Colinjb

'Communist.'

The players are not good enough, so would need to be replaced with better ones who can play in that way. So why continue to coach players who are not good enough to a system they are not capable of? It's not brave, it is just foolish.

Had a promising young spine developing in the team at the time. Fitz Hall at CB, Folly in the middle. Griffit coming through. It all fell apart very swiftly.

Shades of Steve Wigley. The players loved him.

Football is all about opinions. By all means share your own and your reasoning for it, but no need at all to be so directly rude, it demeans you.

The young Thai prodigy, Fa Kin Yoo Sless is also a target.

If you mean the play-off final goal, yes it was nice. But, the idea that Martin is some kind of visionary, implementing something revolutionary is idiotic. Ideas he preaches have been previously done, by better managers who did not stick horrifyingly to one plan in the face of clear evidence that it is not going to work, they used them as part of their arsenal, not the whole focus. I had the pleasure of having chance to read for recreation a little recently, which given how busy I am was a rare treat. The book was 'Football Against the Enemy.' The chapter, 'Rulers of the Ukraine' highlights the methods of a coach called Zelentsov, he runs through the necessity to anticipate passes before they happen, requiring the Dynamo Kiev squad to be almost constantly circulating the ball. How very familiar. He also preached the use of statistical metrics and computer analysis to truly judge player performance against their desired requirements. Very Ankersen. This book was written in the early nineties, the coach mentioned in the above was at his best in the 1980's. Martin's approach is not a revolution, it is just extreme. Further to this, critically, Zelentsov recognised something. "A team that commits errors in no more then 15 - 18% of their acts is unbeatable." Martin's set up forces our players into errors. He shows no desire in changing his tactics to mitigate this. He is a fraud. And truly meets the definition of insanity in trying the same things over and over again hoping for something different to occur. The real horror. He did adapt..... once..... As stated above, after trying to make square pegs fit round holes after Bazunu's injury, and. it. worked. But he did not learn from this. So, the conclusion can only be that he is an idiot. An arrogant idiot, too full of his own brilliance to adapt to his situation and learn from past experience. An idiot dressing up other people's ideas as his own and more then happy to try and peddle his snake oil to anyone who will listen, people who would rather be seen to think 'differently,' then practically. It angers me that this superficial one-track preening hipster of a manager is still in charge. Rant over. No doubt which side of the fence i'm on as if you couldn't guess already.

Memories of him changing players for certain games so they could play a different way depending on the opposition. (Dropping Richardson for Butterfield v 'Boro in 2011, knowing he would deliver better crosses from deep, finding Guly for the opener is one of my favourites.) Such managerial finesse is not in Martin's make-up.

This is exactly my point. If only he would bloody do it now!

Which is why it was an absolute mercy that he did change how we played ahead of our last game of the season, don't you think?

Losing Bazunu forced Martin into changing his defensive set-up with McCarthy back in the side. No mistake that this saw us look a lot better. Naturally, him seeing a benefit from being flexible caused him to double down on his original Dogma. Bravo to him.

On the basis of having seen 4 games where he adapted to his circumstances (including Leeds, last game of the season in this) and comparing them to the previous 45 league games where he hoped the circumstances adapted to him; Yes, I would make that bet.

Considering the promotion was achieved due to him compromising his system in the play-offs, it makes you wonder how we could have done with someone more tactically flexible.

Like we did 19 months ago?

1 win in 7 compared to 1 win in 11. On pure numbers. Nathan Jones is not worse then Russell Martin. Even including Martin's single draw, the stats are: Martin: 0.36 points per game Jones: 0.42 points per game One conclusion could reasonably be that Martin is so bad that Nathan Jones would be an improvement.

How exactly is it going to get worse then bottom of the league and playing a type of football that is horrible to watch and doesn't work? Even if changing the manager doesn't work, at least as a fan it will stop the season feeling futile and give us something more interesting in seeing how changing effects things. It would also bring hope, as right now, none exists.

He's a single minded, stubborn fool wedded to his arrogant dogma. The easiest 'yes' i've ever clicked on.

On the basis of their last three games, he did.

Please sack him now, put us out of our misery with this clown.

Russell Martin said we would have some fun, so the problem is clearly with us.

What is the point?

Just imagine if Manning had any ability, that could have been dangerous, instead he nearly trips over the ball in the box.

Poor ball out from the back ceding possession. Here we go.

Difficult to do aerobic training when you are too busy mastering 5 yard passes.

Trying to be objective. We are holding possession well, limiting and restricting Everton. We are starting to get opportunities but the final ball isn't there. If we wern't so predictable at gifting chances and fading in the second half I would almost feel optimistic.