trousers

I still don't understand how Wotte seemingly had no input into how things were being run by Poortvliet if this slack regime is true. If Wotte is more of a disciplinarian (which he appears to be) can you imagine him sitting in the background watching the first team slide into apathy and not saying anything? And, alternatively, what if he did start ringing alarm bells long before Poortvliet "resigned".....who was ignoring Wotte and the warning signs? Lowe? (you see, yet another example of Trousers offering balance on this 'ere forum. It is possible to be both critical of Lowe in certain areas whilst giving him the benefit of doubt in others )

Ok....one more stab at 'making a serious point' from me, then it's back to inane drivel..... Imagine this hypothetical quote being attributable to Rupert Lowe this time last year when he was hatching a plan for his return to the helm: "I'm going to get back in contact with Wotte with a view to installing him as head-coach when I return. I also want to see an injection of youth into the team. Ideally this would be a 50/50 split with some of the senior players but I've got a feeling the bank may force my hand here somewhat. Let's see how things pan out." In other words, that plan is more or less where we are now, which most people seem relatively happy with. How do people know that Lowe didn't start out with a perfectly rational plan - i.e. a strong character in Wotte as head coach and a blend of youth and experience - but pre-season events conspired to turn the plan into what we saw in the first half of the season? In other words, 'someone' convinced him to bring in a 'weaker' head coach (Wotte himself? van der Waals? Someone else?) and the bank scuppered his original plan to blend youth and seniors. I think we're mainly all in agreement that it took far Lowe too long to act and sort out the problems that were building up in the first half of the season but how can people know for sure that he didn't start off his thinking from the stance I alluded to in the hypothetical quote above? Or, there again, perhaps people think it's irrelevant what he was thinking from the outset as it's immaterial now? Don't get me wrong (yet again... ), I feel it's just as likely that he didn't start from a more rational position compared to where we ended up, but I've not seen any tangible evidence that we can rule it out. (Yes, I know there is plenty of circumstancial evidence but that's not my point) So, in summary, the question is: Could Lowe have started out with a more rational plan than he ended up with? Ok, that's it from me. Back into Ken Dodd mode from here on in.

You may have a fair point there! Maggie Philbin's hopping mad at me too.

Bit of a tangental question but why is Skacel still listed as a midfielder on the OS?

Aye. There is that! Actually, a more telling stat is that there were 3 over 30 on day 1, but 6 over 30 yesterday

The average age of our starting line up on the first day of the season against Cardiff was: 25.1 The average age against Cardiff yesterday was: 27.6 Make of that what you will.

Yep....he said, and I quote: "We have had a number of constructive meetings with the bank and our backers over recent weeks and we remain grateful to them for all their support to date" Two questions sprang to mind when I read this... (a) why add "to date" on the end of that statement if these "constructive meetings" had resulted in SFC being financially secure for the foreseeable future? With my read-between-the-lines eyes that could be 'code' for: "we may not have their support from tomorrow onwards" (b) who are the "our backers" that Wilde refers to?

Yep, me too. That's the supplimentary question to the one I posed in the OP...i.e. "Does Wotte succeeding where Poortvliet failed mean Lowe (and Co) stay at the club longer?" The words 'sword', 'double' and 'edged' spring to mind....

Yep, that's it. Note to self: less waffle, more articulation Trousers.

Ok, hands up....there was an element of Devil's Advocate in posing the question. (yes, for those that didn't notice, it was a question rather than a statement or opinion....) For the record, I'm in the "clean sweep" camp (aka "Lowe, Wilde and Crouch must all go" camp), but I'm simply wondering how close Lowe came to doing things right. IMHO, there's a fine line between doing things wrong and right in many walks of life. What if that pilot who successfully landed his plane in water in New York had nudged his yoke a centimetre too much to the left on landing? Could have been the difference between the plane breaking up or staying intact. What I'm trying to say (perhaps somewhat inartculately) is maybe, just maybe, what Lowe was TRYING to achieve was along the right lines but his execution was wrong. For example, a lot of us on here during the last half of last season were saying we should promote more of the youngsters into the first team. Lowe did that, but he took it too far (or rather, from what we're led to understand, Barclays forced his hand when it came to retaining and playing more senior players...???). Another example....Lowe wanted to install Wotte as head coach (three years ago) which, over the evidence of the last few games, would seem to be a shrewd move, but someone (van der Waals????) convinced him to go for the JP/MW split roles approach instead. Ok, even more balanced view alert....perhaps Lowe convinced himself this was a good move but that doesn't add up to me. So, again, for what it's worth, I want to see Lowe and co out of here as quickly and quietly as the next man (or woman), but I don't think that should preclude me from having an open mind on how all this came about.

Internet Explorer doesn't let you but Mozilla Firefox browser does. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

Perhaps he just took the concept a few steps too far? As someone pointed out on another thread, 10 out of the 11 that started yesterday were in the first squad of the season.....

Well, if ITV can't be arsed to show it then the OS should now put up a clip pronto.

We're all very quick to criticise Lowe on here (and justifyably so in many cases) but IF Wotte and the team he is now building proves to be a winning formular then, in reality, Lowe wasn't a million miles away from getting things right, was he?

I posted this on another thread but perhaps more relevant to this one: _______________________________________________________________ I've suspected for several months now that van der Waals somehow convinced Lowe to take "two for the price of one" (Dutch coaches) when Lowe was probably happy to go with his 'original' plan of Wotte at the helm. If true, just begs the questions: What did Waals say, or do, to convince Lowe to take on JP as well as Wotte? and Why did the club keep Waals' role under wraps until he was 'uncovered' on here? Perhaps Lowe's "original" plan was a relatively sound idea, but he somehow got convinced by 'others' that it should be expanded....given Lowe isn't a football man at heart he may have been hoodwinked by other supposedly more knowledgable 'advisors'...? The irony being that Lowe could actually be the victim in all this....?!

As above, perhaps Lowe's "original" plan was a relatively sound idea, but he somehow got convinced by 'others' that it should be expanded....given Lowe isn't a football man at heart he may have been hoodwinked by other supposedly more knowledgable 'advisors'...? The irony being that Lowe could actually be the victim in all this....?!

At last...perhaps one of my hair brained conspiracy theories will actually come true....?! I've suspected for several months now that Waals somehow convinced Lowe to take "two for the price of one" (Dutch coaches) when Lowe was probably happy to go with his 'original' plan of Wotte at the helm. If true, just begs the questions: What did Waals say, or do, to convince Lowe to take on JP as well as Wotte? and Why did the club keep Waals' role under wraps until he was 'uncovered' on here? Who knows?

That is the Chapel end

Barclays Bank plc

Ironically perhaps, the biggest vote of no confidence towards Lowe now would be for us to attend the remaining games in our droves as it sends out the message that we prefer this back-to-basics football than the 'experiment' that it took him so long to admit defeat on.

If you're watching OS, get a Kelvin Davis "hand of God" save article up there pronto, along with a link to a video clip of it (sod it if ITV have publishing rights to it until tomorrow. Need to see it again now!!! We'll have a whip around for any fine imposed due to broadcasting infringements!)

So, Ipswich on Tuesday.... Select a winning starting line-up for third game on the trot or bring in a one or two fresh legs? My gut feel is to start with the same 11 again. Thoughts?

Hmmmm.... +1