Harrogate Town A.F.C. v Swindon Town Matchday Thread

[DiV]

Fan ownership would make the club more sustainable in the long run as the club would have to live within its means and wouldn’t be able to rely on a owner to bankroll the club.

Realistically under this model the best Swindon could realistically achieve would be anywhere between a mid table league 1 team to a top end league 2 team.

I guess that’s a slight improvement on where we are now but I’m sure most fans would want Swindon to be near the top end of league 1 or even having a few seasons in the championship (all be it fighting off relegation). This will either take heavy investment or some brilliant recruitment.

I guess perhaps the long term goal with fan ownership is to get the club steady, debt free, living within it means and thus making it a better & viable business for a genuine business people to invest in (rather than outright buy & take full control) Even a 51/49 thing so the fan ownership still has the deciding vote on decisions because let’s be realistic here fan ownership isn’t going to suddenly given us competitive budget and war chest of cash for signings.

Unless the authorities are going to make serious and significant changes to the financial regulations in football then fan owned clubs are never going to compete.

Going back to the here and now.. does anybody think any manager we could realistically have would be doing a better job than Flynn right now?

I mean Mad Gav would probably have us winning every week but other than that.

In all seriousness: I don’t think Flynn is the problem here and a I don’t think a change would see much difference.


 However I will say I’m not entire convinced Flynn’s dedication to plan A & only plan A is all about the squad depth. Part of me thinks even if we did have a bigger squad and we did have more options to change things up we’d still play exactly like we are now and any subs would just be like for like - which would obviously help from a fatigue point of view but not from a doing something different point of view (a criticism fans of his previous clubs have with him) but that can’t be proven one way or the other currently.

[Bob1978]

Going back to the here and now.. does anybody think any manager we could realistically have would be doing a better job than Flynn right now?

No. When you don’t have funds you need to build  longer term aka Newport. I think Flynn needs January and next summer to sort the squad out. You only learn about individual player characters in adversity.

[ThreeDrawsMentality]

Going back to the here and now.. does anybody think any manager we could realistically have would be doing a better job than Flynn right now?

While I have a whole lot of sympathy for Flynn given the situation, Maher at Southend has shown that it is possible under even worse conditions.

[Peter Venkman]

I don’t think Flynn is the problem here and a I don’t think a change would see much difference.

However I will say I’m not entire convinced Flynn’s dedication to plan A & only plan A is all about the squad depth. Part of me thinks even if we did have a bigger squad and we did have more options to change things up we’d still play exactly like we are now and any subs would just be like for like - which would obviously help from a fatigue point of view but not from a doing something different point of view (a criticism fans of his previous clubs have with him) but that can’t be proven one way or the other currently.

I too think this FWIW, our lack of a plan B is a major downfall in Flynns management.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

I think we all know in our heart of hearts, exactly what's going to happen in January...

We do, but some are still convinced the rest of Clems competitive budget is going to come out and save us.

[JoeMezz]

I too think this FWIW, our lack of a plan B is a major downfall in Flynns management.

I don’t think he has the ability to go plan B with the squad we have tbf

[Peter Venkman]

I don’t think he has the ability to go plan B with the squad we have tbf

IMO it wouldnt be too difficult to go 4 at the back 4 of Dokes Minturn Brewitt and FBT and push Hutton and Kokolo into defensive winger roles then take Austin off and put 3 in the centre of midfield with Young up front, or any version of that.

That way both fullbacks should have extra protection from the wingbacks who are wingers and it allows us to be able to defend as a 4 unit at the back and yet the wingbacks/wingers can still get forwards and bolster the attack.

Just how I see it though.

[JoeMezz]

IMO it wouldnt be too difficult to go 4 at the back 4 of Dokes Minturn Brewitt and FBT and push Hutton and Kokolo into defensive winger roles then take Austin off and put 3 in the centre of midfield with Young up front, or any version of that.

That way both fullbacks should have extra protection from the wingbacks who are wingers and it allows us to be able to defend as a 4 unit at the back and yet the wingbacks/wingers can still get forwards and bolster the attack.

Just how I see it though.

Fair enough. Wouldn’t be too disappointed with that in tough away games

[Peter Venkman]

Fair enough. Wouldn’t be too disappointed with that in tough away games

I would certainly consider it if we are protecting a lead, which we seem to fail frequently doing.

[Frigby Daser]

I too think this FWIW, our lack of a plan B is a major downfall in Flynns management.

Agree. He’s been dealt a bad hand but isn’t playing it well at the moment. There was no need to change when we were playing well, but it seems we’re intent to try and rediscover our swashbuckling style rather than be pragmatic. I’ve not seen any rigid, defensive toughness in our formation all season. How hard should it be to go five at the back, with two men sitting in front when we want to hold onto a lead? But no, we play 3-1-4-2 and tell the opposition that they need to play one pass to open us up.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Would tightening up at the back detract from the one thing we are reasonably good at - attacking. If it did we’d have the worst of both worlds. I’m presuming that if Flynn thought we had the players capable of seeing a game out by being resolute we would.

Yesterday’s game showed up, yet again, how easy it is for the opposition to fashion big chances with a fairly simple, one dimensional approach. Even when we were pummelling sides we were still offering up chance after chance.

Chickens were always going to come home to roost. My question would be - is our present approach the one which  Flynn set out to play from the outset? Seeing as he missed out on a succession of CBs who to my knowledge weren’t in the marauding style, I suspect not.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

4 at the back should be fairly easy. I'd be tempted to drop Hutton and play Dokes at Right Back.

I'd go 4-2-3-1 but even that means we're struggling due to lack of fit players. Would work well if we had proper DCMs of even just Cain fit right now.

Mahoney

Dokes
Minturn
FBT
Kokolo

Kinsella
Khan

McEachran
Kemp
Cain

Young.


Reduces the reliance on a clearly smoked Charlie Austin.





Unfortunately by the time Cain gets fit or we get the chance to get some proper DCMs in, Young will be gone.

[Peter Venkman]

Would tightening up at the back detract from the one thing we are reasonably good at - attacking. If it did we’d have the worst of both worlds.

I understand what you are saying mate but strong defences dont lose you games, as long as you have a semi capable attack then you can grab a goal a game easily, but if you dont concede then you cant lose.

Strong attacks can win games but if you concede lots then it puts way more pressure onto the attacking players to score even more goals.

I have always believed that make a strong team defensively then you will win more games than you draw and you will draw more games than you lose.

Look at Stockport, they were decent but not outstanding going forwards, no flair players but they played as a total unit in defence and attack, the defended very well, much as Gills defended well without ever excelling in attack too yet both easily beat us in the end.

Get the defence right as a priority for me.

[Legends-Lounge]

I understand what you are saying mate but strong defences dont lose you games, as long as you have a semi capable attack then you can grab a goal a game easily, but if you dont concede then you cant lose.

Strong attacks can win games but if you concede lots then it puts way more pressure onto the attacking players to score even more goals.

I have always believed that make a strong team defensively then you will win more games than you draw and you will draw more games than you lose.

Look at Stockport, they were decent but not outstanding going forwards, no flair players but they played as a total unit in defence and attack, the defended very well, much as Gills defended well without ever excelling in attack too yet both easily beat us in the end.

Get the defence right as a priority for me.

I was always taught build your defence first. It is akin to the foundations of a building.

[Peter Venkman]

I was always taught build your defence first. It is akin to the foundations of a building.

Exactly that.