like yesterday's, of course people are going to bring this topic up again. These comments are my possibly futile attempt to try to get things to improve. I feel entitled to make them because, at the end of the day, I am a customer, and what I am paying to see is not always up to much. Over 7000 people paid over £100,000 to watch yesterday's display, and they are entitled to feel pi$$ed off if that is how they feel. I live a long way away, so don't get to many home matches, but the last home game I went to (Morecambe) cost me over a hundred quid, and it was dire. I shall go to Dagenham and it will cost me about seventy quid.

My specific questions about yesterday would be:
Why was Cox started in place of Lee, and ahead of Norburn? Surely a defensive strategy from the outset. As proven. Lee was suspended.
Why was Blizzard brought on, again ahead of Norburn? Hardly an attacking strategy. When does Norburn in fact get a game at all, if not today?
Why was Mellor put on as a striker ahead of Harvey, or indeed why not put Nelson up front? An incomprehensible move. As proven when Mellor fluffed a great chance.
Why did he put on all three subs at the same time? As proven when we lost Mellor for five minutes injured. How was he to know Mellor would get injured?
Why bring on subs ten minutes after they scored, and only give them thirteen minutes on the pitch? And?


Such baffling decisions on the manager's part are the reason why many on here think he is quite probably not tactically up to the job. There is a consistent pattern of bewildering decisions taking place, this is not just a one-off occurrence. One win in two seasons after going behind, does say an awful lot. He occasionally manages to get the team playing well, but then presides over it going to pieces, just at the wrong moments, and usually in front of a decent crowd.


Leaving aside such comments as "Who else are we going to get?" or "It's the best season we've had in years", is such a view of the manager's performances unreasonable, based on what we often see taking place?

Click to expand...

And why not mention that these threads don't happen when we're winning? He could be making 'mistakes' when we win, we just don't see them. Why after 1 loss in 5 do people have to propose a change of manager? and yes we have the best chance of getting in the playoffs this season then we've had for a few years and you'd have the team and club upset now? We're nearing the business end of the season and come what may, we have to ride out this wave and see where it takes us.

Oh, and when you start a discussion, it's polite to let someone else answer instead of throwing out arguments that can't be used! You could always come up with a name of this messiah you believe is out there. That could be a showstopper.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You don't hear a peep from people like this bloke for weeks on end when Argyle are winning but as soon as the streak ends, in they come with their tactical "expertise". Very interesting that the absence of Reid and the inevitable effect that it had on Argyle and indeed the opposition yesterday doesn't get much of a mention-was it really that trivial? One question which Mr Evs and his ilk have never been very successful in answering when asked before is, if Sheridan is such a tactical dillbrain, how on earth did he win this division with Chesterfield? Awaits enlightened reply with baited breath.

I'm going to back up the OP here.

Sheridan is not a particularly good tactical manager. He played Carl McHugh at left-back for three months. He plays Tyler Harvey as a deep midfielder. He played Maxime Blanchard at right-back. He played Durrell Berry at left-back to accommodate this. This season, he took a couple of months to find a good formation. We haven't won a game from behind for two years. These are not the actions of a good tactician.

To be fair to Sheridan, I think starting Cox over Norburn was a decent decision and he didn't have a bad game. But playing Mellor up front is absolutely bewildering - Nelson, O'Connor or Holmes-Dennis would have all made better emergency strikers. He has players who he just won't play even if the game is crying out for them: that's now Harvey and Norburn, and it was Thomas.

I can look in that game in isolation and say we were unlucky and lost to a very good side. But we're eighth with this side. That's underachievement. With this team, we should be aiming for automatic promotion, not seventh place. The two Reids, all of our back three and arguably some others are all too good for this division. Teams above us like Newport, Wycombe and Burton would never have had a hope of signing a player of Reuben's quality and wage demands in the summer. We might be in a good position for the play-offs (as seventh seems to be the height of anyone's ambitions) but there are seven teams in a better position right now.

Some of the responses to the OP are ridiculous. He'd do a better job than some mug off Pasoti? I don't doubt that - but we're not calling for ourselves to manage the team, just a manager who might stop making baffling tactical decisions.

We weren't doing it when we were winning? No, we weren't. But that doesn't mean I was a fan of Sheridan even when we were winning - I just held it in. Don't say you wouldn't be the first person to jump on someone if they did criticise Sheridan after an Argyle win.

If we had won we would be hailing him as a genius. Auntie. Balls. Uncle.

Much has been pointed to the fact Reuben Reid was absent - but should we be as bereft in attack as we are with him absent? In my opinion, Bobby Reid, Alessandra, Talbot and Holmes-Dennis are all quality attacking players for this division, yet they didn't offer much. Is Sheridan overly reliant on one player?

I don't think Sheridan's a terrible manager, because he signs such good players. He's just not very good at tactically managing them.

That's it in a nutshell for me.

It would be churlish to criticise while everything is rosy but I've never taken to JS since he's been here.

A square peg in a round hole yet again yesterday, and it's never worked for us.

I don't lay all the blame at his door for yesterday - some of our play was totally brainless and there was some woeful passing.

Anyway, move on and make plans for pi55ing off Westley on Tuesday.

I think Sheridan will be remembered for having a very good Plan A if we score first and no Plan B if we concede first.

I also think this monkey on our back of not coming back to win after going behind is now affecting the players, the whole team look visibly deflated when Bury scored the first goal. The players and the fans just knew it was game over or a draw was the best we could expect.

If we ever do come back to win a game after conceding first we'll have a very good consistent team.

Everyone would be thou if we had got something from the game.

So easy to criticise when things go against us by highlighting all the negative things.

Tugboat":2qlzkid4 said:

Everyone would be thou if we had got something from the game.

So easy to criticise when things go against us by highlighting all the negative things.

Click to expand...

What llike the fact we lost, only had 37% possession etc?
Sheridans post match comments are hilarious. 'The only difference between the sides was the result'. :lol:
Also states we would have won if we had scored first and we missed our chances but
'We tried, and there was no lack of effort, but we didn’t really create any openings'. Confused or what?

I'm afraid wins over the likes of Ex*t*r with their Keystone Cops defending dont paper over the cracks, as pleasurable as it may be.