Bolton Wanderers 1-2 M'brough

Breadman wrote:Yeah and there's no place for speculation and conjecture on an internet forum, is there....?

Must have missed where I said or even suggested that, but hey ho.

Hipster_Nebula wrote: but all this nonsense about him thinking he's more intelligent than anyone else is 100% conjecture and nothing more.

There you go.


The word "nonsense" carries a negative connotation and your use of it in connection with the subject of people discussing Freedman's mindset / general attitude to management clearly suggests that you believe it has no value and is pointless.

I personally don't think it has any value, but again that isn't a statement that people can't discuss what they like, which is what you suggested.

wanderlust wrote:
If the players are at fault as Nat claims, can we blame the manager who can only afford to recruit what we have? and what evidence is there to suggest a different manager battling the same issues would produce a different outcome?

Anyone who has read Biggie's previous posts will know he talks bollocks.

Yes, the players are a massive part of the problem. They shouldn't need a manager to motivate them, they should be motivated simply by playing the game they love in a big stadium in front of thousands of people. These players are going through the motions, last night only Craig Davies and Spearing looked like they gave a shite.

But it's the manager who buys and picks these useless wankers, and he also decides the tactics. As I've said on another thread, we've played three league games with three different formations and three different teams. That isn't the tactics of someone with a plan.

Of course no one knows if another manager would make a difference, but that simply isn't a good enough reason to keep Freedman on. Yes, we're skint but so are a lot of other clubs, many with less resources than us.

We're Bolton Wanderers, we simply shouldn't be in the bottom 3 of the Championship.

The point is that Dougie has actually managed to recruit worse players than the ones he decided were deadwood. They represent random signings to no overall plan.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
If the players are at fault as Nat claims, can we blame the manager who can only afford to recruit what we have? and what evidence is there to suggest a different manager battling the same issues would produce a different outcome?

Anyone who has read Biggie's previous posts will know he talks bollocks.

Yes, the players are a massive part of the problem. They shouldn't need a manager to motivate them, they should be motivated simply by playing the game they love in a big stadium in front of thousands of people. These players are going through the motions, last night only Craig Davies and Spearing looked like they gave a shite.

But it's the manager who buys and picks these useless wankers, and he also decides the tactics. As I've said on another thread, we've played three league games with three different formations and three different teams. That isn't the tactics of someone with a plan.

Of course no one knows if another manager would make a difference, but that simply isn't a good enough reason to keep Freedman on. Yes, we're skint but so are a lot of other clubs, many with less resources than us.

We're Bolton Wanderers, we simply shouldn't be in the bottom 3 of the Championship.

Difficult to summarise what's been said as although several people watched the same game, the conclusions drawn are different.

That said, I think there's consensus that the players aren't great and they are prone to making crucial errors e.g. giving penalties away (let alone possession) and missing sitters (Cavies). That fact alone is sufficient to cost the club points - I reckon a minimum of 3 points have been dropped so far directly due to player error (2 v Forest and 1 v Boro) so instead of sitting mid table we're in the bottom 3 because of player error.

We shouldn't be in the bottom 3 but it's the lack of affordable quality that has put us there.

I'm no fan of the manager's tactics, substitutions and selections but it's difficult to criticise them if - but for individual player error - those tactics would have put us comfortably in mid-table and possibly higher.

Isn't our current predicament therefore a direct reflection of our reduced financial circumstances?

The point is that they're cheaper Okocha. 

I'd also argue that Feeney, Beckford, Cravies are of more use than Eagles, N'gog, Sordell.

I'd still argue that on his budget he's done very well for recruitment, both in terms of players out and in. I think there are two major problems at the moment - 

1. Not enough investment to be able to fully overhaul an unbalanced/not good enough squad.
2. Tactics on the whole, too much chopping and changing for me. We need to stick with a lineup and formation, be it slightly cautious or not the players need to learn a system because at the moment changing it every game can't help with gelling together. 

Yesterday didn't sound like the worst performance in the world, with some better fortune we may have got something. But it's the same old story at the moment. I think Sluffy's right and we'll be relying on loans again, where Freedman's eye for talent has got us out of shit every season so far.

wanderlust wrote:

We shouldn't be in the bottom 3 but it's the lack of affordable quality that has put us there.

That excuse is just a cop out. There are plenty of clubs with no cash who still have a bit of quality in their team. A manager's job isn't just to buy players with proven quality, it's to find players from lower leagues who can make the step up and, of course, improve the players already with the club.

How many players have improved under Dougie? Not many I would suggest.

Simple question(s): does DF get the best out of the players at his disposal?

Are players' skills and commitment improving or getting worse?

Simple answers. No and getting worse.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

We shouldn't be in the bottom 3 but it's the lack of affordable quality that has put us there.

That excuse is just a cop out. There are plenty of clubs with no cash who still have a bit of quality in their team. A manager's job isn't just to buy players with proven quality, it's to find players from lower leagues who can make the step up and, of course, improve the players already with the club.

How many players have improved under Dougie? Not many I would suggest.

I made the point after we'd been gubbed by Watford that Charlton Athletic started seven debutantes in their opening day draw and their manager only joined the club in May.

Currently, they're unbeaten after three games and are sitting in fourth place in the table

Have they just dropped lucky or are they doing something different to us?

Sorry, Nat. My post is almost a replica of yours. Great minds and all that.....

okocha wrote:Sorry, Nat. My post is almost a replica of yours. Great minds and all that.....

Okocha, 

Don't ever apologise to Whittam and certainly never even infer that she's got a "great mind"...!

It just makes her worse.

bwfc1874 wrote:The point is that they're cheaper Okocha. 

I'd also argue that Feeney, Beckford, Cravies are of more use than Eagles, N'gog, Sordell.

I'd still argue that on his budget he's done very well for recruitment, both in terms of players out and in. I think there are two major problems at the moment - 

1. Not enough investment to be able to fully overhaul an unbalanced/not good enough squad.
2. Tactics on the whole, too much chopping and changing for me. We need to stick with a lineup and formation, be it slightly cautious or not the players need to learn a system because at the moment changing it every game can't help with gelling together. 

Yesterday didn't sound like the worst performance in the world, with some better fortune we may have got something. But it's the same old story at the moment. I think Sluffy's right and we'll be relying on loans again, where Freedman's eye for talent has got us out of shit every season so far.

False economy if they get us relegated.
Also, don't agree with you about the relative merits of the players you mention. Managed properly, Eagles, Ngog and Sordell  are ex prem players with much more potential and skill. I bet BSA would have found ways to utilise them to the max.

Breadman wrote:

okocha wrote:Sorry, Nat. My post is almost a replica of yours. Great minds and all that.....

Okocha, 

Don't ever apologise to Whittam and certainly never even infer that she's got a "great mind"...!

It just makes her worse.

The damage may already have been done breadman. I've personally AGREED with Natasha THREE times in the last twenty four hours.   (My keyboard almost exploded typing that sentence but it IS true).

On a more serious note the sad fact is that (in my opinion) Dougie Freedman has gone as far as he can and failed to get the results we both need and should be capable of with the current squad; as a result he must go. There's no point bemoaning luck or little mistakes any more. It's been going on for too long to say it's just down to bad luck or the players. Two years of the same thing is not a coincidence and the manager is ultimately the man who has to take the blame when it goes badly just as he must get the credit when things go well. In Dougie's case there has been some good stuff but it's outweighed by the bad and two years is enough to say he's had a fair chance but hasn't been able to take it. 

I don't like to advocate the sack for anyone because I know from bitter personal experience that it's an unpleasant experience made even worse if you've genuinely done your best which I believe Dougie has but it's time for Mr Gartside to bite that bullet and get it done.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Firstly I think several players either don't get or don't believe in Dougie and what he's trying to do. A new man might just bring them around at least in the short term. 

Which players do you mean LPP?

Just watched the highlights, their second goal was a joke. Wheater came out with their forward, let him flick it on, then Mills does the same, then McNaughton doesn't track the run to allow Kike to flick it in. Wheater's not too bad but the other two should have done far more to get rid of it than they did.

Also think Beckfords goal should have stood.

Starting from the top then. The midfield doesn't work as a unit no matter what formation he plays them in. All too often they play what would be a great ball into space but there's no one there in our shirt because there colleagues haven't read it. 

The defence then simply bypass them and go for the hoof which goes straight to an opposition player and puts us back under pressure. 

It's not any one player every week mate, it's often a few of them and frankly the way we played last night encapsulated it perfectly for me. We played some good stuff, we really did but then we made the same little errors we keep making that cost us the match. It's like the team has some sort of 'self-destruct' switch in their heads or something. 

Individual errors coupled with the way the midfield looked like they'd never met before much less played together for a large portion of the match tells me they simply don't work as a unit the way they should. Dougie either does not have or has failed to communicate his plan to them clearly enough. Add to that having less than 40% possession AT HOME and you can see we're heading for a precipice. I don't like to advocate the sack for anyone but in this case for the long term good of our club he has got to go and now.

bwfc1874 wrote:
I'd still argue that on his budget he's done very well for recruitment, both in terms of players out and in.

Sorry, but that couldn't be any wider of the mark.

He's recruited Danns, Trotter, Moxey & Dervite this season. Trotter we all know has been truly awful. Danns & Dervite were both subs last night and even though Moxey has only played one game, many said he was awful.

And while I can't remember everyone he recruited the season before, three stand out - Spearing, Beckford and Hall. All absolute shite.

Very well? Think again.

I think you're all very unfair to Nat. She is clearly bright, on the ball about lots of issues to do with BW and the world in general, and expresses her ideas articulately.
 Yes, I know she can be deliberately controversial and confrontational, but this is no different from the rest of us who like to show off our originality of thought and prove that we know better. Like Breadman, she can be very amusing whilst sometimes proving herself a bit of a wind-up merchant and deliberately provocative for effect. Better that than the routinely repetitive, intense postings of some.

I await the flood of responses!