-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
This has to be THE reason why................
- Thread starter TinTin
- Start date
It seems to me that Fletcher is contunually clutching at straws. He seems to have a philosophy to play pretty passing football, but that's it. He doesn't seem to know how to execute it effectively. The constant changing of formation and personnel is indicative of that. It's like he's trying to find a system that works and tries different things from one week to the next hoping to stumble upon the answer.
There seemed to be one point at which he may have found it - the 4-2-3-1 with Gurrieri in the hole. We went on a little run with that system. Gurrieri was outstanding, then suddenly we lose a couple and he's abandoned it again.
It all smacks of a manager who is learning his trade on the job with us.
People who back Fletcher seem to base their argument on the need for stability. I agree we need stability, but on the pitch. Flecther isn't providing stability. The players heads must be spinning, not knowing from one week to the next what system they are playing, what position, or even whether they will be in the team regardless of how well they have performed.
I remember Sturrock often talking about players at this level needing things to be simple, simple instructions, to know their position, their role in a set system, shape, and do the simple things. He also played the percentage game - we scored so many goals from set pieces. I don't see any evidence at all that we work on set pieces. We pose very little threat at them in an attacking sense, and we're terrible at defending them. Set pieces are worth a whole load of points, but Fletcher seems to be focused solely on an idealist pretty football approach, and the ugly basic stuff needed at this level is neglected.
There seemed to be one point at which he may have found it - the 4-2-3-1 with Gurrieri in the hole. We went on a little run with that system. Gurrieri was outstanding, then suddenly we lose a couple and he's abandoned it again.
It all smacks of a manager who is learning his trade on the job with us.
People who back Fletcher seem to base their argument on the need for stability. I agree we need stability, but on the pitch. Flecther isn't providing stability. The players heads must be spinning, not knowing from one week to the next what system they are playing, what position, or even whether they will be in the team regardless of how well they have performed.
I remember Sturrock often talking about players at this level needing things to be simple, simple instructions, to know their position, their role in a set system, shape, and do the simple things. He also played the percentage game - we scored so many goals from set pieces. I don't see any evidence at all that we work on set pieces. We pose very little threat at them in an attacking sense, and we're terrible at defending them. Set pieces are worth a whole load of points, but Fletcher seems to be focused solely on an idealist pretty football approach, and the ugly basic stuff needed at this level is neglected.
The Doctor":3vvh2wrq said:
I think this might be the original article:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/foo ... 331087.ece
