The manager's performances

[slider]

I feel we perhaps lost to a better side yesterday, and whatever the tactics on the day we would have
have lost, having said that I cannot remark on the managers strategy as I am not qualified to do so,
and only those who are should.

 

[lambanog]

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.

Have you ever heard the expression, ine swallow does not make a summer and more Importantly a team should not rely on one man, if they do they are not a team, and to me that description typifies Argyle

In my honest opinion, the fat lady has finished singing and its L2 next season. Argyle are just not up to it. Results prove it, burying facts under the sand and wearing green tints cannot and will not change reality.

 

[philevs]

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.

Is it really that "things go against us" as if by some chance occurrence, or is it perhaps that the tactics employed lead to poor performances and poor results?
I have no wish to criticise the manager's performance just for the sake of it, all I am trying to do is get an angle on why we perform like yesterday.
If there is some relationship between the manager's strategies and the results of matches, then as I see it it must be in everyone's interest (including his own, I would add) for him to improve his performance.

 

[Ade the green]

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.

Have you ever heard the expression, ine swallow does not make a summer and more Importantly a team should not rely on one man, if they do they are not a team, and to me that description typifies Argyle

In my honest opinion, the fat lady has finished singing and its L2 next season. Argyle are just not up to it. Results prove it, burying facts under the sand and wearing green tints cannot and will not change reality.

Rather a green tint than a surrender monkey! Plenty of points still to play for but if you want to give up now.....

 

[GreenSam]

lambanog,

Thing is though, if we get 4 points out of the next two games then it won't be season over will it.

We are 1 point off with 13 games left to play. I'm not a green tint, just in no way does that possibly signify 'season over'.

 

[PAFC94]

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.

Have you ever heard the expression, ine swallow does not make a summer and more Importantly a team should not rely on one man, if they do they are not a team, and to me that description typifies Argyle

In my honest opinion, the fat lady has finished singing and its L2 next season. Argyle are just not up to it. Results prove it, burying facts under the sand and wearing green tints cannot and will not change reality.

Yes I have heard that expression and I don't know how it possibly applies to my post.

We have a strong Starting XI but when one or two key players pick up injuries we look so much weaker as we have no strength in depth, as evidenced by our post Xmas spell where we had no O'Connor, Hartley and a few others missed a couple of games. If we can steer clear of injuries I think we have every chance of the top 7.

As has been said to call it season over is a bit premature, 1 point off of the play-offs with a quarter of the season to go, it's more than possible.

 

[Greenskin]

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.

Is it really that "things go against us" as if by some chance occurrence, or is it perhaps that the tactics employed lead to poor performances and poor results?
I have no wish to criticise the manager's performance just for the sake of it, all I am trying to do is get an angle on why we perform like yesterday.
If there is some relationship between the manager's strategies and the results of matches, then as I see it it must be in everyone's interest (including his own, I would add) for him to improve his performance.

OK, you criticise the bloke if and when he gets things wrong, fair enough-he may or may not have got things wrong yesterday, matter of opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it-my view is that the absence of Reid and the strength of the Bury bench [Rose, Lowe and Sedgewick sitting there waiting to come on,all experienced pro's with the capacity for a goal or two] were the most critical factors. But then, surely there must be some sort of counterbalance in your view point when Argyle win? For instance, were you on here last Saturday saying that Sheridan tactically outclassed Tisdale or the Tuesday before, when Argyle won at Wycombe-was Ainsworth outthought by our manager? I wasn't because I believe that categorising things in that way is rather an over simplification and gets nowhere near the truth of why Argyle or most other teams in this and many other divisions are inconsistent. Personally I believe that the area where Argyle fall down is the lack of scoring ability in other areas of the team apart from the strikers which has been obvious all of the season and is a major reason for the lack of comeback power-personnel rather than tactics. Fair game to ask why the personnel is badly balanced in that way-maybe the manager has got his recruitment wrong, maybe goal scoring midfielders don't come cheaply but whatever, it's certainly the Achilles heel of this Argyle squad and could well come back to haunt them at season's end. Hope not though.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

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.

It's unfair to say John Sheridan has no plan B. He is obviously working on alternatives to "A" which can be seen by the introduction of Kelvin Mellor in a striking roll. I cannot believe that he just had a brainwave on the touchline and decided to put Mellor up front. That would have been planned as an option and would have been worked on in training. Sadly for JS it didn't come off this time but it is proof that alternative tactics are in the locker.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

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?

:facepalm:

I guess if JS played a midfielder whilst on a three match ban, it would be fair to slaughter the manager when the FL deduct points for fielding an ineligible player :doh:

 

[pearces greens]

why don't we start with plan B, if that does not work, change to plan A ? Ha Ha

 

[GreenArmy1984]

13 Games To Go !!! ( +3 ) Play Offs

In Sheridan We Trust :scarf:

 

[PL2 3DQ]

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.

It's unfair to say John Sheridan has no plan B. He is obviously working on alternatives to "A" which can be seen by the introduction of Kelvin Mellor in a striking roll. I cannot believe that he just had a brainwave on the touchline and decided to put Mellor up front. That would have been planned as an option and would have been worked on in training. Sadly for JS it didn't come off this time but it is proof that alternative tactics are in the locker.

If I said Sheridan doesn't have a Plan B that works, ie: we come back to win after conceding first, would that get past your all knowing critical eye?

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

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.

It's unfair to say John Sheridan has no plan B. He is obviously working on alternatives to "A" which can be seen by the introduction of Kelvin Mellor in a striking roll. I cannot believe that he just had a brainwave on the touchline and decided to put Mellor up front. That would have been planned as an option and would have been worked on in training. Sadly for JS it didn't come off this time but it is proof that alternative tactics are in the locker.

If I said Sheridan doesn't have a Plan B that works, ie: we come back to win after conceding first, would that get past your all knowing critical eye?

I wasn't being critical Ian. I just meant that going behind doesn't necessarily mean a change of tactics is needed. You can concede and keep playing your game and still come out on top. His plan B of Mellor up front must have looked promising on the training ground for them to give it a go. I know it didn't work but it just shows that they ARE working new ideas.

 

[Cobi Budge.]

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.

Can't agree.

While Reuben was a big loss and we struggled without him, that had nothing to do with the fact we conceded two sloppy goals, one a free header after THD messed up and one when we stopped because we thought they were offside, that's the reason we lost, a 0 0 would have been an acceptable result without Reid.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

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.

Can't agree.

While Reuben was a big loss and we struggled without him, that had nothing to do with the fact we conceded two sloppy goals, one a free header after THD messed up and one when we stopped because we thought they were offside, that's the reason we lost, a 0 0 would have been an acceptable result without Reid.

Isn't funny how teams concede "sloppy" goals but never score them :greensmile: