Just back (meet the manager)

Not a great turnout but to be expected.

John Harbin was with Shez & it was a good evening.

I thought both John's spoke well and there was a flow to the questioning, both spoke honestly and positively for an hour.

There were plenty of tactical questions and I think John gave away that he plans to keep the 352 although he is concerned about Mellor being out of position.

Someone Questioned Sheridan on what had changed from last season, he said mentally we were much stronger, with players like Hartley and Mchugh coming in lifting the dressing room and being a leader.

Plenty of questions about corners, John spoke about how we rehearse corners theoretically on a Friday and they go out with 6 or 7 plays in mind. With short corners he spoke about how he tells players too play what they see and how we can hit the opposition best.

Shez pretty much ruled out Banton playing at CAM saying he was a left sided player.

Sheridan was questioned about Young's release. He said he released Young because he was in a comfort zone and wasn't working hard enough, and that he hopes young moving to torquay will do him good as a player. When questioned on selling Hourihane Sheridan said he felt 200k wasn't unreasonable, he sounded as if he didn't have much control over the decision to sell.

Someone asked about John's posture on the touchline, Shez stood up for himself and said he likes to focus on the game alone.

Sheridan said he was confident about Bobby Reid staying but he didn't seem so sure about Anthony O'connor. Sheridan also said he hopes to bring in a new RW to replace Alex Bray.

John spoke about how he has a strong relationship with the board, the chief executive in particular.

I asked Sheridan about the JPT & how I hope we take it seriously as we'd all love a Wembley final, said he's likely to start the same team at Coventry as he did against Swindon, and he said he's fully committed to getting us to Wembley as he Did with chesterfield.

Harbin spoke a lot about how players are humans above footballers and how all of them need personal coaching like Thomas being so far from family or on a very serious note, the death of Blanchards brother.

When social media came up both said they refuse to read it, they encourage players to do the same but say they obviously have lives. Sheridan said he speaks to the media as much as he can but likes to keep an eye on what players say.

Finally, both said anything lower than where we are now is failure.

An uplifting event, Sheridan and Harbin both came across well gave lengthy substantial answers to all questions including my own. Strong round of applause at the end.

Hopefully there can be more of these. Didn't learn an awful lot of new info (apart from the Young release) but I think tonight is a good step in building more of a bridge between manager and fans. I went in with a negative impression of the personality of our manager, and came out with a positive one, especially when I spoke to him one to one after the general session. Tonight also shows what an invaluable member of the coaching staff John Harbin is.

Cheers Cobi, keep those reports coming in.

Thanks Pitbull, where was this meeting? how many people were there and did anyone mention Rocky Reid's rumble?

In the legends lounge at Home Park, 20ish people and nope wasn't mentioned, think it would be unwise for anyone at the club to talk about it anyway considering we don't know if he's been charged, he is available for all upcoming matches though according to Sheridan.

Thanks Cobi, much appreciated. This site may be painted in a certain way but we're all Argyle fans at heart. Cheers.

thanks for posting, Cobi

Thanks for the report Cobi.

"Someone asked about John's posture on the touchline".

I can think of few things less important.

All I hear when I read such things is someone manking for the sake of it about something of little consequence because they want to have a cheap pop at the target. It's irrelevant, petty and ridiculous in equal measure and right up there in patheticness with the jibes at "er.. um.. Fletcher" because of the way he spoke in interviews.

A manager can rant and rave on the touchline all he likes but I'd wager it costs his team as much in terms of setting the officials against them, if the ranting is directed at them, as it gains and, if directed at the team, either fails to get across due to ambient noise or is largely misunderstood.

Bloody hell! A manager doesn't even need to be on the touchline in the first place and can probably get a better view of team shape, player performance, individual and collective effort and all the rest from watching from the grandstand anyway.

If you are one of those who berates managers for being inarticulate or "just standing there" then stop it immediately because it makes you look like either a complete idiot or a numpty moaning because they like the sound of their own voice and who wants that? At best you sound like an intellectual snob bullying somebody unlucky enough to be less eloquent than you perceive yourself to be. None of these are great outcomes.

Some things matter and some don't. This doesn't. It's no wonder professional football people have such scant regard for the thoughts of fans when this is the sort of puerile crap that worries them.

... and before anybody else says it I appreciate that there is more than a little irony involved in posting a moan about people moaning. Thank you.

20 people ? Sherry must wonder why he bothers, as Tring would say 'village'.

In fairness to the fans though I didn't see it publicised anywhere, Argyle's PR department truly is village at best.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Someone asked about John's posture on the touchline".

I can think of few things less important.

All I hear when I read such things is someone manking for the sake of it about something of little consequence because they want to have a cheap pop at the target. It's irrelevant, petty and ridiculous in equal measure and right up there in patheticness with the jibes at "er.. um.. Fletcher" because of the way he spoke in interviews.

A manager can rant and rave on the touchline all he likes but I'd wager it costs his team as much in terms of setting the officials against them, if the ranting is directed at them, as it gains and, if directed at the team, either fails to get across due to ambient noise or is largely misunderstood.

Bloody hell! A manager doesn't even need to be on the touchline in the first place and can probably get a better view of team shape, player performance, individual and collective effort and all the rest from watching from the grandstand anyway.

If you are one of those who berates managers for being inarticulate or "just standing there" then stop it immediately because it makes you look like either a complete idiot or a numpty moaning because they like the sound of their own voice and who wants that? At best you sound like an intellectual snob bullying somebody unlucky enough to be less eloquent than you perceive yourself to be. None of these are great outcomes.

Some things matter and some don't. This doesn't. It's no wonder professional football people have such scant regard for the thoughts of fans when this is the sort of puerile crap that worries them.

To be fair, the posture question was not posed quite like that and the translation has been lost in Cobi's creditable haste to inform. It was more about body language. John Sheridan stated he has always stood alone in the dugout that is his preference. The other coaches stand way from him and have free reign to offer advice as Wottsie often does if there is a defensive lapse. John Sheridan says he stands nearest the half way line so he can get to the 4th official. Without question he has been much more animated this season and certainly John Harbin emphasised that witnessing several interventions this season. It also offers the manager the opportunity to stand his corner against the opposition management team which he often does to a voluable extent (even heard in the Lyndhurst).

I think the essential difference this season is that he believes in this team more. On more than one occasion he called it 'his team' and that team is built on character and strength on the training pitch, in the dressing room and in game time. He mentioned the influence of Hartley, Mchugh, O'Connor and Curtis as good examples of the character and desire he is looking for.

It is a pity that the turnout was low (around 30) but I am sure all that were there came away from the meeting feeling that we had a determined management team whose only goal was to get us out of this division. The influence of John Harbin should not be underestimated. He has a Premiership pedigree (QPR and Palace) and the pastoral and duty of care influence he has is invaluable, particularly for the longer players. He his clearly breaking new ground with his Sports Science influence too and explained how the players were monitored including blood tests every week.

AstiSpumante wrote:

20 people ?  Sherry must wonder why he bothers, as Tring would say  'village'.  

In fairness to the fans though I didn't see it publicised anywhere, Argyle's PR department truly is village at best.

I suppose he doesn't care to invest in fans like luggy or ollie did, so then he wont get the 1-2000 that came to listen to those guys!!!

Then again, under speccys watch, his "advisors/superfans " helped him to create a 2 tier fan system that meant only members had the privilige to be able to listen to the managers, feck the POTDers, then they wonder where the fans have gone!!

On the subject of haranguing the match officials I know an assistant referee at league level who has been the 4th official for a few of our games over the past 2 seasons and he says that Sheridan is one of the worst (top 3) managers he has to deal with and his use of language is limited to about 6 words, all of them pretty choice.

No reason to hang the man of course, it's a stressful, competitive environment.

I tend to agree with SFD though. in such a stressful environment surely the best way to analyse the game and its changing shape and dynamics is away from the pressure cooker and with the best view available.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Someone asked about John's posture on the touchline".

I can think of few things less important.

All I hear when I read such things is someone manking for the sake of it about something of little consequence because they want to have a cheap pop at the target. It's irrelevant, petty and ridiculous in equal measure and right up there in patheticness with the jibes at "er.. um.. Fletcher" because of the way he spoke in interviews.

A manager can rant and rave on the touchline all he likes but I'd wager it costs his team as much in terms of setting the officials against them, if the ranting is directed at them, as it gains and, if directed at the team, either fails to get across due to ambient noise or is largely misunderstood.

Bloody hell! A manager doesn't even need to be on the touchline in the first place and can probably get a better view of team shape, player performance, individual and collective effort and all the rest from watching from the grandstand anyway.

If you are one of those who berates managers for being inarticulate or "just standing there" then stop it immediately because it makes you look like either a complete idiot or a numpty moaning because they like the sound of their own voice and who wants that? At best you sound like an intellectual snob bullying somebody unlucky enough to be less eloquent than you perceive yourself to be. None of these are great outcomes.

Some things matter and some don't. This doesn't. It's no wonder professional football people have such scant regard for the thoughts of fans when this is the sort of puerile crap that worries them.

I agree. There are too many wannabe psychologists moaning about how a manager stands its beyond pathetic and very village.

Body language is important. When we are losing, Sheridan stands there glum, arms folded (not wanting to be approached). He leans against the dug out in isolation. Those in the vicinity of Sheridan can hear him moaning at the efforts of the players he has signed and chosen to start, as if he is thoroughly unhappy with them. Substitutions come a lot later than opposition changes, leaving little time for said changes to work.

Are you telling me the supporters are supposed to be happy seeing this from their general when they have travelled for hours, the team is playing poorly and look bereft of ideas/creativity? They want to see changes, opposition weaknesses targeted, a new plan of action to rescue the game.

Fans would be happier to see a manager shouting on the touchline, trying to inspire the players and give instructions. Or at least writing on a clip board, summoning his coaches, getting his attacking players warmed up - looking like he is thinking, preparing, taking action. It gives the impression that there is something the players are not understanding which is responsible for the poor performance so far, and the hope that change will happen. As do substitutions or tactical changes around the 50- 60 minute mark. It gives at least 30 minutes for changes to bear fruit, as opposed to the 5 - 10 minutes Sheridan is inclined to give subs when we are behind.

Looking fed up, standing apart from the coaching staff and making late late changes is hardly bound to influence us when we are losing - highlighting that Sheridan could be a little more engaged and proactive during the game seems an acceptable point to make. Argyle have been losing in 7 matches this season, and come back in only one of them to salvage a solitary point - at home to Stevenage. In all other games we went on to lose - we started poorly, we ended poorly, and didn't do much at all to change it. Doesn't really support the idea that Sheridan being glum and looking fed up is a good way to carry on if our gameplan isn't working.

I'm not going to Argyle ever again unless Shez smiles and engages with his staff, it's got that bad now.

ejh wrote:

Body language is important. When we are losing, Sheridan stands there glum, arms folded (not wanting to be approached). He leans against the dug out in isolation. Those in the vicinity of Sheridan can hear him moaning at the efforts of the players he has signed and chosen to start, as if he is thoroughly unhappy with them. Substitutions come a lot later than opposition changes, leaving little time for said changes to work.

Are you telling me the supporters are supposed to be happy seeing this from their general when they have travelled for hours, the team is playing poorly and look bereft of ideas/creativity? They want to see changes, opposition weaknesses targeted, a new plan of action to rescue the game.

Fans would be happier to see a manager shouting on the touchline, trying to inspire the players and give instructions. Or at least writing on a clip board, summoning his coaches, getting his attacking players warmed up - looking like he is thinking, preparing, taking action. It gives the impression that there is something the players are not understanding which is responsible for the poor performance so far, and the hope that change will happen. As do substitutions or tactical changes around the 50- 60 minute mark. It gives at least 30 minutes for changes to bear fruit, as opposed to the 5 - 10 minutes Sheridan is inclined to give subs when we are behind.

Looking fed up, standing apart from the coaching staff and making late late changes is hardly bound to influence us when we are losing - highlighting that Sheridan could be a little more engaged and proactive during the game seems an acceptable point to make. Argyle have been losing in 7 matches this season, and come back in only one of them to salvage a solitary point - at home to Stevenage. In all other games we went on to lose - we started poorly, we ended poorly, and didn't do much at all to change it. Doesn't really support the idea that Sheridan being glum and looking fed up is a good way to carry on if our gameplan isn't working.

luggy never ranted and raved and the fans never brought that up even when we were play poorly. Sheridan obviously takes a methodological approach to viewing games suppose to a neil warnock rant and rave and blame everything on the ref. Different managers take different approaches and if that suits them then so be it there is no right or wrong. I agree with the subs as he does need to make changes quicker if his plan A isnt working or we are losing.

Luggy won this division with 102 points, an average of 2.2 pts per game.

I think Sturrock could have left to do his grocery shopping at half time and nobody would have cared with form like that.

Similarly Sheridan has won 3 matches in a row, and when we win his body language is not an issue. In the last three matches we have been ahead by half time. It is when we go behind (and inevitably lose) and the fans are looking for a reason to believe, that Shez's apparent lack of interest/passion/reaction to what is going on on the pitch becomes a cause for concern.

ejh wrote:

Luggy won this division with 102 points, an average of 2.2 pts per game.

I think Sturrock could have left to do his grocery shopping at half time and nobody would have cared with form like that.

Similarly Sheridan has won 3 matches in a row, and when we win his body language is not an issue. In the last three matches we have been ahead by half time. It is when we go behind (and inevitably lose) and the fans are looking for a reason to believe, that Shez's apparent lack of interest/passion/reaction to what is going on on the pitch becomes a bit of an issue.

Sheridan too has won this league.

I don't believe sheridan has to act like fan on the touchline when we are winning/losing or drawing it down to tactics really and the oppo. If plan a isnt working have a plan b in the bag.

Angry wrote:

ejh wrote:

Luggy won this division with 102 points, an average of 2.2 pts per game.

I think Sturrock could have left to do his grocery shopping at half time and nobody would have cared with form like that.

Similarly Sheridan has won 3 matches in a row, and when we win his body language is not an issue. In the last three matches we have been ahead by half time. It is when we go behind (and inevitably lose) and the fans are looking for a reason to believe, that Shez's apparent lack of interest/passion/reaction to what is going on on the pitch becomes a bit of an issue.

Sheridan too has won this league.

I don't believe sheridan has to act like fan on the touchline when we are winning/losing or drawing it down to tactics really and the oppo. If plan a isnt working have a plan b in the bag.

It's not acting like a fan that is required, it's acting like a manager who understands what needs to be done, who is in control and preparing to win.

Whether you're the Duke of Wellington on the battlefield, the boss of a company during a busy period at work, or John Sheridan during a game of football - folding your arms in sulk, isolating yourself from your advisors, and looking like you have no response to what is going on is not the kind of body language you ought to be projecting.

When is the last time we have been behind in a game and really turned it around? I have checked the BBC it has not happened in the last 12 months. We have not won after being in a losing position for a long time, which suggests that the Sheridan slump & grump isn't the best method to deal with bad starts.

Angry wrote:

ejh wrote:

Luggy won this division with 102 points, an average of 2.2 pts per game.

I think Sturrock could have left to do his grocery shopping at half time and nobody would have cared with form like that.

Similarly Sheridan has won 3 matches in a row, and when we win his body language is not an issue. In the last three matches we have been ahead by half time. It is when we go behind (and inevitably lose) and the fans are looking for a reason to believe, that Shez's apparent lack of interest/passion/reaction to what is going on on the pitch becomes a bit of an issue.

Sheridan too has won this league.

I don't believe sheridan has to act like fan on the touchline when we are winning/losing or drawing it down to tactics really and the oppo. If plan a isnt working have a plan b in the bag.

Why do so many people actually spend money on going to games and then apparently give as much attention to the antics or non antics of the manager as to the game itself? Did people used to watch Waiters, Smith, Warnock or Sturrock with such attention to detail? Can't honestly say that I did, maybe we were missing out on something in the days of yore. Or maybe the whole manager watch business is just another piece of image conscious psycho babble bollocks that seems to manifest itself in so many different areas now. Who can say for certain.

I don't really care if Sheridan is the most miserable bastard on the planet or what formation he plays or who he moves out or in - as long as we finish in the top 3 at the last game of the season.
Simple as!

Greenskin wrote:

Angry wrote:

ejh wrote:

Luggy won this division with 102 points, an average of 2.2 pts per game.

I think Sturrock could have left to do his grocery shopping at half time and nobody would have cared with form like that.

Similarly Sheridan has won 3 matches in a row, and when we win his body language is not an issue. In the last three matches we have been ahead by half time. It is when we go behind (and inevitably lose) and the fans are looking for a reason to believe, that Shez's apparent lack of interest/passion/reaction to what is going on on the pitch becomes a bit of an issue.

Sheridan too has won this league.

I don't believe sheridan has to act like fan on the touchline when we are winning/losing or drawing it down to tactics really and the oppo. If plan a isnt working have a plan b in the bag.

Why do so many people actually spend money on going to games and then apparently give as much attention to the antics or non antics of the manager as to the game itself? Did people used to watch Waiters, Smith, Warnock or Sturrock with such attention to detail? Can't honestly say that I did, maybe we were missing out on something in the days of yore. Or maybe the whole manager watch business is just another piece of image conscious psycho babble bollocks that seems to manifest itself in so many different areas now. Who can say for certain.

People could easily say the same about Curtis Nelson or any captain of a team really but would it mean he is any better a leader for not screaming at players or for being quiet.

"When we win his body language is not an issue".

Exactly.

So why should it be when we lose? Simple answer is that it isn't. What's different? Nothing.

It's just a handy excuse for a whinge. A cheap shot. That's all.

I don't disagree with the bits about getting subs warmed up or making substitutions earlier and so on. Perfectly reasonable things to discuss. Things that actually matter. Things that might make a difference. Things that could be done better. Say what you like about them.

Whether a manager is stood there with hands in his pockets, arms folded, gesticulating wildly or pointing aggressively makes no difference whatsoever. It's effective communication and the decisions they make, or don't make, that matter.