Forget salvation we are going down

Nat is a raggabrash!

You really have started something now, Breaders. Probably have to start a thread dedicated to sensible sounding but nonsensical words now. 

Magoo will walk it.

I knew we shouldn't have gone public with it.

Theses words are powerful and shouldn't be treated lightly.

Over using them can be pleolic.

doffcocker wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:
It's not blame for the sake of blame. 5 wins in 49 games is shocking and to keep saying that he's got so few options and his hands are tied etc etc is only masking the fact he's out of his depth, and has no idea how to turn it around. Yes, he's had it tough, but the fact is he should have won more than he has.  

But these aren't "facts", with all due respect.

If people think Lennon is out of his depth, that is fine. I'm just not seeing - across various threads on various forums - any solid arguments for that viewpoint. And simply alluding to his win record means absolutely nothing, not merely because we've drawn an awful lot of games too. You could put the best manager in the world in certain situations and they'd look - by what seems to be the Bolton fan definition of the term - out of his depth.

It doesn't seem like anybody has any really strong views on what Lennon should do differently, just that the win ratio is crap and he must therefore be a clueless waste of space.

I would say it is a fact. The squad might be shit but it's definitely good enough to have won more than 5 in 49.

His team selection has been questionable on a regular basis, he's consistently played players out of position, he's stuck with shite like Madine and Heskey and based the tactics around them even when it hasn't worked and he's far too slow to try and affect a game with a change of tactics or substitutions when we're behind. 

I've expected more from him and he hasn't delivered. It's a results business, and Lennon doesn't get them. 

He got away with it at Celtic because every team was worse than them by a distance. Now he's in a competitive league he's got no idea, hence the term, out of his depth.

Bwfc1958 wrote:
I would say it is a fact. The squad might be shit but it's definitely good enough to have won more than 5 in 49.

Is it though?

As far as I'm concerned there's no right or wrong answer, but I do think people tend to make their minds up based on the opinion they want to have of the manager. I mean if we sacked Lennon and brought Pep Guardiola in and there was no improvement, would people be straight on his back or would they defend him with the excuse that he's got a shit squad to work with? The same "shit squad" that people were saying was perfectly adequate when it was Lennon's.

I just think this is a pattern of events that's been going on for years at Bolton and the majority of other clubs to be fair. Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

Nobody expected us to get anything at Brighton and we didn't so what's the surprise?  Better teams than us will go there and get well beat. We were a tad unlucky not to get a point out of it.

Now next weekend Charlton, Rotherham & Bristol City are all away....if we win and they all lose we will be third from bottom....its that simple. It's not hopeless just yet.

doffcocker wrote:Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

Are you going to pay him off?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

Are you going to pay him off?

If you really have to scrutinise my work, at least try and make it not seem petty.

Clearly I meant lay off in the "give the guy a break" sense.

doffcocker wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:
I would say it is a fact. The squad might be shit but it's definitely good enough to have won more than 5 in 49.

Is it though?

As far as I'm concerned there's no right or wrong answer, but I do think people tend to make their minds up based on the opinion they want to have of the manager. I mean if we sacked Lennon and brought Pep Guardiola in and there was no improvement, would people be straight on his back or would they defend him with the excuse that he's got a shit squad to work with? The same "shit squad" that people were saying was perfectly adequate when it was Lennon's.

I just think this is a pattern of events that's been going on for years at Bolton and the majority of other clubs to be fair. Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

People slag off the manager because he is paid to manage, which he clearly isn't doing, how can anybody defend 5 wins in 49 games? ok we have drawn a few, but to say lay off the manager is just showing blind faith, firstly a good manager will see what's going on during a game and change it accordingly, Lennon is renowned for late substitutions when 90% of the time we are chasing the game, even the fans can see where changes are needed, yet the man who is paid to make those decisions fails to see it.

Playing out of form players is not the sign of a good manager, playing them out of position is utter foolishness, there is a reason we have won so few games, and that reason is poor coaching and decision making during games, so to ask people to lay off the manager is opening you up to criticism.

MartinBWFC wrote:

doffcocker wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:
I would say it is a fact. The squad might be shit but it's definitely good enough to have won more than 5 in 49.

Is it though?

As far as I'm concerned there's no right or wrong answer, but I do think people tend to make their minds up based on the opinion they want to have of the manager. I mean if we sacked Lennon and brought Pep Guardiola in and there was no improvement, would people be straight on his back or would they defend him with the excuse that he's got a shit squad to work with? The same "shit squad" that people were saying was perfectly adequate when it was Lennon's.

I just think this is a pattern of events that's been going on for years at Bolton and the majority of other clubs to be fair. Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

People slag off the manager because he is paid to manage, which he clearly isn't doing, how can anybody defend 5 wins in 49 games? ok we have drawn a few, but to say lay off the manager is just showing blind faith, firstly a good manager will see what's going on during a game and change it accordingly, Lennon is renowned for late substitutions when 90% of the time we are chasing the game, even the fans can see where changes are needed, yet the man who is paid to make those decisions fails to see it.

Playing out of form players is not the sign of a good manager, playing them out of position is utter foolishness, there is a reason we have won so few games, and that reason is poor coaching and decision making during games, so to ask people to lay off the manager is opening you up to criticism.

I would agree with you if Lennon had money to spend and was able to bring in at least a few of his targets.  As it is he was stuck with cast-offs and freebies not to mention the circumstances surrounding the club.
If he even had the players that  Coyle and Doogie had then it would be fair to judge.  Sir Alex couldn't do anything with this bunch IMO.

terenceanne wrote:

MartinBWFC wrote:

doffcocker wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:
I would say it is a fact. The squad might be shit but it's definitely good enough to have won more than 5 in 49.

Is it though?

As far as I'm concerned there's no right or wrong answer, but I do think people tend to make their minds up based on the opinion they want to have of the manager. I mean if we sacked Lennon and brought Pep Guardiola in and there was no improvement, would people be straight on his back or would they defend him with the excuse that he's got a shit squad to work with? The same "shit squad" that people were saying was perfectly adequate when it was Lennon's.

I just think this is a pattern of events that's been going on for years at Bolton and the majority of other clubs to be fair. Surely if there's a time to just lay off a manager and see what happens, it's in our current predicament.

People slag off the manager because he is paid to manage, which he clearly isn't doing, how can anybody defend 5 wins in 49 games? ok we have drawn a few, but to say lay off the manager is just showing blind faith, firstly a good manager will see what's going on during a game and change it accordingly, Lennon is renowned for late substitutions when 90% of the time we are chasing the game, even the fans can see where changes are needed, yet the man who is paid to make those decisions fails to see it.

Playing out of form players is not the sign of a good manager, playing them out of position is utter foolishness, there is a reason we have won so few games, and that reason is poor coaching and decision making during games, so to ask people to lay off the manager is opening you up to criticism.

I would agree with you if Lennon had money to spend and was able to bring in at least a few of his targets.  As it is he was stuck with cast-offs and freebies not to mention the circumstances surrounding the club.
If he even had the players that  Coyle and Doogie had then it would be fair to judge.  Sir Alex couldn't do anything with this bunch IMO.

Thing is though TA, he has brought in his own players and won't play them, 90% of Saturdays team was what he inherited, the likes of Wilson,Twatstick, and Prince, Casado, Pisano before them couldn't get near the team, so he's either guilty of squandering wages or falling out with them, either way he is clearly not up to managing in a league with competition.

MartinBWFC wrote:
People slag off the manager because he is paid to manage, which he clearly isn't doing, how can anybody defend 5 wins in 49 games? ok we have drawn a few, but to say lay off the manager is just showing blind faith, firstly a good manager will see what's going on during a game and change it accordingly, Lennon is renowned for late substitutions when 90% of the time we are chasing the game, even the fans can see where changes are needed, yet the man who is paid to make those decisions fails to see it.

Playing out of form players is not the sign of a good manager, playing them out of position is utter foolishness, there is a reason we have won so few games, and that reason is poor coaching and decision making during games, so to ask people to lay off the manager is opening you up to criticism.

Unless you can put forward an actual list of things he's done that you disagree with, this is all just meaningless waffle.

Anybody can come out with all the usual tripe about bad substitutions, playing people out of position, persisting with players that are shite, yada yada yada. But why not enlighten us? Who are these players? Which substitutions are we talking about? Give us names, times, actual events that have taken place, not just regurgitated statements. But most importantly, what should he have done instead? Because the squad's not just poor, it's considerably small. It's not like we have a load of players on the fringes just waiting to be given a chance. I really don't see what Lennon could do in the short term to make any material difference.

You mention the signings he's made that haven't made any real impact. What the hell do you expect? I bet their wages combined are less than what some of Freedman's signings were on. It's basically just a list of nobodies, which is all we can really expect in our current situation.

MartinBWFC wrote:

terenceanne wrote:

I would agree with you if Lennon had money to spend and was able to bring in at least a few of his targets.  As it is he was stuck with cast-offs and freebies not to mention the circumstances surrounding the club.
If he even had the players that  Coyle and Doogie had then it would be fair to judge.  Sir Alex couldn't do anything with this bunch IMO.

Thing is though TA, he has brought in his own players and won't play them, 90% of Saturdays team was what he inherited, the likes of Wilson,Twatstick, and Prince, Casado, Pisano before them couldn't get near the team, so he's either guilty of squandering wages or falling out with them, either way he is clearly not up to managing in a league with competition.

Listen Martin, answer me this.

We've just beat Blackburn 2-1 at home, Boxing Day 2014. Another solid performance, once again coming from behind, amazing atmosphere, umpteen home games unbeaten under Lennon. We've gone from bottom of the league, five points adrift to 14th, just as many points off the play-offs as we are above the the bottom three.

Somebody signs up to Bolton Nuts that night. Makes all the points about Lennon that you've made here. They say that he's actually clueless. He doesn't know what he's doing tactically, and that all the evidence currently on show to suggest otherwise is nothing but a red herring. We should trust him at our peril, they say, because in about a year the incompetence of the man will become all too clear.

Do you:

a ) welcome them to the site, and tell them you agree wholeheartedly
b ) welcome them to the site, tell them you respect their opinion, but that you disagree
c ) tell them to f*** off and find another site to troll?

From the bits and bats that I've seen you post over the years, I'd say it's almost certainly c. But go on, which is it? And we're all friends here so you can be completely honest.

doffcocker wrote:

You mention the signings he's made that haven't made any real impact. What the hell do you expect?

I expect him to find rough gems for peanuts. It's what managers used to do before the "I've no money to spend" excuse was so widely accepted.

And if he can't find anyone, then don't sign people just for the sake of it. Off the top of my head I can think of 15 players he's brought to the club, every single one of them has been shit.

I reckon Magoo could do better.

i was right with you Nat until the last sentence and then you blew it

Natasha Whittam wrote:
I expect him to find rough gems for peanuts. It's what managers used to do before the "I've no money to spend" excuse was so widely accepted.

Yes but even the "rough gems" cost money. You might think Burnley got promoted on a shoestring but the likes of Ings, Vokes, Stanislas, Shackell each costed more than anything Lennon has had to spend on players.

doffcocker wrote:

Yes but even the "rough gems" cost money. You might think Burnley got promoted on a shoestring but the likes of Ings, Vokes, Stanislas, Shackell each costed more than anything Lennon has had to spend on players.

I mean players from Leagues 1 & 2 and even non-league. A good manager can spot potential. And I don't mean by playing FIFA on the Xbox.

Get Rioch signed up as chief scout for next season, he knew how to spot a player in the lower leagues

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:

You mention the signings he's made that haven't made any real impact. What the hell do you expect?

I expect him to find rough gems for peanuts. It's what managers used to do before the "I've no money to spend" excuse was so widely accepted.

And if he can't find anyone, then don't sign people just for the sake of it. Off the top of my head I can think of 15 players he's brought to the club, every single one of them has been shit.

I reckon Magoo could do better.

Nat meant Mr. Magoo who would have a better shot without eyesight!  But say we didn't have the defensive lapses on Saturday... and we won the game.  And say the teams above us lost.  Now we are in the thick of it and would that make Lennon a genius?  As it is, we lost on really poor play by some very high priced midfielders.  I think Nat could take the team and do better than we are doing... almost anyone.  Is it bad luck, bad managing, or just bad players?  I think a combination of the three, but our only salvation can be for the teams above to lose, while we win a brace.  If we slide further, it is over.  We have been on a good run, and the team is scoring, so now we have to hope that individual mistakes (and watching the highlights showed how poor we were for those 3 goals) can stop.  One thing is for certain... we are slow without the kids in there... and everyone beats us to the ball.  Lennon needs to put some faster legs on the pitch.  I do believe Nat would have gotten more points than Lennon... and it is unfortunately, a result driven position.  There is no money to pay off Lennon, so will Nat work for free for the new ownership?