Sheridan out?

Whelan's success seems to be waining a little.

They had a good run though and with parachute payments should walk through L1 next year.

This kind of sums up the James Brent/Argyle relationship for me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Leave him in there FFS!

Looks very 'Pink Floyd' album cover.

Czarcasm wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Loanees in and out has been our problem, period, if we could keep the team that played on Saturday until the end of the season we may well be in with a chance, more chop and change and we will dither and fail.

I'm charitably conceding that for the recent 'wilderness weeks', I agree, hence I'm backing off him.

It doesn't however explain the following 'doldrum' winless spells over the last two seasons....

14/09/13 - 22/10/13 - seven games.
11/01/14 - 01/02/14 - four games.
22/03/14 - 05/04/14 - three games.
12/04/14 - 03/05/14 - five games.
22/11/14 - 13/12/14 - three games.

Or to be fair even the start of the 'January window rot' which actually commenced on Boxing Day.

Let us all hope this side stays together and continues to win together.    

If I could be fecked, I'm pretty sure I could find similar periods over the same timespan that yielded unbeaten spells, which kinda nullifies any point you seek to make.

We've been an upper-middling team pretty much for all of that period. We're not particularly great, conversely we're not shite, so little spells of good or bad results are what will follow - and they have.

Which actually WAS my point, "feast and famine" thanks for underlining it

Consistency would even out the results, it might not take us much further forwards but it would reduce the frustration, it's annoying when we are clearly capable of good form but for no obvious reason (January aside, i'm being charitable in conceding that) that form then falls off the cliff.

Greenskin wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Loanees in and out has been our problem, period, if we could keep the team that played on Saturday until the end of the season we may well be in with a chance, more chop and change and we will dither and fail.

I'm charitably conceding that for the recent 'wilderness weeks', I agree, hence I'm backing off him.

It doesn't however explain the following 'doldrum' winless spells over the last two seasons....

14/09/13 - 22/10/13 - seven games.
11/01/14 - 01/02/14 - four games.
22/03/14 - 05/04/14 - three games.
12/04/14 - 03/05/14 - five games.
22/11/14 - 13/12/14 - three games.

Or to be fair even the start of the 'January window rot' which actually commenced on Boxing Day.

Let us all hope this side stays together and continues to win together.    

For your explanation of the doldrums look no further than the chairman, looking for promotion on the cheap due to underfunded acquisition of Argyle, a huge part of the equation being left out here.

So when a team that can win, that does win, stops winning it's the owners doing. But while it is winning, it isn't his doing. I don't get that logic but then neither do credit football club owners with that much influence. Beyond giving the budget for the manager to set the team up in the first place, they can't make a losing team win or a winning team stop winning.

There's something not quite right in the motivation or preparation sometimes, and as much as you'd like it to be, it ain't the owner.

The bad spell was nothing to do with motivation or preparation, it was purely and simply because key players such as Nelson and Hartley [especially] were injured and the loan signings returned to their clubs for varying lengths of time. That would seem to be the point that Iggy is making, the fact that Argyle's squad was [maybe is] threadbare to the extent that they were unable to cope with the loss of so many key players in that period. As for owners not influencing matters-really? So Hayward was nothing to do with Wolves climb back through the leagues, Walker not influential at Blackburn, Abramovich at Chelsea, Whelan at Wigan etc, etc. Seems like conclusive evidence that owners can be very influential factors in the fortunes of clubs, to my eyes anyway.

Like I say, doesn't explain the other five examples.

Shezza's getting results despite no backing from brent, all Green jims does is loan the club money which he will want back, on the playing side all he signs are short term loans and short term contracts, no foundations to build success are being laid on or off the pitch, we wont get promoted out of a truly crap division while Brent and his  collection of self promoting ( Hi Grunter) freaks run the club.

X Isle wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Loanees in and out has been our problem, period, if we could keep the team that played on Saturday until the end of the season we may well be in with a chance, more chop and change and we will dither and fail.

I'm charitably conceding that for the recent 'wilderness weeks', I agree, hence I'm backing off him.

It doesn't however explain the following 'doldrum' winless spells over the last two seasons....

14/09/13 - 22/10/13 - seven games.
11/01/14 - 01/02/14 - four games.
22/03/14 - 05/04/14 - three games.
12/04/14 - 03/05/14 - five games.
22/11/14 - 13/12/14 - three games.

Or to be fair even the start of the 'January window rot' which actually commenced on Boxing Day.

Let us all hope this side stays together and continues to win together.    

For your explanation of the doldrums look no further than the chairman, looking for promotion on the cheap due to underfunded acquisition of Argyle, a huge part of the equation being left out here.

So when a team that can win, that does win, stops winning it's the owners doing. But while it is winning, it isn't his doing. I don't get that logic but then neither do credit football club owners with that much influence. Beyond giving the budget for the manager to set the team up in the first place, they can't make a losing team win or a winning team stop winning.

There's something not quite right in the motivation or preparation sometimes, and as much as you'd like it to be, it ain't the owner.

The bad spell was nothing to do with motivation or preparation, it was purely and simply because key players such as Nelson and Hartley [especially] were injured and the loan signings returned to their clubs for varying lengths of time. That would seem to be the point that Iggy is making, the fact that Argyle's squad was [maybe is] threadbare to the extent that they were unable to cope with the loss of so many key players in that period. As for owners not influencing matters-really? So Hayward was nothing to do with Wolves climb back through the leagues, Walker not influential at Blackburn, Abramovich at Chelsea, Whelan at Wigan etc, etc. Seems like conclusive evidence that owners can be very influential factors in the fortunes of clubs, to my eyes anyway.

Like I say, doesn't explain the other five examples.

The team has changed almost unrecognisably since the first four examples that you outline and maybe the manager is due some credit for recognising the unsatisfactory results and being ruthless and single minded enough to do something about it. You could go through the career records of any manager in football history and find similar spells-it took Waiters a couple of seasons before producing a promotion team, Dave Smith's results were strikingly similar to those of Sheridan before he eventually hit the winning formula, Warnock's promotion season was a roller coaster from start to finish. Simplistic and ill thought out nonsense, just as it was the other day when you said that Sheridan had "lost the dressing room". If that was the case, the bloke certainly found it pretty quickly again judging by recent results.

I suggested it was a possibility, a potential explanation for why, when asked for a reaction from the players, a reaction didn't come. That's some way short of presenting something as a fact, which is what you are putting in my mouth there.

He has indeed turned it round, which is why he's won back my support.

X Isle wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Loanees in and out has been our problem, period, if we could keep the team that played on Saturday until the end of the season we may well be in with a chance, more chop and change and we will dither and fail.

I'm charitably conceding that for the recent 'wilderness weeks', I agree, hence I'm backing off him.

It doesn't however explain the following 'doldrum' winless spells over the last two seasons....

14/09/13 - 22/10/13 - seven games.
11/01/14 - 01/02/14 - four games.
22/03/14 - 05/04/14 - three games.
12/04/14 - 03/05/14 - five games.
22/11/14 - 13/12/14 - three games.

Or to be fair even the start of the 'January window rot' which actually commenced on Boxing Day.

Let us all hope this side stays together and continues to win together.    

If I could be fecked, I'm pretty sure I could find similar periods over the same timespan that yielded unbeaten spells, which kinda nullifies any point you seek to make.

We've been an upper-middling team pretty much for all of that period. We're not particularly great, conversely we're not shite, so little spells of good or bad results are what will follow - and they have.

Which actually WAS my point, "feast and famine" thanks for underlining it

Consistency would even out the results, it might not take us much further forwards but it would reduce the frustration, it's annoying when we are clearly capable of good form but for no obvious reason (January aside, i'm being charitable in conceding that) that form then falls off the cliff.

Eh? What actual point are you trying to make? Actually leave it, I'm really not that interested.

We aren't great, and we aren't shite. So it stands to reason that we'll have little 'good' spells and little 'bad' spells, it doesn't need to be analysed any deeper than that.

X Isle wrote:

I suggested it was a possibility, a potential explanation for why, when asked for a reaction from the players, a reaction didn't come. That's some way short of presenting something as a fact, which is what you are putting in my mouth there.

He has indeed turned it round, which is why he's won back my support.

Guaranteed best nights sleep ever for Shez after he reads that ringing endorsement.

A few have been flip flopping recently.

Czarcasm wrote:

X Isle wrote:

I suggested it was a possibility, a potential explanation for why, when asked for a reaction from the players, a reaction didn't come. That's some way short of presenting something as a fact, which is what you are putting in my mouth there.

He has indeed turned it round, which is why he's won back my support.

Guaranteed best nights sleep ever for Shez after he reads that ringing endorsement.

Shez bhey, The master is backing you.....................................again!!!!