Watford away

[onlywanderer]

I couldn't see how we could possibly win under Coyle and defeat seemed inevitable, yesterday I saw a game plan that was working and i thought we deserved the win.

In my opinion, it won't be long till our league position reflects the upward direction I think our entire club is going in.

But in the first ten games of this season we took more points than we have in the last ten games and if anything, the first ten games were tougher. There's perception and then there's reality.

Well yes, but the first ten games of any season often produce results not accurately reflective of how effective a team really is.

The amount of times we see relegation fodder in the top ten come November. Think Blackpool in the PL a couple years back.

Those wins were on the back of questionable performances with no organisation or substance. What we have now is the opposite of that which, while not perfect, is preferable and can only lead to more wins, more points and a climb up the table.

Whilst not completely writing us off (hope springs eternal etc) promotion seems unlikely this year. I believe what we're building has a far better chance of promotion, It just won't be this year.

[BL3]

Those wins were on the back of questionable performances with no organisation or substance. What we have now is the opposite of that which, while not perfect, is preferable and can only lead to more wins, more points and a climb up the table.

This better organised team has picked up fewer points over the last ten games than one with 'no organisation' picked up over the first ten... and that's preferable because long term we'll pick up results? When is this 'climb up the table' going to start?

[SmokinFrazier]

The interesting thing is, as the performances have supposedly improved, the results have got worse. In those first 6 games under Freedman, we got 10 points from a possible 18. In the remaining 10 games under Freedman, we've got 9 points from a possible 30.

So are things actually improving, or are we going backwards? Is our style of play all style and no substance? Because for all the so called improvement fans are seeing week in, week out, that is not translating into points. The fact is, the more we "improve", the worse our results become.

Are we playing better football? Yeah, we probably are. However, if Stoke replaced Tony Pulis with Owen Coyle, their fans would say they're playing better football too. The only thing which matters are the results, and those are getting worse under Freedman.

[Sponge]

The interesting thing is, as the performances have supposedly improved, the results have got worse. In those first 6 games under Freedman, we got 10 points from a possible 18. In the remaining 10 games under Freedman, we've got 9 points from a possible 30.

So are things actually improving, or are we going backwards? Is our style of play all style and no substance? Because for all the so called improvement fans are seeing week in, week out, that is not translating into points. The fact is, the more we "improve", the worse our results become.

Are we playing better football? Yeah, we probably are. However, if Stoke replaced Tony Pulis with Owen Coyle, their fans would say they're playing better football too. The only thing which matters are the results, and those are getting worse under Freedman.

True, but at the same time not true. For a while Coyle was getting results, but as we later found out wasn't establishing something that could hold up when the bad times came (as they inevitably always will).

We're not getting results at the moment, but according to those who were at the game yesterday, we looked very good – more disciplined, more organised – and were unlucky not to get at least a point. Which, I agree, doesn't help us right now, but should those improvements continue, bodes well for the future.

[Gravedigger]

As we are improving, so are other teams around us, that's why we are dropping (From 13th to 20th) despite what would appear an improvement. I think the level of improvement has now to be brought into the equation. If we don't improve remarkably compared to those teams around us then we are definitely in Div 1 next season. Folk have already mentioned Coventry, Southampton, Ipswich, The Sheffields, Leeds. In fact the only team missing is Everton who for a long time clung on with the skin of their teeth. We can now tag ourselves onto that list as I cannot see the improvement required to keep us up. OC systematically stripped this team, demotivated them and couldn't be arsed turning up to do a decent job and clung on to the salary. At least we'll have the best ground in the division.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the trouble with purely looking at short term results, is that under that assessment Allardyce would have gone in January of his first season. Lost over two legs to Tranmere in the league cup semi final and went on a run through November and November of 4 defeats and three draws, including losing at fecking Walsall.

There were people calling for his head at that stage. Especially after the second leg at Tranmere, citing his playing of Frank Passi on the wing there as being particularly poor.

As said, you get the sense that Dougie came in with a long term plan and I'm sure he's frustrated with the results short term.

But the problems at this club, like an over reliance on the ever declining Kevin Davies, the gradual loss of team spirit and endeavour and the rise in the wage bill coupled to the decline in quality of our players have been going on for some time now. Arguably some of that started before Allardyce had even left.

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

[Bijou Bob]

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

Amen.

[SmokinFrazier]

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's like you think that there aren't managers who get off to a slow start and continue doing poorly until they're sacked, or that there aren't managers who do a great job to start off with and then keep it up.

It's possible that Freedman will turn it around but there's also a chance he'll end up being another Henning Berg or Stale Solbakken, who start off alright, deteriorate and get even worse before they have to be sacked.

If football was that simplistic, I'd be delighted that Freedman is currently doing an awful job because there'd be an imminent upturn, where we'd get promoted and then look at getting into Europe again! Sadly, for every manager who turns it around, there are many who never do and rightly get sacked because they prove themselves to be failures.

[Gary the Enfield]

I went to the game yesterday too. Sat three rows from the front, though and vision was limited, but.....

The first half hour we were brilliant. Busy, harrassing, winning the ball. Knight was clearing well and Ream and Alonso were having a great time covering the left. Ricketts looked shaky and, apart from a couple of darting runs just played the simple stuff. Spearing, Pratley and Lee were everywhere in midfield. Sordell was a real handful.

Second half we just lost that sharpness. The closing down stopped and we defended deeper and deeper. Their second goal was inevitable given the way they pushed. The triple substitution could well have worked if he (Dougie) had done it 10 minutes earlier. Have to say the last 10 minutes (including the 5 minutes extra time) we were getting back on top. Disappointed not to have gotten a draw and we could have had a win. Not much difference between us and them.

We played just as well as we did against Palace. Someone soon is going to get a bloody good shoe-ing.

No panic here.

p.s. Some of our 'YOOF' seem to think we're suddenly Roma Ultras if the flair that was let off at the start of the game is anything to go by. Well done. Not.

[bobo the clown]

... & fat Frank was focused upon in the highlights.

[Gail Platz]

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's like you think that there aren't managers who get off to a slow start and continue doing poorly until they're sacked, or that there aren't managers who do a great job to start off with and then keep it up.

It's possible that Freedman will turn it around but there's also a chance he'll end up being another Henning Berg or Stale Solbakken, who start off alright, deteriorate and get even worse before they have to be sacked.

If football was that simplistic, I'd be delighted that Freedman is currently doing an awful job because there'd be an imminent upturn, where we'd get promoted and then look at getting into Europe again! Sadly, for every manager who turns it around, there are many who never do and rightly get sacked because they prove themselves to be failures.

But, but, but, Dougie got Palace to a Carling Cup semi, so he's guaranteed to make us mint!

[SmokinFrazier]

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's like you think that there aren't managers who get off to a slow start and continue doing poorly until they're sacked, or that there aren't managers who do a great job to start off with and then keep it up.

It's possible that Freedman will turn it around but there's also a chance he'll end up being another Henning Berg or Stale Solbakken, who start off alright, deteriorate and get even worse before they have to be sacked.

If football was that simplistic, I'd be delighted that Freedman is currently doing an awful job because there'd be an imminent upturn, where we'd get promoted and then look at getting into Europe again! Sadly, for every manager who turns it around, there are many who never do and rightly get sacked because they prove themselves to be failures.

But, but, but, Dougie got Palace to a Carling Cup semi, so he's guaranteed to make us mint!

Is that the reason why? I thought it was because he talked about sports science and stuff

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

[Gail Platz]

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Agreed, we all want him to do well but the people sticking up for him only have two reasons:

1. He got Palace to a semi final of a cup.... urm, so did Coyle with Bolton
2. He moved Palace up a few positions in the league.... urm, Coyle got Burnley promoted

Now this is not me sticking up for Coyle in any shape or form, what I'm saying is that Coyle's done more as a manager than Freedman has, and all these Freedman bummers can't see that.

There's a breed of manager we need at this club to get out of this mess, and one of that kind is currently managing West Ham at the moment.

[Gary the Enfield]

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Agreed, we all want him to do well but the people sticking up for him only have two reasons:

1. He got Palace to a semi final of a cup.... urm, so did Coyle with Bolton
2. He moved Palace up a few positions in the league.... urm, Coyle got Burnley promoted

Now this is not me sticking up for Coyle in any shape or form, what I'm saying is that Coyle's done more as a manager than Freedman has, and all these Freedman bummers can't see that.
There's a breed of manager we need at this club to get out of this mess, and one of that kind is currently managing West Ham at the moment.

That's irony, right?

[Gary the Enfield]

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Agreed, we all want him to do well but the people sticking up for him only have two reasons:

1. He got Palace to a semi final of a cup.... urm, so did Coyle with Bolton
2. He moved Palace up a few positions in the league.... urm, Coyle got Burnley promoted

Now this is not me sticking up for Coyle in any shape or form, what I'm saying is that Coyle's done more as a manager than Freedman has, and all these Freedman bummers can't see that.
There's a breed of manager we need at this club to get out of this mess, and one of that kind is currently managing West Ham at the moment.

That's irony, right?

[Gail Platz]

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Agreed, we all want him to do well but the people sticking up for him only have two reasons:

1. He got Palace to a semi final of a cup.... urm, so did Coyle with Bolton
2. He moved Palace up a few positions in the league.... urm, Coyle got Burnley promoted

Now this is not me sticking up for Coyle in any shape or form, what I'm saying is that Coyle's done more as a manager than Freedman has, and all these Freedman bummers can't see that.
There's a breed of manager we need at this club to get out of this mess, and one of that kind is currently managing West Ham at the moment.

That's irony, right?

Explain how that is linked to sticking up for Coyle. They're two completely separate people.

[BWFC_Insane]

I would rather have a manager who says 'Im going to change how you play, how you bring through young players, the mentality within the whole club' and addresses those issues, even if in the short term it doesn't work, than someone coming in getting some short term results, but ultimately leaving the same mess and set of issues they inherited at the start.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's like you think that there aren't managers who get off to a slow start and continue doing poorly until they're sacked, or that there aren't managers who do a great job to start off with and then keep it up.

It's possible that Freedman will turn it around but there's also a chance he'll end up being another Henning Berg or Stale Solbakken, who start off alright, deteriorate and get even worse before they have to be sacked.

If football was that simplistic, I'd be delighted that Freedman is currently doing an awful job because there'd be an imminent upturn, where we'd get promoted and then look at getting into Europe again! Sadly, for every manager who turns it around, there are many who never do and rightly get sacked because they prove themselves to be failures.

It doesn't have to be one or the other but usually there is some short term pain to be suffered for the long term gain.

I mean those that went yesterday aren't saying it was awful and we were awful.

They're saying it is a close game that could have gone either way.

To an extent we are coming out the wrong side of fine margins, but that can turn.

I think thebish is right, if we win 5 in a row it won't suddenly make us Barcelona.

There is a point where you really have to start producing results. We are probably at that point in terms of needing to pull away from the bottom three.

But the signs are that the manager actually has a plan to move the club on. Which makes a refreshing change from the madness that went before.

[Gary the Enfield]

I want Freedman to succeed but the faith people have put in him is beyond me. People are acting like there is an inevitable great run around the corner, but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Agreed, we all want him to do well but the people sticking up for him only have two reasons:

1. He got Palace to a semi final of a cup.... urm, so did Coyle with Bolton
2. He moved Palace up a few positions in the league.... urm, Coyle got Burnley promoted

Now this is not me sticking up for Coyle in any shape or form, what I'm saying is that Coyle's done more as a manager than Freedman has, and all these Freedman bummers can't see that.
There's a breed of manager we need at this club to get out of this mess, and one of that kind is currently managing West Ham at the moment.

That's irony, right?

Explain how that is linked to sticking up for Coyle. They're two completely separate people.

What's ironic is you sticking up for Coyle whilst protesting you aren't and then anyone sticking up for Freedman is a bummer.

What's ironic is Coyle had three years of people saying 'he just needs time' because we didn't want him to fail after the Megson debacle and yet Freedman is getting shit with less than 20 games under his belt.

I'm sick and tired of the constant negativity on this forum. We're talking ourselves into tighter and tighter circles with each other because results aren't happening on the pitch. I said before we didn't play badly yesterday. On another day we could have won that game.

Freedman will get to the end of the season AT LEAST. Time to accept that and get behind the team.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

GtE. I think you meant moronic, not ironic

[IggyTheDawgster]

Those wins were on the back of questionable performances with no organisation or substance. What we have now is the opposite of that which, while not perfect, is preferable and can only lead to more wins, more points and a climb up the table.

This better organised team has picked up fewer points over the last ten games than one with 'no organisation' picked up over the first ten... and that's preferable because long term we'll pick up results? When is this 'climb up the table' going to start?

Totally agree with BL3, This long rumoured climb up the table has yet to materialise and we are only going in one direction as it stands.
Freedman was brought in to do what Coyle supposedly couldn't, Gel the team, Get performances and pick up a steady increase in points.

You have to be bloody blind if you think there's been an improvement since Coyle was sacked.