Should.....

[land_of_bo]

Just had a look through, same old people saying this though. Who do they seriously think we could/would get instead? He's what we've got and IMO its pointless droning on with the King out shite, espescially after reading about the game today, seemingly although people didn't agree with the formation we were very unlucky not to get a point. I know Warsaw are nowt special, but to be fair neither are we at this point in time!

Don't fancy our next 4 games much...

Southend home (Win)
Bournmuff away (Lose)
Bradofrd home (Draw)
Donny away (Lose)

Bottom by October at this rate!

Ps sorry to be so optimistic!

[Reg Smeeton]

Just as well we won the six pointer with Yeovil otherwise we'd be bottom tonight.....I fucking hate relegation struggles.....but the indicators are there.

  A lot will want to see King walk.....but I'm not sure its the answer.

I can't see us being in a relegation struggle at any point this season, unless of course King persists with 4-5-1.

I've been looking at thisisstfc tonight, it's manic over there, people are rabid.

 I think we're already in it,  all the indicators are there...poor away form and no ability to score.....difficulty winning home games,  being outplayed for long periods.....lots of young players and loans, and short term contracts suggesting a lack of commitment....losing straight away in a cup competition, when being outclassed by a team from a lower league...who've not won since.

 Getting injuries to important players ....Reeeeeves, Evans, O'Hanlon.

[land_of_bo]

Yep we've got it bad. God its all doom and gloom here! Lets hope by some miracle we win our next 4, then we'll be talking about playoffs  

I need cheering up. Its sat night and sat in front of PC's cos can't have a drink as I broke my thumb playing cricket last night, might have to have a pin in the fucker so I am dosed up on pain killers at the mo. Shit all on TV, girlfriend working in pub....woe is me!

[DiV]

Relegation struggle......no chance....we wont struggle

We're be bottom by miles....

Changing the manager would help, but wont be done because when it comes down to it, the board judge King on cost cutting not football. So the only time they will sack him, is if the attendences take a massive decrease...

[Reg Smeeton]

The only saving grace is that although we're crap, we're still above Shitty....and O*ford have won less games than us and lost to STFC again.

[Reg Smeeton]

Relegation struggle......no chance....we wont struggle

We're be bottom by miles....

Changing the manager would help, but wont be done because when it comes down to it, the board judge King on cost cutting not football. So the only time they will sack him, is if the attendences take a massive decrease...

 Now those seasons and we've had 2 or 3 are horrible....like 99/00 when relegetion is inevitable around October....and your just really fulfilling the fixtures with no hope of being properly competitive....I'd be surprised by one of those in this league, but rather see more like 82/83....our only relegation from this league, when we got 52 points and went down 4th bottom.

 Similarities an early run of 4 games away with no goal, lots of young players and seemingly quality strikers (Rowland Rideout Quinn) who couldn't score because of poor service.

[Crozzer]

....the Yeovil game already be seen as a relegation six pointer?

  On our present form we'll accumulate 46 points which is not enough to stay up.....of more concern is that we now haven't scored in an away game for 5 consecutive games, since Grunt Sniff's header at the Dongs.

 These are the kind of stats you can only find in disaster seasons like 73/74 and 99/00.

 I know the games span two different seasons, but do point to a weakness that King hasn't properly addressed over the summer.

Swindon under King have had some good streaks.  Teams get relegated, often, after losing confidence, even with good ability.  Teams that don't look like they are trying, aren't necessarily lacking fitness, players are concentrating on not making mistakes, or being too ambituious.  Some players, in a struggling side, don't want to get in positions to receive the ball.  

I read Clough's autobiography, he made sure the players had no worries, and were totally relaxed on match days.  They all had to go together on the bus for away games, for example.  Nobody was allowed to drive to an away game.  O.K. so Clough was manager when Forest got relegated.  He wrote that he didn't listen to his coaches about a central defender who kept playing them into trouble (can't remember his name but he played for Swindon on loan).

Looking at the Walsall and Tranmere games, according to the reports, the players put in good performances, but the final ball was lacking.  Going 3:4:3 to chase the game produced nothing.  Confidence, or ability does not seem to be the issue, but if you play 4:5:1, how are you going to keep more than one striker sharp.  The team, I believe is better than last year's, but with a whole group of new players, including more strikers than we are used to, why not stick to 4:4:2, at least its a familiar way of playing.  Also, if you state that you put much of the wage bill into goal scorers, why not play them.

Yeovil will stay up, and upset several of the top teams in the process,  They'll sort it out.

[Reg Smeeton]

Carl Tiler?

[mexico red]

we wont go down, with a bit of luck we would have won today, and our luck will change, we played walsall off the park today but they got the rub of the green, it wont always be like that.

[Crozzer]

Carl Tiler?

Reg, you are not human, Carl Tiler it was.

[DiV]

....the Yeovil game already be seen as a relegation six pointer?

  On our present form we'll accumulate 46 points which is not enough to stay up.....of more concern is that we now haven't scored in an away game for 5 consecutive games, since Grunt Sniff's header at the Dongs.

 These are the kind of stats you can only find in disaster seasons like 73/74 and 99/00.

 I know the games span two different seasons, but do point to a weakness that King hasn't properly addressed over the summer.

Swindon under King have had some good streaks.  Teams get relegated, often, after losing confidence, even with good ability.  Teams that don't look like they are trying, aren't necessarily lacking fitness, players are concentrating on not making mistakes, or being too ambituious.  Some players, in a struggling side, don't want to get in positions to receive the ball.  

I read Clough's autobiography, he made sure the players had no worries, and were totally relaxed on match days.  They all had to go together on the bus for away games, for example.  Nobody was allowed to drive to an away game.  O.K. so Clough was manager when Forest got relegated.  He wrote that he didn't listen to his coaches about a central defender who kept playing them into trouble (can't remember his name but he played for Swindon on loan).

Looking at the Walsall and Tranmere games, according to the reports, the players put in good performances, but the final ball was lacking.  Going 3:4:3 to chase the game produced nothing.  Confidence, or ability does not seem to be the issue, but if you play 4:5:1, how are you going to keep more than one striker sharp.  The team, I believe is better than last year's, but with a whole group of new players, including more strikers than we are used to, why not stick to 4:4:2, at least its a familiar way of playing.  Also, if you state that you put much of the wage bill into goal scorers, why not play them.

Yeovil will stay up, and upset several of the top teams in the process,  They'll sort it out.

Dont know where everyone is getting this 'we went 3-4-3' from

Against Tranny we did, once Ben Wells came on, against Walsall Cureton and Roberts were playing too wide and too dep to be classed as strikers

[Crozzer]

You were at the game and King calls it 3:4:3 (Tranmere after match interview), so that's obviously correct.  Against Walsall, per your description we must have stayed 4:5:1 or gone 4:3:2:1.  

I guess the point is play your strikers, get in front, then exploit the other team chasing the game, otherwise contain.  We seem to be in the contain, then chase the game, mode away from home.  

I just want them to play 4:4:2, an inherently flexible system, you are 2:4:4, with the ball, and wingers (left or right midfielders) and full backs up, and then 4:4:2, when you track back without posession.  O.K., you shift over a bit, so it isn't quite that simple.  One central midfielder may be tasked with covering the back four (Pook, or Oolitt's job), and another may be tasked with supporting the strikers (Andy King, himself as a player, a good example).  We play 4:5:1 presumably to get more posession, being a sole striker worked for Linekar (or that German guy, Rumeninger(sp?), but you have to have pace, mobility, and great ball control, to find space among four defenders, and retain posession. Also, you have to play the ball from midfield  to the lone strikers feet, while he is making a run.  Fallon isn't Linekar,and Stef. isn't Hoddle.

We seemed to have dumped 4:4:2, because Shakes and Nicolau, were not getting accurate crosses into the box. Surely, crossing a ball is a much easier skill to perfect than inch-perfect through balls to a lone striker.  If the cross isn't perfect, but it's in there, all needs for a sloppy bit of defending and you could be on the scoresheet.  With one striker, you might get away with being sloppy in defence all afternoon.


If we aren't good enough to compete with two strikers awy from home, why are we in this league?  Why was the wage bill directed at strikers, and we leave them on the bench.

[DiV]

You were at the game and King calls it 3:4:3 (Tranmere after match interview), so that's obviously correct.  Against Walsall, per your description we must have stayed 4:5:1 or gone 4:3:2:1.  

I guess the point is play your strikers, get in front, then exploit the other team chasing the game, otherwise contain.  We seem to be in the contain, then chase the game, mode away from home.  

I just want them to play 4:4:2, an inherently flexible system, you are 2:4:4, with the ball, and wingers (left or right midfielders) and full backs up, and then 4:4:2, when you track back without posession.  O.K., you shift over a bit, so it isn't quite that simple.  One central midfielder may be tasked with covering the back four (Pook, or Oolitt's job), and another may be tasked with supporting the strikers (Andy King, himself as a player, a good example).  We play 4:5:1 presumably to get more posession, being a sole striker worked for Linekar (or that German guy, Rumeninger(sp?), but you have to have pace, mobility, and great ball control, to find space among four defenders, and retain posession. Also, you have to play the ball from midfield  to the lone strikers feet, while he is making a run.  Fallon isn't Linekar,and Stef. isn't Hoddle.

We seemed to have dumped 4:4:2, because Shakes and Nicolau, were not getting accurate crosses into the box. Surely, crossing a ball is a much easier skill to perfect than inch-perfect through balls to a lone striker.  If the cross isn't perfect, but it's in there, all needs for a sloppy bit of defending and you could be on the scoresheet.  With one striker, you might get away with being sloppy in defence all afternoon.


If we aren't good enough to compete with two strikers awy from home, why are we in this league?  Why was the wage bill directed at strikers, and we leave them on the bench.

Id agree with most of that, like I said Cureton and Roberts were both certainly hugging the touch line, when really they should have been more central if they were playing as strikers in my opinion.

[normy]

You were at the game and King calls it 3:4:3 (Tranmere after match interview), so that's obviously correct.  Against Walsall, per your description we must have stayed 4:5:1 or gone 4:3:2:1.  

I guess the point is play your strikers, get in front, then exploit the other team chasing the game, otherwise contain.  We seem to be in the contain, then chase the game, mode away from home.  

I just want them to play 4:4:2, an inherently flexible system, you are 2:4:4, with the ball, and wingers (left or right midfielders) and full backs up, and then 4:4:2, when you track back without posession.  O.K., you shift over a bit, so it isn't quite that simple.  One central midfielder may be tasked with covering the back four (Pook, or Oolitt's job), and another may be tasked with supporting the strikers (Andy King, himself as a player, a good example).  We play 4:5:1 presumably to get more posession, being a sole striker worked for Linekar (or that German guy, Rumeninger(sp?), but you have to have pace, mobility, and great ball control, to find space among four defenders, and retain posession. Also, you have to play the ball from midfield  to the lone strikers feet, while he is making a run.  Fallon isn't Linekar,and Stef. isn't Hoddle.

We seemed to have dumped 4:4:2, because Shakes and Nicolau, were not getting accurate crosses into the box. Surely, crossing a ball is a much easier skill to perfect than inch-perfect through balls to a lone striker.  If the cross isn't perfect, but it's in there, all needs for a sloppy bit of defending and you could be on the scoresheet.  With one striker, you might get away with being sloppy in defence all afternoon.


If we aren't good enough to compete with two strikers awy from home, why are we in this league?  Why was the wage bill directed at strikers, and we leave them on the bench.

Well put, and it seems so obvious. It worries me that Mr King seems to have more regard for not losing heavily than trying to win each game, regardless of home or away, or the perceived strength of opposition.

If this is true, it is a relegation mentality which is not acceptable. I hope and trust that he will turn it around and always start decisively with 4-4-2 before Fallon is dead or pissed off.

[janaage]

The thing is I'd hate to go down playing such negative football away from home.  If we're gonna struggle this year, which I'm not saying we are, let's struggle on with all guns blazing.  PLaying attacking football.  Some sides in this division wouldn't know what's hit them if we turned up going for it.  

Instead of turning up packing the midfield, tall man up front alone looking for any scraps.

"Let's play ball guys" as my american mate would say.