{ the forum }
 
An independent supporters' website dedicated to Mansfield Town FC

Paul Cox??

Discuss all things Stags and Football League Two, and share stuff using our BBCodes.
Forum rules
Please read the Posting Rules before participating. Posting on the forums is subject to adhering to these.
Also, see the Guidelines for Posting. Moderators may sometimes tidy posts which do not follow these customs.

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:59 pm

Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:Avoided my question though Dan.
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that nobody else was paying a L2 player £5k a week ?
What about the figures for County ? Are they incorrect ?


Yes thanks.

So the County fans who said they were paying Hemmings over £6k per week were wrong then ?
How much were they paying him ?


Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dave Wayne » Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:21 pm

Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:Avoided my question though Dan.
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that nobody else was paying a L2 player £5k a week ?
What about the figures for County ? Are they incorrect ?


Yes thanks.

So the County fans who said they were paying Hemmings over £6k per week were wrong then ?
How much were they paying him ?


Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?
Dave Wayne
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:25 pm

Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:Avoided my question though Dan.
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that nobody else was paying a L2 player £5k a week ?
What about the figures for County ? Are they incorrect ?


Yes thanks.

So the County fans who said they were paying Hemmings over £6k per week were wrong then ?
How much were they paying him ?


Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


That's not the point though is it?
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dave Wayne » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:51 pm

Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:So the County fans who said they were paying Hemmings over £6k per week were wrong then ?
How much were they paying him ?


Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


That's not the point though is it?

Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.
Dave Wayne
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:58 pm

Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:So the County fans who said they were paying Hemmings over £6k per week were wrong then ?
How much were they paying him ?


Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


That's not the point though is it?

Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dave Wayne » Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:28 pm

Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:That's not the point though is it?

Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508

Whatever you want to call it, I wouldn't have been happy if we had been paying £100k for Hemmings plus silly money in wages and bonuses.
Flitcroft got us a better striker for less money. That is good management, but you can't admit that he did something right !!
Dave Wayne
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:50 pm

Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:That's not the point though is it?

Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508

Whatever you want to call it, I wouldn't have been happy if we had been paying £100k for Hemmings plus silly money in wages and bonuses.
Flitcroft got us a better striker for less money. That is good management, but you can't admit that he did something right !!


Think you need to read a few more of my posts :roll:

And clearly he didn’t do anything right here because he didn’t even bother chasing Hemmings which has come directly from the horses mouth! Whose to say Hemmings wouldn’t have got us more goals than Walker under the maestro Flitcroft...
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:11 pm

Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


That's not the point though is it?

Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508

"Hemmings said he had little contact with Mansfield since returning to Oxford from the Stags who just missed out on the play-offs under boss David Flitcroft."

Little contact, Dan. Not no contact. Entirely possible we got in touch and found wage expectations higher than we felt he was worth and pulled the plug early. Nobody is lying in that scenario. Let me guess you have inside info that you're right?
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:19 pm

gazza1988 wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Base rate was £4,000 a week but his goal and win bonuses were huge. That's why they were top of the league straightaway & Hardy was moaning how much it was costing the club at the time.

So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508

"Hemmings said he had little contact with Mansfield since returning to Oxford from the Stags who just missed out on the play-offs under boss David Flitcroft."

Little contact, Dan. Not no contact. Entirely possible we got in touch and found wage expectations higher than we felt he was worth and pulled the plug early. Nobody is lying in that scenario. Let me guess you have inside info that you're right?


“I was only on loan at Mansfield and my time there is done and I’ve not really had contact with them since I left,” he said.“

Depends how you want to read it. That is a direct quote from Hemmings unlike your bit which is what the journalist wrote.
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:31 pm

Dan wrote:
gazza1988 wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Wayne wrote:
Dan wrote:So Walker was probably a better deal at £5k per week then ?


Surely it is exactly the point.
We were paying £5k per week but he was only with us from July to May so we paid a total of around £220k (44 weeks) for a 26 goal striker.
They paid Hemmings £4k per week on a full year contract so a total of £208k (52 weeks) in basic salary for a 14 goal striker. No idea what his bonuses were, but in your own words they were huge, so lets assume £1k per goal and £1k per win. That adds another £23k (14 goals and 9 league wins) giving a total of £231k.
Bearing in mind we had first option on Hemmings but Flitcroft turned it down and signed Walker instead, I would class that as astute management as we ended up paying less in total for a striker who scored twice as many goals.


Not really astute management when Flitcroft himself said the reason we didn’t sign Hemmings is because we “were blown out of the water” from what Notts were paying, otherwise he would’ve signed him. I have no clue why we then signed Tyler unless we’d already got him by then meaning we couldn’t afford Hemmings too.

Edit: just seen this article on the latest news page on here. Looks like we didn’t even bother trying to get Hemmings, more Flitcroft bullshit?

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/fo ... gs-1638508

"Hemmings said he had little contact with Mansfield since returning to Oxford from the Stags who just missed out on the play-offs under boss David Flitcroft."

Little contact, Dan. Not no contact. Entirely possible we got in touch and found wage expectations higher than we felt he was worth and pulled the plug early. Nobody is lying in that scenario. Let me guess you have inside info that you're right?


“I was only on loan at Mansfield and my time there is done and I’ve not really had contact with them since I left,” he said.“

Depends how you want to read it. That is a direct quote from Hemmings unlike your bit which is what the journalist wrote.


OK "not really had any contact with them" take away the "really" in that sentence then it fits. He doesn't say he's had no contact whatsoever since leaving. It is ambiguous at best but doesn't rule out contact or no contact.

I'd wager we spoke to his agent, listened to demands, negotiated a little and then called time on the talks. All hemming got told was we had a bit of interest but pulled out of the transfer early. In a way hemming wouldn't have had direct contact with us because we didn't want to pursue him after learning of demands.

I'm not calling you a liar Dan. Just pointing out how both stories can be true.
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Rob » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:35 pm

CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


Spot on.
Rob
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 5087
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:33 am

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby scotsstag » Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:24 pm

CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


The football had turned awful a few months before the end of DF's reign IMO.
scotsstag
Reserve Team
Reserve Team
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:43 am
Location: SCOTLAND

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby bobbystagsfan » Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:31 pm

scotsstag wrote:
CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


The football had turned awful a few months before the end of DF's reign IMO.



We played good football for about 3/4 months, after that it was garbage when teams found us out. Teams pressed us into playing long ball to Walker and Hamilton up front
bobbystagsfan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6522
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:47 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:59 pm

bobbystagsfan wrote:
scotsstag wrote:
CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


The football had turned awful a few months before the end of DF's reign IMO.



We played good football for about 3/4 months, after that it was garbage when teams found us out. Teams pressed us into playing long ball to Walker and Hamilton up front


Would you say around February when we lost our only player left who had any ability in the air up front? after that Newport game we went 2 months(ish) without him.
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby bobbystagsfan » Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:26 am

gazza1988 wrote:
bobbystagsfan wrote:
scotsstag wrote:
CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


The football had turned awful a few months before the end of DF's reign IMO.



We played good football for about 3/4 months, after that it was garbage when teams found us out. Teams pressed us into playing long ball to Walker and Hamilton up front


Would you say around February when we lost our only player left who had any ability in the air up front? after that Newport game we went 2 months(ish) without him.



I'm sure it was earlier than that, I'd like to say December but I can't fully remember. Tried to wipe that year from my memory
bobbystagsfan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6522
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:47 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dave Wayne » Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:18 am

bobbystagsfan wrote:
gazza1988 wrote:
bobbystagsfan wrote:
scotsstag wrote:
CassellsCap wrote:We can argue till the cows come home about what DF would’ve done the next season but one thing is for sure , the style of football played under him was some of the most entertaining football played for a very long time proven by the fact 4 of the team were in the team of the season. Going to watch the stags home and away was exciting and after 50 years of going that hasn’t happened often. The football since has been awful .


The football had turned awful a few months before the end of DF's reign IMO.


We played good football for about 3/4 months, after that it was garbage when teams found us out. Teams pressed us into playing long ball to Walker and Hamilton up front


Would you say around February when we lost our only player left who had any ability in the air up front? after that Newport game we went 2 months(ish) without him.



I'm sure it was earlier than that, I'd like to say December but I can't fully remember. Tried to wipe that year from my memory

December 2018 - W3 D1 L0 - Olejnik injured mid month
January 2019 - W4 D1 L2 - White injured mid month
We won the first game in February and then lost the next game at Newport in which Rose was injured.
From that point on - W5 D3 L6.

All 3 injuries had an impact on our season, but it looks like Gazza isn't far wrong in suggesting that the injury to Rose was the turning point.
Dave Wayne
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby cassellswasmagic » Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:54 am

I think if any team lost those 3 players it would prove pivotal imo. Especially the keeper & White. The defence looked shaky after Bobby got injured and there weren’t many marauding runs down the right after White got injured. In fact I also thought CJ was our best defender for a while, when he should have been up high on the left wing, such was his tracking back. Very frustrating to blow it, but a few big factors contributed.
cassellswasmagic
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:18 am

Losing olejnik was a blow, but we had capable backup in logan. Granted logan wasn't used to the "sweeper keeper" role playing it out short from the back but as a shot stopper he was more than capable.

Losing white was a bigger blow, we had no true natuaral backup, except maybe for CJ who played there for the next 4 or 5 games and the form was still acceptable.

We lost Rose. That left a gap. We've got logan who prefers to play like Evans, get the ball forwards early, and rose helped keep the ball up there. After Rose's injury we went 2 months with only Ajose and Walker available (walker did get himself sent off but I think we did OK, from memory) meaning Logan's long balls and the defences pressured clearances meant Walker and Ajose had little chance of winning headers so the ball started coming back at us. The wing backs would be back defending and now need to get up and support the attack, had they won the ball.
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Sandy Pate Best Stag » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:24 am

Don’t forget to add in the Jorge Grant factor which totally disrupted the team rhythm. That wasn’t an injury but a managerial decision.

I accept that we all hailed the signing at the time but he definitely had an influence on our decline and upset players who were performing well beforehand.
Who are you calling pedantic? I resemble that remark!
Sandy Pate Best Stag
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3518
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:37 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:59 am

Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:Don’t forget to add in the Jorge Grant factor which totally disrupted the team rhythm. That wasn’t an injury but a managerial decision.

I accept that we all hailed the signing at the time but he definitely had an influence on our decline and upset players who were performing well beforehand.


Jorge Grant was brought in because Derby recalled Elsnik because we refused to pay a fee for him. https://www.derbycounty.news/news/timi- ... uying-him/

Had Derby not forced that or we paid Derby whatever they wanted I'd wager that Elsnik would have remained at the club and grant would have gone elsewhere.

The issue with Grant was he always wanted to find Walker. Nearly every time he'd try to thread a pass through to him when there was an easier and/or a better option. That was his problem, he wanted Walker and himself to look good.

So yes it was a managerial decision, but one Derby forced upon us. In some respects its also a boardroom problem because ethey would have made the call on whether to sign Elsnik permanently or not.
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:28 am

gazza1988 wrote:Losing olejnik was a blow, but we had capable backup in logan. Granted logan wasn't used to the "sweeper keeper" role playing it out short from the back but as a shot stopper he was more than capable.

Losing white was a bigger blow, we had no true natuaral backup, except maybe for CJ who played there for the next 4 or 5 games and the form was still acceptable.

We lost Rose. That left a gap. We've got logan who prefers to play like Evans, get the ball forwards early, and rose helped keep the ball up there. After Rose's injury we went 2 months with only Ajose and Walker available (walker did get himself sent off but I think we did OK, from memory) meaning Logan's long balls and the defences pressured clearances meant Walker and Ajose had little chance of winning headers so the ball started coming back at us. The wing backs would be back defending and now need to get up and support the attack, had they won the ball.


Wow you just can’t help yourself can you?! If Logan was hoofing the ball up field then it was because Flitcroft told him to not Evans. If you are claiming he carried on doing it after Flitcroft told him not to then once again that’s weak management from Flitcroft as he carried on playing him. You can’t have it both ways. This obsession of having a go at Evans on every opportunity is embarrassing mate seriously :lol:
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby part time pete » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:34 am

Didn’t MacDonald returning from injury have a detrimental effect on the side.
Those accustomed to privilege may feel that equality is oppression.
part time pete
Prediction League Manager
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:39 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:38 pm

Dan wrote:
gazza1988 wrote:Losing olejnik was a blow, but we had capable backup in logan. Granted logan wasn't used to the "sweeper keeper" role playing it out short from the back but as a shot stopper he was more than capable.

Losing white was a bigger blow, we had no true natuaral backup, except maybe for CJ who played there for the next 4 or 5 games and the form was still acceptable.

We lost Rose. That left a gap. We've got logan who prefers to play like Evans, get the ball forwards early, and rose helped keep the ball up there. After Rose's injury we went 2 months with only Ajose and Walker available (walker did get himself sent off but I think we did OK, from memory) meaning Logan's long balls and the defences pressured clearances meant Walker and Ajose had little chance of winning headers so the ball started coming back at us. The wing backs would be back defending and now need to get up and support the attack, had they won the ball.



Wow you just can’t help yourself can you?! If Logan was hoofing the ball up field then it was because Flitcroft told him to not Evans. If you are claiming he carried on doing it after Flitcroft told him not to then once again that’s weak management from Flitcroft as he carried on playing him. You can’t have it both ways. This obsession of having a go at Evans on every opportunity is embarrassing mate seriously :lol:


Wow. You just can't help yourself can you? Took what I said and twisted it.

I'll try explain it a bit better hopefully. Logan is not well known for short distribution, its how he's played most, if not all, of his career. Not something you can get out of a player in just a few short months. It's well known that Evans isn't a patient passing kind of manager, get the ball up top early. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, we did it quite well.

Bobby was more suited to short distribution, hence was the better keeper in Flitcroft's system. Logan preferred it long and so did Evans, hence he was the preferred choice in Evans team. I'm just pointing out that. Players do what's natural to them, training is to either build on this or introduce new ideas. With Logan's experience and age it would be harder for him to adapt.

Flitcroft had to get a replacement in for Bobby and went with Adam Smith however he was hit and miss. Or are you saying it was weak management not playing an injured Bobby Olejnik?
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby Dan » Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:57 pm

gazza1988 wrote:
Dan wrote:
gazza1988 wrote:Losing olejnik was a blow, but we had capable backup in logan. Granted logan wasn't used to the "sweeper keeper" role playing it out short from the back but as a shot stopper he was more than capable.

Losing white was a bigger blow, we had no true natuaral backup, except maybe for CJ who played there for the next 4 or 5 games and the form was still acceptable.

We lost Rose. That left a gap. We've got logan who prefers to play like Evans, get the ball forwards early, and rose helped keep the ball up there. After Rose's injury we went 2 months with only Ajose and Walker available (walker did get himself sent off but I think we did OK, from memory) meaning Logan's long balls and the defences pressured clearances meant Walker and Ajose had little chance of winning headers so the ball started coming back at us. The wing backs would be back defending and now need to get up and support the attack, had they won the ball.



Wow you just can’t help yourself can you?! If Logan was hoofing the ball up field then it was because Flitcroft told him to not Evans. If you are claiming he carried on doing it after Flitcroft told him not to then once again that’s weak management from Flitcroft as he carried on playing him. You can’t have it both ways. This obsession of having a go at Evans on every opportunity is embarrassing mate seriously :lol:


Wow. You just can't help yourself can you? Took what I said and twisted it.

I'll try explain it a bit better hopefully. Logan is not well known for short distribution, its how he's played most, if not all, of his career. Not something you can get out of a player in just a few short months. It's well known that Evans isn't a patient passing kind of manager, get the ball up top early. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, we did it quite well.

Bobby was more suited to short distribution, hence was the better keeper in Flitcroft's system. Logan preferred it long and so did Evans, hence he was the preferred choice in Evans team. I'm just pointing out that. Players do what's natural to them, training is to either build on this or introduce new ideas. With Logan's experience and age it would be harder for him to adapt.

Flitcroft had to get a replacement in for Bobby and went with Adam Smith however he was hit and miss. Or are you saying it was weak management not playing an injured Bobby Olejnik?


Keep digging that hole mate. You know what you were doing and so does everyone else. If Flitcroft wanted Logan to roll or pass the ball out he would’ve done. What you’ve put above is ridiculous. Logan played something like 300 games in his career, you haven’t seen all of them to say what sort of keeper he is. But if a manager wanted him to pass it out then he would’ve done. I saw plenty of games under your messiah when we went long.
Dan
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Cox??

Postby gazza1988 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:20 pm

What was I doing?

It's like saying, I want Matt Green to win more headers. He can try but at the end of the day hell lose more than he wins. It's not his game. Short distribution just wasn't his game.
post meanings:
I know what I'm doing
Just guessing
You're an idiot and I'm poking you with a stick
User avatar
gazza1988
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6737
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Beeston, Nottingham

PreviousNext

Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests