Saturday 23rd October, 20102 years ago, at the end of October
Which way up is the map supposed to be?
The Team
- Jon McLaughlin | Reece Brown, Oliver Gill, Steve Williams, Luke O'Brien | Leon Osborne, Tommy Doherty, David Syers, Omar Daley | James Hanson, Jason Price | Moult (for Daley), Speight (for Price)
The Byline
More Information
Burton Albion 3 Bradford City 0 At Pirelli Stadium in League Two, 2010/2011
The stretch of the M1 we followed to get down to Burton today was fraught with spells of heavy rain and high levels of spray, which made driving hazardous. And then three junctions before our turn off, traffic came to a complete standstill as an accident still some 10 miles ahead left everyone stationed.
In many ways it symbolised the year 2010 for Bradford City.
Faced with little to no movement on the motorway and with the clock ticking to kick off at the Pirelli Stadium, the atlas was hastily opened and an alternative route was worked out by getting off two junctions early. Abandon plan A, see you later non-moving traffic.
But what looked a good idea on paper proved to be almost as big a nightmare. The A roads we plotted as our short-cut were filled with heavy traffic, roadworks and over-used junctions through small towns which caused colossal tailbacks and took over 20 minutes a time to get through. Stress levels through the roof, but in the end we got into the ground just as the players came out for the game.
Perhaps if we’d waited on the M1 while the accident was cleared up we might have missed kick off, just like several City fans and even Burton’s planned starting player, Nathan Stanton, who had to be dropped to the bench. But as alluring and promising as the short-cut appeared to be in solving our immediate problems, the subsequent unexpected twists and troubles with plan B made it difficult to argue we had made the right decision.
Last February, Stuart McCall was forced out of the club he enjoyed highly distinguished spells of success with as a player – and who he still cares so much about he’s now even helping out the under 14s team – because it seemed his progress as manager was too slow and City were at a standstill. He’d made mistakes for sure; but after the majority of fans held up SOS banners begging him to stay in April 2009, he set about building a young hungry team which was just two or three players short of taking City into the direction we wanted to go.
Yet a few defeats around Christmas last year, and the impatience of many fans and members of the board became too strong and all of it was torn up. There had to be another, quicker path to realising the success we craved, it was felt; and rather like the alternative route devised from our road atlas this afternoon, his replacement Peter Taylor looked good on paper.
Ten months on, the evidence is mounting that getting rid of McCall as manager has proven a backwards step for this club. Sure, I know and understand the arguments about how McCall had been given almost three years and the lack of progress was there for all to see. I also agree he had sizeable transfer budgets and failed to make the most of them. But after he offered to quit in Spring 2009 and after many of us begged him to stay, we saw tangible evidence of him learning from past mistakes which deserved more time to see through. After trying the short-cut approach of throwing money at people like Paul McLaren, he was building a team with great potential that could grow and take the club forwards over the next few years.
Taylor was an outstanding appointment for sure, but as City slumped to a seventh defeat in 13 league games this afternoon the reasons to believe he is the man to revive this ailing club are few beyond those that were apparent last February. The league position, the results, the performances and the level of passion have all declined since McCall fell on his sword.
For a week since the brilliant victory over Cheltenham Town, we’ve all basked in that warm glow of happiness and the positive mood was prevalent in the Burton away end at kick off and even through to half time, with City unfortunate to be a goal down after Jon McLaughlin brought down Lewis Young in the area and was unable to keep out Shaun Harrod’s spot kick on 31 minutes.
And though Burton had played well and hit the woodwork twice, City had been equally impressive and regularly cut through the Brewers’ defence during an exciting opening 45 minutes. Omar Daley, moved to left wing as Lee Hendrie was absent, twice cut inside and forced saves out of keeper Adam Legzdins. The hard-working David Syers had a long range effort tipped wide of the post. Then Daley produced a stunning run from the wing that saw him beat defenders for fun, before wildly blasting over from six yards.
The players were backed strongly by an enthusiastic away following. Confidence was high that we would come back in the second half.
But then, inexplicably, Taylor switched tactics and pushed Daley up front in a 4-3-3 formation, and the players changed from passing the ball around the pitch to direct balls to James Hanson and Jason Price. I remember McCall was often heavily criticised for not changing tactics or making subs early enough in games, but all season long Taylor has chopped and changed early and not for the first time it had a negative effect.
Why ditch a 4-4-2 formation that was working well in all but the scoreline? It sums up the lack of trust Taylor seems to have in his own players and over-dependence on functionality over style. City became one-dimensional, predictable and easy to defend against. Burton grew stronger and James Collins headed home former Bantam Adam Bolder’s cross to make it 2-0, after Luke O’Brien had made one excellent tackle but couldn’t get his bearings in time to stop the cross.
And therein lies the other downside to 4-3-3, which we often saw under McCall last season. By going so narrow in shape, the opposition have extra space to run at isolated full backs, often doubling up on them. Burton’s speedy wingers Young and Jacques Maghoma terrorised O’Brien and Reece Brown, the former at least standing up to the challenge admirably. Meanwhile when City had the ball they had no-one in wide areas to stretch the game, and moves kept ending with Brown crossing from deep and Burton’s defence – superbly marshalled by former promotion hero Darren Moore – easily clearing.
Just like the M1/A road dilemma, switching to plan B so quickly had not worked out as hoped. What of Plan C? Well when your subs bench contains three strikers, a defensive midfielder and two defenders, there isn’t one. With City struggling to provide the forwards any service, all Taylor could do was swap the front three and hope the ball fell kindly in the box. Daley was taken off, a bizarre decision but sadly typical of the level of faith shown in the Jamaican all season. With it, the opportunity to go back to using width was lost.
Burton’s third came after another successful charge down Brown’s part of the pitch – the shell-shocked youngster almost begging for the final whistle by this stage – and Russell Penn tapped home. City’s direct 4-3-3 approach failed to create a single noteworthy chance until a 93rd-minute header from Syers. The pre-match positivity had long since drained to silence and resignation, but not anger.
All of which leaves City having gone two steps forward and taken one step back over the past fortnight, and the longer-term outlook returns back into focus. This writer saw City director Roger Owen in a service station on the way home (but lacked the courage to ask one of McCall’s loudest critics what he now thought of Taylor and the results of the actions he was calling for last January). The two recent wins shield Taylor from the Board sacking him and the recent improvement should not be dismissed readily, but this week the pressure is on again.
The dilemma is whether Taylor’s ways will prove a success in the long-term and to keep patient as it stalls again, or whether it’s best to find a different route. Whatever the future holds, the current problems raise suspicions that, last February, the club took a wrong turn and is now struggling to work out which way up the map is supposed to be.
Perhaps it’s time to face facts, I think we’re lost.
The Team
- Jon McLaughlin | Reece Brown, Oliver Gill, Steve Williams, Luke O'Brien | Leon Osborne, Tommy Doherty, David Syers, Omar Daley | James Hanson, Jason Price | Moult (for Daley), Speight (for Price)
The Byline
More Information
35 Comments
Comments Closed
- The article could be over fourteen days old and have had comment turned off automatically.
- We might have turned off comments on the article believing that it needs no more further discussion.
- We may have decided the article will not be subject to comments. Sometimes a statement is a start of a debate, sometime it is simply a statement.
- On rare occasions we are not able to respond and approve comments owing to time pressures and we may have turned comments off for a period of time.
Good article, spot on and it’s good to know that I’m not the only one with thoughts on how we might actually be in a better position had the managerial merrygoround not stopped at our place earlier this year. The second half today was a non event, why tinker when the system was working fine in the first half? Thought Hanson was a yard off pace today, was he fully fit? Good support from us, pity we couldn’t go home smiling.
Another thought to ponder – Taylor departs at some stage – who then to get success? – another disapointing finish and the season ticket sales drop away but at a more alarming rate given the economic climate – City still have to pay the rent on the best ground in the division – financial pressures increase – the board appeals for help – admin number 3 a possibility?
Of course we could see PT get the players peforming on a consistent basis and we climb the diviison to qualify for the play offs, win through to the Final and truimph – so departing to Division 1.
Or will it be PT in charge all season, then departing next May by mutual agreement, with the club having finished 14th and season ticket sales down by 2,000 – meaning it’s going to be hard to pay the overheads through the summer
“Or will it be PT in charge all season, then departing next May by mutual agreement”
Taylor’s contract expires in May 2011 so his agreement would not be significant unless the board wanted to offer him a new deal.
McCall had enough time, enough money, enough very good players to get us promoted. Importantly, he didn’t have the managerial ability to achieve it. McCall went through three sets of players, searching for the right combinations and was unsuccessful. At some stage you’ve got to say that the common denominator is the Manager.
I didn’t want Stuart to stay at the end of the 2008/09 season, and last season was highly predictable and a wasted opportunity.
Taylor has the managerial ability, give him a chance to prove what a good manager he is and stop churning out these articles which suggest success was just around the corner with McCall. Two and a half years and fifty players suggest otherwise.
Judge Taylor over the season and stop refering to McCall every time we lose a game. He had his chance and he couldn’t take it. The decision last January was the right one.
Roger Owen was right, and we all need to move on.
You know it is great that you have the opinion that Taylor has more “managerial ability” than McCall even if you do not seem especially ready to evidence this with an explanation as to why Taylor being better means the team gets poorer results and how changing that “common denominator” does not bring improvement. The game is – I am told – about opinions and good luck to you. No one here is going to disrespect you for having them.
What is shoddy is that you feel the need to use words like “churning out” to describe the opinions of a City fan. Jason battled down to Burton in atrocious weather and worse traffic, saw the side lose 3-0 came back and as he often does devoted his time to writing about it. You might not like what he says or agree with it but he deserves more respect for his opinions which I can guarantee are at last as considered as any that any other City fan holds than to have words like “churn out” applied to them.
As I stated, judge Taylor over the season, not a third of it. His experience and record suggest we will end up in a much better position than SM left us in. It does feel like the article has been churned out. It feels similar to others I’ve read on this website. To say SM was ‘two or three players’ away from success is ridiculous. These are statements made in frustration after a heavy defeat. Emotionally raw. Why is SM discussed at all? I could write articles wishing PJ was still our manager, every time we lost, but that would be looking back and dreaming. I cannot understand the fascination some fans have with SM. I’m passionate about City, but it doesn’t mean I should be the manager. As I stated, SM had his chance, one of the biggest budgets any City manager has ever enjoyed, relative to the division, and he couldn’t take it.
(Sighs) as the guy who churned out the article I best defend myself. I can’t speak for other writers on this website, but I can’t remember the last time I wrote about McCall the manager other than the odd passing reference which is inevitable with any recent manager (if Taylor was to be sacked next week, if City lose, there is no reason why six months later we still wouldn’t be writing about him in articles, because he will have played a big part in our recent history and his actions will shape future events long after he goes). However I don’t see why I should be restricted in what I write (within reason).
My opinion that Stuart was two or three players away is my own and you don’t have to agree with it but that doesn’t make it ridiculous. During the first half of last season, we played some very good football under McCall and in a number of games the players gave everything they had but just lacked something to turn draws into victories. Perhaps this report I did at the time sums up how it felt – http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/2009/09/the-little-things/.
We needed a new keeper, perhaps a centre half and a striker and I think we’d have had the basis for a top seven side. Of course we’d still need strength and depth in the squad, but it wasn’t far away from been a good side and we’ve seen the development of players like Hanson, Evans, Williams and O’Brien continue, which was largely the point of McCall’s strategy – young players who grow and improve with the club. I don’t think we were that far off in February, sorry.
As for frustration at the heavy defeat, you’re right I was really frustrated. I’m frustrated because last February a lot of people argued to me that we had to get rid of McCall as he was holding the club back, and the introduction of a top manager like Peter Taylor would deliver instant improvement. But Russell, please tell me where this improvement is, because I don’t see it. All of which isn’t an attack on Taylor as such, because like you I retain faith he will get it right eventually. But the actions taken February have so far seen the club go backwards right now and people said getting rid of McCall would avoid this from happening.
The arguments I’ve heard about why people like me are naive, foolish idiots who can’t stop living in the past and are blinded by McCall all centre on the fact McCall was apparently taking us no where, but no one is willing to explain or argue how the decision to drive him out has improved the club in the way they declared it would.
So Russell, please can you explain where this improvement lies and why Taylor is doing a better job than McCall?
We are again left looking at the manager. Yes the tactics deployed by Taylor, just like McCall, did not work. Yes the players didn’t perform to their potential. But is that really where the problem rests.
2 managers (we can look back to continue a long list), a host of prolific players at this level have all seen their careers take a nose dive at our club. A handful maybe but the majority has to beg the question why?
McCall was a good coach, everyone in the game expected him to become a good manager. Peter Taylor was a good manager with a strong history. They and the host of other managers since Paul Jewel can’t suddenly have become appalling over night.
Is it the managers and players who make the club bad or vice versa
Umm!
Bit of a conundrum! Having seemingly set on course – this is a very big setback.
Two highly competent wins, two sketchy wins, a couple of draws and seven defeats where we never even looked like getting a point. There was a stage when I thought all would be well as we had played some top teams – but getting pasted at Burton, albeit probably a flattering score to the home sides, really means that we have taken that proverbial two steps forward, one step back.
But what of PT? It is still too early ( although if he hadn’t won at Barnet he surely would have been shown the door) but what is a reasonable success target over the next ten games? Points are important as we languish near the relegation zone – but we cannot really expect promotion form – so I would say 30 points by the half way mark – would represent progress and anything less has to be regarded as failure.
However there is also the intangible. How well are we playing? Is there a basic team for development and progress?
Whilst BfB advocates patience and stability – I found the articles comments about SM a retrograde step. Whilst I do not attend many games – I was there at Lincoln away and it was a shambles. SM was ultimately found wanting. In many ways we have not had a solid manager since er ….. It is difficult to think of one. Just think the last manager that was poached is Roy MacFarland – too many years ago.
Unfortunately football is a results game – no team can afford to be relegated. Not every team can be a success, but I think 30 points from 23 games is a good yardstick. It is a modest target of just over a point a game and shows progress on our very poor start.
Re: retrograde step comment.
We can’t turn back the clock now and what’s done is done. But at the time we were preaching for stability and the longer-term picture, only for many fans to criticise us and say that McCall’s removal would see instant improvement. In the longer-term Taylor can deliver success to this club (though the one-year contract means it’s looking unlikely that will happen), but every argument for making a change last February has so far been proven incorrect and the reality has proved different to what McCall’s removal was supposed to herald. The club has gone retrograde in the short-term.
I love this website and guys like you, Michael and Jason, keep me in touch with Bradford City from afar, but I have to say that I totally 100% agree with Russell above.
My first City game was probably Tooting & Mitcham in the 1976 Cup run, so I have enjoyed the whole of Stuart McCall’s football career; he is a hero to virtually all City fans.
However, to constantly keep referring to him in every article when we’ve lost (which is quite often) is getting annoying. Everyone wanted Stuart to be a success, he was the dream ticket, but he wasn’t. Might he have been given more time? – well, we will never know, but at the time of his resignation were we really showing promising signs or we were on a downward spiral?
As I say I don’t watch many games (3 a season maybe) but what I have witnessed since McCall is that history appears to be rewritten, so what I want to ask of those who actually watch regularly is…
1. Did City really play more attractive football under McCall?
2. “Evidence is mounting that getting rid of McCall as manager has proven a backwards step for this club” – is that true or is it that little has changed?
3. “we saw tangible evidence of him learning from past mistakes which deserved more time to see through” – is that true or were we on a disastrous run of results and the trapdoor was beckoning?
4. Is it the case that “he was building a team with great potential that could grow and take the club forwards over the next few years”?
5. “league position, the results, the performances and the level of passion” – is that true or has little changed but we just seem a bit more organised in defeat?
6. Is there really no evidence “that Taylor has more managerial ability than McCall”?
7. Why is Stuart McCall coaching the Under 14s? Undoubtedly he loves the club but is there more to it than that?
This website has a great many articles which never mention Stuart McCall at all, it is just that no one comments that he is not mentioned in them.
That it might annoy is of less importance than allowing the writer – and BfB has had five (to the best of my memory) different reporters doing reports this season – to make the point the wish to. I’m no more going to tell a writer than he is not allowed to talk about Stuart McCall than I am to tell him he has to write in a specific way about anything.
Put simply – it is what the people who are writing the match reports feel is significant.
I would – however – take a dim view on any article that presented the idea that Taylor was evidencing more managerial ability than the previous incumbent of the job without explaining why we are doing poorer this year as we were last and ask for that conclusion to be supported more fully.
There are many of the points you make that are the subject of debate beyond this Editorial remit I’ve taken however I can clarify point seven which is that (I think) that the u14 contain McCall’s son Craig.
Thought I’d just check SM’s final City Squad, to ascertain whether we were ‘a young hungry team, which was just two or three players short’, ‘a team with great potential that could grow and take the club forwards’.
Glennon – 32, without a club till September, now with Stockport.
Ramsden – 28, Injured.
O’Brien – 22, In and out of PT’s team.
Flynn – 30, Injured
Rehman – 27, Mainly out of PT’s team.
Clarke – 29, Now playing in Malta.
Daley – 29, Doing OK in PT’s team.
Bullock – 29, In and out of PT’s team.
Evans – 22, injured.
Boulding – 34, short-term deal with Barnsley.
Hanson – 22, done well, developed and improved. Good signing.
Thorne – 37, retired.
O’Leary – 25, at Kettering Town.
Average age of the players used – 28.15. This team definately wasn’t young.
Only Hanson has improved. Six of the players haven’t played a minute in the football league this season. None of the team has bettered themselves in terms of moving up the divisions, unless you include Boulding, who hasn’t played for Barnsley.
Does this honestly look like a team that is ‘two or three short’ or ‘young and hungry’?. Just fed up of the rose-tinted specs around SM’s reign.
I like this – you’ve put the team he used for his final match up as proof the SQUAD wasn’t young, you’ve slagged off every player (in many cases in quite ridiculous terms, but which helps to prove your point of course) and you’ve completely ignored all the other questions like “please can you explain where this improvement lies and why Taylor is doing a better job than McCall?”
Oh and just to cap it off, you’ve thrown in the usual accusation that we wear “rose tinted specs.” Because anyone who disagrees with you is obviously either an idiot or needs to buy new glasses. This type of put-down is so lazily and often given out without any reason other than as a retort when someone says something you don’t agree with. In fact, as insults and arguments go, you might say you’re ‘churning’ the insults out.
So well done, great argument. Any chance you can now answer the question?
I’ve not insulted you, and I don’t want you to take my comments personally.
SM ended with 3 wins in 13, 2 of which were against teams who were then relegated.
Let me talk about other SM players then –
Eastwood – Oxford, not playing.
Williams – Improved, Developed. Good signing.
Neilson – Now in the BSP with Crawley.
Rory Boulding – Accrington, plays now and again.
Bateson – Accrington. Regular.
Sharry – Released.
McLaughlin – Improved, developed. Good signing.
The young players SM had, haven’t gone on and developed bar Hanson, McLaughlin (who SM clearly didn’t rate) and Williams. The team from SM’s last game proved that SM didn’t rate his younger players. He only played OB, Hanson and Evans. And subsequently, that team wasn’t young at all.
Improvement from PT’s team was evident towards the end of last season. We finished the campaign in great style.
Let’s be honest and say that this season has been disappointing. But I firmly believe that judging PT over a full season, and not a third of it, is necessary.
PT’s record is outstanding, his promotions are superb and I trust that he’s been in some dark places before, and he’s fought back and got the results.
In Doherty, Syers, Hendrie, Hanson and Williams, I see encouraging signs. The injuries to Flynn and Ramsden have affected the team, and would affect any team at our level.
Once again, my comments weren’t meant to ‘insult’. I just think the facts about what SM left, are very different from the picture you portray.
Russell, the crux of my opinion Stuart was building “a young hungry team, which was just two or three players short” is looking at what he did in the summer of 2009, when he had a reduced playing budget to work with. He turned to youth largely, and the players he signed included Bateson, Williams, Neilson, James O’Brien, Evans and Hanson. He had a very limited keeper budget and brought in Eastwood. Supplementing that was the experience of Flynn, Ramsden and O’Leary. The set up and structure of the team then saw young players more prominent in the set up. Of course there were still experienced players in the team, you’d be daft not to and even the famous Man United “can’t win anything with kids” team of 1995-96 relied heavily on senior pros.
The point with these young players was they weren’t the finished article, but could develop and grow as they played at the club and in time become better players, possibly with a resale value. Up until McCall left, those players were growing (some quicker than others) and since then Taylor has decided to keep certain ones (the more polished players) and get rid of the others. Just because the likes of Bateson and Neilson have left the club, doesn’t mean that they weren’t good enough (Bateson is now playing for a club higher in the league, Crawley Town are another case entirely and I bet Neilson’s pay packet ain’t bad). I don’t think, for example, replacing Bateson with Hunt was the best choice. I can understand why Taylor has done it, because he has a greater idea of how Hunt will play each week and he will be less prone to inconsistency. Same with Neilson, who in time I still believe can be a very good player and will play in the Football League again (and he was signed on a three and a half year contract with McCall stressing he will take time to grow). It was very quickly forgotten, but James O’Brien was excellent in the first half of last season under McCall, then he got injured and Taylor didn’t really select him. I don’t agree with the recent criticisms of Evans, but that’s a different story.
At the end of the day, Taylor has chosen a different approach. Fine, that’s his right and good luck to him. But that doesn’t mean the approach McCall was taking wasn’t going to prove to be a success in the longer run, and the fact we’ve had to take backwards steps under Taylor initially means it’s unclear which would have proved the quicker approach. Hopefully in time Taylor will get it right, as you say he has the track record.
But the point is getting rid of McCall didn’t result in what many fans expected or told the rest of us it would. Taylor has since benefited from a significantly larger transfer budget, but he has not yet been able to deliver the improvement that fans thought the club would see once McCall left. He has signed some good players, but he appears to have signed some bad ones too. 9 months from letting McCall go, the club is in a worse position.
We can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of McCall’s strategy or McCall’s approach last season v Taylor’s approach now, but as someone who believed in what McCall was trying to achieve and who was reguarly told McCall was holding the club back I think I have a right to feel frustrated that the decisions I didn’t agree with have led to this.
“SM ended with 3 wins in 13″, “PT’s record is outstanding”
There is a reason – no doubt – why someone would select the worst of one man’s record and compare it to the best of anothers but it is not to be confused with a reasonable statement of the fact.
Supporters Stevenage BfB talked to earlier this season would hardly consider PT outstanding, Wycombe fans debate if to boo him. The last 13 games were three won, but the last fourteen were (perhaps, I’ve not checked) four and the only reason to select the smaller sample is to pick the part which portrays the one worse and the other better.
I believe PT has repeated success in his history (which made him an outstanding appointment) but were one to be as selective with him as judging SM by the thirteen games which show him worse then would could easily just say he is the man who flushed £5m down the loo for Adi Akinbiyi.
Further not mentioning Stuart McCall when writing articles on BfB would be to write article that do not address the situation at the club. He has a significance be it considered good or bad, right or wrong, and to ignore that is to take of rose tinted or otherwise glasses and to simply be blind. One might as well attempt to write articles on the finances of the club that do not reference administration.
Finally it is true that Taylor should be judged over the course of the season and following that thought through then one concludes that there is a hope that the second two thirds will be better than the first third, which is to say that there is a hope that things will improve.
One is then left too wonder why when at the moment the best that can be said for Peter Taylor is that he is not doing as well as we want, but we hope (encouraging signs, if you will) he will improve that there is so little empathy for those who said the same thing about Stuart McCall.
One can say what one likes about the qualifications of the two men but in the end Bradford City fans under McCall, and Bradford City fans under Taylor, continue to hope that things improve.
If you refer back to my original post, I am dispelling the myth that SM had a young team, that was close to success and he deserved more time. There seems to be a lot of selective memory around SM. He had the biggest budget afforded to a BCFC manager EVER, comparible to the division, and he couldn’t even get us in the play-offs. He won 3 of his last 13, 2 of which were against relegated teams (the other a fortunate late win against a struggling Torquay team). This suggests success wasn’t round the corner, success was miles away. He hadn’t built a young team. When push come to shove and he needed results he didn’t play the younger players. Only, L OB, Hanson and Evans played in his final game. He chose to put Thorne on ahead of Neilson, and played Ramsden at CB and Rehman at RB, ahead of picking Williams at all. SM wasn’t close to success. All the facts suggest this. If Bateson, R Boulding, Neilson, J OB and Sharry had so much potential why weren’t league 1/championship clubs queueing up to sign them. They weren’t good enough to get us out of this division, and are now at Accrington, Crawley, Eire league and released. PT’s record is on a different planet to SM’s. You cannot seriously compare the two? Promotion after Promotion, England U21′s compared with failure in 2 1/2 years. And yes PT hasn’t been successful everywhere, very few managers are. Even PJ failed at Sheff Wed and Derby. However, PT gives us a far greater chance of promotion than SM ever did, because he has achieved it before. And when you’ve done something before you gain confidence, experience, and knowhow. I had more sympathy when NL and CT were sacked, with off the field problems. SM had no excuses. He had the budget, the resources, the backing to deliver . And he couldn’t do it.
“He had the biggest budget afforded to a BCFC manager EVER, comparible to the division”
What a ridiclous assertion. So In 1998 Paul Jewell had a lower comparable budget to McCall in 2008? So the six weeks of madness in 2001, when in retrospect Julian Rhodes stated City were offering higher wages than what Man United’s top players were on, was a lower comparable budget to 2008? There are many other examples we can look back on in our history where a manager was given a very high budget. To suggest McCall had a better budget than any other manager has ever had, in relative terms, is nonsense and doesn’t stack up when you consider not a single transfer fee was paid that summer.
Another daft comment is “PT’s record is on a different planet to SM’s. You cannot seriously compare the two”. So because Taylor has a strong track record as manager we are not allowed to compare how two people in the same role have got on? The facts are Taylor was given a sizeable playing budget this summer, significantly larger than McCall last season. Therefore this vastly superior manager, who we are apparently not allowed to compare with the old one, should be delivering significant improvement and City should be flying forwards. Hmmm…league position, level of performances, excitment at games. Perhaps we should ignore these issues for the sake of you winning the argument, eh?
We can spend all day arguing about whether McCall’s youngish team had the potential I argue they did. I’ve already stated my reasons for why I believe what I do. But if this debate isn’t allowed to move beyond the fact that in February McCall’s City weren’t doing very well and Taylor had a strong previous track record, and we are supposed to ignore the last 10 months, then what is the point in debating it at all? A decision was taken last February, people like you demanded that decision happened. The results of that decision are sadly there for all to see. In the long-term let us retain belief Taylor will get it right, but in the short term replacing McCall has not benefited this club whatsoever in the way it was claimed it would.
I can’t agree with Russell’s comments on Jason’s opinion when mentioning McCall in his excellent match report above,Jason has every right to say whatever he wants in regards to McCalls tenure as manager.I enjoyed watching BCFC matches more under McCalls time as manager than any other since Paul Jewell.The players gave it their all under McCall even though on too many occasions they never got the end product their efforts deserved.
From what was said on the Pulse radio commentry,the changing of the system at half time and the subbing of Daley changed the whole game for the worse in regards to BCFC having any chance of getting back into the game.Tim and Sticks did mention that Taylor seems to managing the team as if he was dealing with Premiership players who can adapt to most systems,this thinking if true needs to be addressed by Taylor and keeping it simple in a 442 system could be a better bet at this level.The season is far from over and a more consistent set of results over the next few weeks would see BCFC move quickly up the league table.CTID
I don’t agree that the players gave it their all under McCall. Sometimes they appeared to, other times they didn’t, and so ultimately perhaps they didn’t. I feel that this sort of view is what irks some people – not me particularly – that all of McCall’s time in charge is reduced to such sweeping and positive statements. There were a number of games when Stuart was manager in which the players looked pretty similar in attitude to some of the games we’ve witnessed under Taylor. They too were grim to watch and resulted in predictable losses. I didn’t want Stuart to go, nor Todd or Law, etc, etc., but now that they have it’s important not to look backwards wearing the famously flawed rose tinted glasses.
The Rose-Tinted glasses are never better employed than in looking not backwards to managers gone but forward to the next one and thinking he will do a better job than the last. This is true of McCall, Law, Todd and Taylor.
I’m sorry if my view point irks some fans but that is my take on McCalls tenure as manager and i’m certainly not on my own with this view point.I can’t for the life of me remember under McCall being bored stiff at games.That point of view has nothing to do with McCall being a BCFC legend and my favourite BCFC player of all time,it has everything to do with the attacking style of play his teams employed.McCalls teams gave it their all just like he did as a player and manager.His time in charge may have been a bumpy ride but i found it an enjoyable one.
Rose tinted specs…never worn em lol
I believe Taylor has a very good chance of getting BCFC promoted this season,i think his team is improving fast and if(it’s a big IF i know) he can keep hold of Hendrie i believe Lee’s quality will be a big factor in getting us in and around the top seven in the non too distant future.
Being ‘lost’ is interesting to me from the point of view of how individuals or groups first got themselves into their situation and then dealt with that situation. Decisions, when lost, are often made whilst suffering from high levels of stress, anxiety and sometimes -depending on the situation- fear. Time limits, either self-imposed (through panic?) or imposed by forces outside of ones control can influence and lead one’s decision making toward the poorly thought through ‘corner cutting’ dangerous type. Lots of us have been there -I certainly have- and one of the most important decisions one can make is the one to accept that ‘I am ”lost” -or at least finding oneself NOT quite where one wanted to be. STOP, think calmly about where you last knew where you were, where ‘roughly’ you are now, and work out a plan to get back on course. No need to rush and risk making big mistakes by taken risky short-cuts -unless lack of time is going to kill you of course. It is, of course, MUCH easier to get lost and more difficult to get back on course if the visibility is so poor that you cant see very far into the distance. This is when you have to concentrate on micro-navigating as opposed to being able to see well ahead in your planned route. Micro-navigating will get you to where you want to go but it will take much longer than if you could see far enough to allow you to macro-navigate. With unrealistic time scales being set for promotion combined with the visibility, in terms of future at VP, deteriorating to almost a ‘white-out’ I wonder what the realistic probability of completing a ‘successful’ season is for PT. In the distance running world there is a saying along the lines of ‘it’s not the distance that’s the problem, it’s the speed you try to do it in’. This refers to the likely failure to get to the finish line if you don’t ‘pace’ yourself. I’m sure you can all adjust this analogy to fit your own opinions of how long and under what circumstances Managers of Bradford City should given to navigate the Club into the higher playing fields of the football league. The way I see it at VP is that we want the race to League 1 to be done without thought of ‘pace’. We give our Managers the job of running a middle-distance orienteering event within the time-scale of 400 metre track race, and THEN we wonder why they make mistakes or loose their way or fail to complete the distance.As supporters we need to accept an ‘optimum’ strategy for achieving promotion in place of a ‘fastest’ one. And then we might become more realistic as to what is achievable and in what time-scale. Which in turn should help us more accurately ‘define’ success for our Club.
So to Burton away: we were beaten 3-0 and we could quite easily have -possibly should have- conceded six. I think the centre of our defence was quite poor yesterday and our full backs struggled to get forward and get quality balls into the box because they were up against some very good attacking opposition players. However, it looks certain that the defence will be different for our next game because the 2 Man U lads will be on their way. We also looked short on ideas up front in the second half and that appeared to be due to -imo- changing the formation around from the first half. Having said that, I felt the performance was still better and more enjoyable as a spectacle that much of what has gone before. There was some good individual performances and some good pieces of skill on show from some of the City players and a good Team effort. Osborne has now rewarded my faith in believing in him being able to compete at this level given enough time on the pitch. Doherty is a joy to watch whether we win loose or draw. If the defence can be sorted -which I must admit has been a big, big let-down for me this season under PT- we WILL be a good Team. I have seen a big improvement in performance in the last 2 games -if not everything I wanted in the results department- We are getting ‘back on track’ I don’t think PT is as ‘lost’ as he appeared to be 4 games ago, but the poor visibility still surrounding his future is going to mean he is stuck with the choice of micro-navigation, or, ‘cutting corners’. Wouldn’t it be better if he was given a more realistic time scale to complete the race?
“Wouldn’t it be better if he was given a more realistic time scale to complete the race?”
Couldn’t agree more John. We come back again to this issue of only giving Taylor a one-year contract, which means this season has become promotion or bust. As I’ve argued previously, this short-termism has not brought the best out of Taylor and I don’t believe it is fair on such a capable manager.
Going back to the lost theme: when I wrote that last night I was getting at the fact that getting rid of McCall and believing in short-cut routes is not working. By saying: “Perhaps it’s time to face facts, I think we’re lost.” I meant maybe it’s time to stop thinking City’s stature as a club means we have to get promoted or else. Maybe we need to stop, decide Taylor is or isn’t the man for the job and talk about the rebuilding work of this club taking years instead of weeks.
Talk of a rebuild usually applies when you have reached the bottom – has City got to that point yet? – should we have a bad season and end up in the bottom half then what sort of budget can the manager expect?
Let us hope Morecambe home was the bottom. In terms of budget for next season, we just pray that the Board have not repeated the mistake of 2008, when they threw a load of money at the team and had to cut the budget by a third when promotion wasn’t achieved. We can’t go from boom to bust in this way. We have to assume the consequences of failure were considered when determining the budget for this season.
One hates to try prompt comments but – for those who are lost – to add a new comment use the Make Comment tab at the top of the comments list and to reply to a comment someone has made (yes, it works now) click the link on that comment.
Nested comments are not going to go on forever. “Comment, reply, comment on reply, final word” is what we are going for at most.
Robert, I genuinely think we did play more attractive, entertaining stuff under SM and I think we were ‘getting there’, slowly but steadily. The problem is, I believe, that SM (and Todd et al) were never given enough time, never shown enough faith and in reality, asked to meet unrealistic expectations.
The paradox is that I know all this, many fans know all this, and are torn between wanting a change of management and completely understanding that such a desire is foolish, short-termist, and ultimately contradicts our beliefs that managers like McCall should have been given more time.
A change will not transform our team, our financial constraints, or likely our fortunes. So why do I still want one? For me it is because the thing that made our ascent to the Premiership all the sweeter and softened the blows of our demise, is that we have always been a local, family club – a club of the community (if not yet quite the whole community). Having players like Andy O’brien, Wayne Jacobs, and of course, Stuart McCall play for their team in the premiership meant soemthing. Having players like Dean Richards ignore his own personal disappointment to come and congratualte the players of his hometown meant something. Having pros like David Wetherall, Peter Beagrie, and Dean Windass making City their home and becoming part of the family meant something.
For me that’s what supporting City has always been about and while I would obviously prefer seeing us play at a higher level, I was happy to wait for McCall to build a decent team around a core of young local lads.
If Mark Lawn or Julian Rhodes simply said that they had a five year plan to be out of the division and that as long as we didn’t face relegation then the gaffer’s job was safe, I like many others would have still bought the fantastic season tickets. We’d have got behind OUR team.
But it doesn’t feel the same with Taylor. The football is on the whole poor, but that’s still not what really bothers me. It’s the lack of togethernes, the lack of ‘Bradfordness’ about the squad. The squad captain hardly getting a game; Luke O’Brien teetering on the edge of the team despite (generally) not putting a foot wrong; McLaughlin playing well but getting slated every time he makes a slight error (he’s only 23!!!); Hanson being criticised whilst injured; Blame always being apportioned to the players (this week JMac and the strikers) but hardly ever at the gaffer himself; Evans having his confidence restored by playing second fiddle to a terrible centre back; and two undoubtedly talented youngsters being brought in from Man UTD with a guarantee that they play, regardless of their form or the form of others.
It is like watching a team that is not ours, play a brand of fottball we have never been comfortable with, for a manager who has no faith in the players, the club, or the fans.
A change of gaffer might not alter our fortunes but I’d rather watch 4th division football under Stuart, Jakes, Wetherall, even Mark Leonard, than what is currently on offer.
That might prove difficult. I believe Mark Leonard is a now a fine crown green bowler – one of England’s top ten – and it could be hard to get him to Valley Parade.
Mark Leonard is a fine crown green bowler ? How come I didn’t know about this ? Pull your finger out BfB and report on important news like this !
Smooth pitches, no hooded youths, ball always on the deck, this Leonard fella might just be the right man.
Dan. Thanks for replying to the points. Did you not think City were in serious danger of the drop last season when SM resigned? Let me point I was desperate for SM to stay on but could totally understand the change.
Hi Robert, I genuinely never once worried about the drop last year. Fortunately Barnet, Grimsby, Darlington and Cheltenham were so very bad!!
I wonder how our club would feel if we did get promoted from this league – would every loss feel so bad as it does in this league? I’m not sure, but it certainly seems to feel worse when we lose in league 2. Plus of course our poor starting position in the early games this season haven’t helped – even two wins have not been enough to soften the blow of a single loss.
In the bigger debate surely it’s obvious we need Taylor to stay even if we fail this year. What better are we going to get, and how can anyone decieve themselves that yet another change will bring better results? We’ve seen it over and over again that this isn’t true. These games are sometimes such fine margins too – seems like the first half this week could have lead to a very different match, and we’d possibly now be talking about promotion…instead of feeling lost.