Freedman out!

[SmokinFrazier]

The talk of money isn't really relevant to a discussion about Freedman. If you're suggesting that spending less on wages has been part of the reason why we've declined, that's fine, but we're still paying a lot more on wages than other teams in this league are, so you'd expect much better performances than we're seeing. We've gone from being a low spending Premier League team to being a high spending Championship team. But all that aside, money isn't the issue because with the players we've got, the lowest we should be finishing is around 8th.

Freedman is an awful manager and the last two games only reinforce my opinion on him because it's been obvious for a long, long time what our winning formula has been and yet Freedman hasn't gone with it. He deserves criticism for that. At the start of his reign before our good run, I was arguing we should be playing 4-4-2 and then when he finally tried it, we went on a good run results wise. He then messed up by changing our tactics in the last few games of the season, which he accepted himself, yet you'd think he'd start the season playing in the same way which earned us success last year...yet he didn't. When he have tried it again, it's worked, yet how many points have we thrown away because of Freedman's reluctance to play something far more successful for us? It took him so long to do something that fans have been calling for, for a long time, and that can't be accepted. It's poor management and I don't have any faith in him to make the right decisions in the future either. His transfers are average, his man management is appalling and he doesn't know what he's doing tactically. What reason is there to keep him?

[bobo the clown]

^^ Coz since last Saturday he's ace.

Don'cha know ??

[Prufrock]

F*cks me off when people claim some sort of credit coz they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along. This isn't what they were arguing for, and they know it.

TBF, since we came up with the weird lopsided diamond, folk have been saying 'why don't we do that again?', which seems fair.

[LeverEnd]

F*cks me off when people claim some sort of credit coz they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along. This isn't what they were arguing for, and they know it.

TBF, since we came up with the weird lopsided diamond, folk have been saying 'why don't we do that again?', which seems fair.

What pisses me off about DF is that we went on that run last season by committing people forward, whichever way you describe the formation. He came out and said something about draws being no good, he was going to boldly go for wins. And he did, and we rode our luck but it worked. Then he goes back to safety first bollocks again and we get very few points. It's like he's determined to make his fantasy tactical plan work irrespective of what the players are comfortable with or how poor the results are.

[a1]

it's like he's not playing muamba on purpose

[CrazyHorse]

It's almost like he had the worst start for 100 years on purpose too.

[Enoch]

and they know it.

Very fair minded.

[bobo the clown]

F*cks me off when people claim some sort of credit coz they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along. This isn't what they were arguing for, and they know it.

TBF, since we came up with the weird lopsided diamond, folk have been saying 'why don't we do that again?', which seems fair.

Well, oddly I did. I'd find you quotes, but can't be arsed.

[Prufrock]

I'm not saying folk weren't arguing for 4-4-2, they were, but they were on about a flat four with wingers, which this absolutely isn't. The wonky diamond is as far away from a classic '4-4-2' as it is the 4-5-whateverthefeck we've been playing so far.

Not that I remember anyway. Maybe you were, but given you were on about wingers the other week I doubt it .

[bobo the clown]

I'm not saying folk weren't arguing for 4-4-2, they were, but they were on about a flat four with wingers, which this absolutely isn't. The wonky diamond is as far away from a classic '4-4-2' as it is the 4-5-whateverthefeck we've been playing so far.

Not that I remember anyway. Maybe you were, but given you were on about wingers the other week I doubt it .

You said ... & it's only 2 posts ago .... " .... they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along."

Now you're varying that statement.

We demand more rigour in your arguments.

[Enoch]

I'm not saying folk weren't arguing for 4-4-2, they were, but they were on about a flat four with wingers, which this absolutely isn't. The wonky diamond is as far away from a classic '4-4-2' as it is the 4-5-whateverthefeck we've been playing so far.

Not that I remember anyway. Maybe you were, but given you were on about wingers the other week I doubt it .

You said ... & it's only 2 posts ago .... " .... they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along."

Now you're varying that statement.

We demand more rigour in your arguments.

I get what he was saying and I don't even have a rudimentary grasp of the English language.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Prufrock]

I'm not saying folk weren't arguing for 4-4-2, they were, but they were on about a flat four with wingers, which this absolutely isn't. The wonky diamond is as far away from a classic '4-4-2' as it is the 4-5-whateverthefeck we've been playing so far.

Not that I remember anyway. Maybe you were, but given you were on about wingers the other week I doubt it .

You said ... & it's only 2 posts ago .... " .... they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along."

Now you're varying that statement.

We demand more rigour in your arguments.

No I'm not, though to be fair my 'this' is hardly clear.

Folk are claiming credit because they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along. However, this (the wonky narrow 4-4-2 diamond with no wingers) isn't what they were arguing for. And they know it. It's as far away from a flat 4-4-2 with wingers (what they *were* arguing for) as it is from our 4-5-whateverthefeck.

[a1]

It's almost like he had the worst start for 100 years on purpose too.

the season coyle took us down had a worse start. you could tell paperplateface would figure it out once he got rid of the troublemakers.

coyle never looked like mending it.

[BWFC_Insane]

F*cks me off when people claim some sort of credit coz they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along. This isn't what they were arguing for, and they know it.

TBF, since we came up with the weird lopsided diamond, folk have been saying 'why don't we do that again?', which seems fair.

We played 4-4-2 earlier in the season (QPR at home and Blackburn away we lost both with an aggregate score of 0-5). At home to QPR it was even a diamond like we play now. We lost. I'm kinda wondering if I went back to that thread how many of the formation experts were saying it was 'the future'......

[bobo the clown]

It's almost like he had the worst start for 100 years on purpose too.

the season coyle took us down had a worse start. you could tell paperplateface would figure it out once he got rid of the troublemakers.

coyle never looked like mending it.

Except we won, away, 4-0 in our first match.

Then he seemed to look at the (admittedly difficult) fixture list and give up for quite a few weeks.

[a1]

that fixture list still pisses me off.

i dont think coyle were any good, but, fecking hell fire, its like they fixed that up on purpose.

the bastards

[Harry Genshaw]

I'm not saying folk weren't arguing for 4-4-2, they were, but they were on about a flat four with wingers, which this absolutely isn't. The wonky diamond is as far away from a classic '4-4-2' as it is the 4-5-whateverthefeck we've been playing so far.

Not that I remember anyway. Maybe you were, but given you were on about wingers the other week I doubt it .

You said ... & it's only 2 posts ago .... " .... they were saying we should play 4-4-2 all along."

Now you're varying that statement.

We demand more rigour in your arguments.

I get what he was saying and I don't even have a rudimentary grasp of the English language.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I think he's missing The Bish and trying to fill in

[Tombwfc]

I really don't know why every person seems to think that we have to compare Coyle and Freedman. They are/were doing different jobs.

Owen Coyle inherited Bolton Wanderers with a football related turnover of nearly £60M a wage bill of ~ £45M and 18th in the Premiership.

When Coyle left, Bolton Wanderers had a football related turnover that had halved to ~ £28M a wage bill that during his time had risen to ~ £55M (at time of relegation) and were sitting 18th in the Championship.

Freedman inherited Bolton Wanderers with a football related turnover of £28M a wage bill on the way to being cut to £37M by the first summer and further still since then (I presume) and towards the bottom of the championship.

I think it is entirely reasonable, accurate and fair to hold one man accountable for the damage he did whilst in charge, whilst at the same time acknowledging that the guy brought in to try and repair the damage and loss of income whilst reducing costs still further hasn't perhaps been as good so far as we might hope.

But there is a big gulf between taking a club 20 odd places down the league, halving their income whilst at the same time increasing the wage bill, to not being able to improve a club's fortunes once the aforementioned events already happened before you arrived. In my view at least.

That is my view on the situation, not a defence of anyone. Merely an analysis.

I think you should actually look into that. You won't, but you should.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Must admit to some muttering and eye rolling when he signed Mason again. So here's a well done Dougie...mutter grumble...

[jaffka]

It's defo Duggie in