City players incur Taylor's wrath (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

good call from Taylor--these sorts of games will show him just how solid his team is and how they cope when the going gets tough.

I must say though,that given the heavy schedule which had the team playing on a perfect pitch at Aldershot and the a mud heap at Rotherham that there could have been a couple of changes.

dunno what to say realy. Apart from Garbadge.. we were too defensive, too much hoof hoof hoof as usual port vale were winning everything. i think we got out of our half 2 times in second half, infact we were very lucky to go in 1-0 at halftime could of been 4-1 to the vale after 35 mins dunno what taylor said after the game but he needs to get shut of clark and williams end of story.....

If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players.
.
From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Rambo wrote:
If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale.

Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

We could have been 3 down in the first 5 minutes!
Vales second was a swerving, dipping, deflection, which doesn't show on the TV camera angle - I was right in line behind it in the Railway stand. No excuses though, with the exception of Threlfalls goal, we were total garbage.

glad I stayed at home!!!
its been a long season and I am pretty bored really. Just home games to see out the season for me!
Hope you travellers get more joy, you deserve it.

I only had to travel 10 miles to the ground, but all praise to the City fans who were there. It was a **** cold night, and they never stopped egging on the team.
They deserved much, MUCH better.

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

I'll take a bite at Trevor Cherry? Todd cant have been far off too.

Hopefully this result confirms this season as a write off and all the talk of great managers and playoffs can cease. This is now all about getting through this season with as few injuries to our key players as possible and cutting or maintaining costs whilst improving the squad through contacts and deals. Think Aldershot will be a different proposition at home and whilst I'd like to think we'd beat Hereford, the new manager impetus might come at the right time for them...

manger who lasted over 36 months:PETER JACKSON?

I am surprised he put out the same team after a heavy pitch game just a couple of days prior: we signed like Oliver-- why?

sorry but mccamman is not the answer:tall just like NORMAN CORNER but useless in the air and with little mobility.

Get him back to Gillingham and let us see if we can find a younger version: JON SHAW comes to mind:give him a chance of a contract and he may just start scoring goals again.

If we are not paying fro loan papers does that mean we are STILL paying for Neilson? Anyone know the answer to that one?

It would make a boat-load of sense if we were bringing in loan signings for nothing and getting others to pay for our loan signings though right?

keefluarr wrote:
It would make a boat-load of sense if we were bringing in loan signings for nothing and getting others to pay for our loan signings though right?

it would be remarkable but I bet it's not happening.

I wonder how much we are losing not playing Rehman or is the deal such that he gets paid if he is injured:nudge nudge wink wink whereas we get nothing if he is simply dropped.

tyker wrote:

keefluarr wrote: It would make a boat-load of sense if we were bringing in loan signings for nothing and getting others to pay for our loan signings though right?

it would be remarkable but I bet it's not happening. I wonder how much we are losing not playing Rehman or is the deal such that he gets paid if he is injured:nudge nudge wink wink whereas we get nothing if he is simply dropped.

Zesh Rehman IS NOT being paid by his sponsors! Do you know who they are? It is the food distribution site at the end of the road, just past the club shop. It is just another of those senseless rumours and I wish fans would give it a rest. Post views by all means, but why the need to comment on silly rumours?

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

DONT TELL ME......You want McCALL BACK??!!
The worst performance by a Country Mile that I have seen this season was at DARLO!!
Id get Peter Taylor on a 3 year contract in a heart-beat!!
BECAUSE my dear "KNIGHTMcCALL" he will get us out of this hell hole of a league!!.........
Mind you your, Your man McCALL would also of got us out of this league..............
......You know the rest................
......

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion.

Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out.

As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead?

We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?"

The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there.

As an example of a current week;

Saturday - play game
Sunday - rest day
Monday - prepare for midweek game
Tuesday - play game
Wednesday - rest day
Thursday - train/coach
Friday - prepare for weekend game.

Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back!

Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!!
"Keefluer" agrees with "Knight McCall" AGAIN! and AGAIN! and AGAIN!
Get a room you two!!

shaun from richmond wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!! "Keefluer" agrees with "Knight McCall" AGAIN! and AGAIN! and AGAIN! Get a room you two!!

Ahh, you. I see you've been using your ankles to type again - the T&A message board and footballing authority; the one who "sees people off"; the one who delivers endless CAPITAL PUNISHMENT to his fellow fan. As it goes, I'll support anyone on here who write's anything even moderately intelligible about our beloved club - a capability you appear to be decidedly lacking in. Sing something simple?

Poor away performance; players playing out of position; same old defensive frailties; no fight; loan player ineffective or not used; wrong substitutions.
It’s all Jacobs’ fault he can’t coach. It’s all Clarke’s fault he can’t defend. It’s all McCalls fault he’ll never make it in football management. It’s all Joe Colbeck’s fault (oops can’t blame him anymore) I mean it’s all Daley’s fault. Have I got that right Shaun? Waynus help me out who should I blame again?
God forbid someone having a different opinion to you two. How very dare these people post on your notice board!!!

theGrimRoper wrote:
Poor away performance; players playing out of position; same old defensive frailties; no fight; loan player ineffective or not used; wrong substitutions.
It’s all Jacobs’ fault he can’t coach. It’s all Clarke’s fault he can’t defend. It’s all McCalls fault he’ll never make it in football management. It’s all Joe Colbeck’s fault (oops can’t blame him anymore) I mean it’s all Daley’s fault. Have I got that right Shaun? Waynus help me out who should I blame again?
God forbid someone having a different opinion to you two. How very dare these people post on your notice board!!!

I think you need to read my post in the correct context. Stuart McCall had 2.5 years in charge and when I dared to post comments that 'KnightMcCall' and others didn't agree with (i.e. that Stuart wasn't cut out to take us forward), I was lambasted. I have simply turned the tables and questioned why, after just 6 games, Taylor is getting stick off 'KnightMcCall'.

Or are you saying he can have a different opinion to mine (and forcefully say so umpteen times), but I am not allowed to do the same!

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative?

As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this!

Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham.

It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period.

As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available.

I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

tyker wrote:
i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham. It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period. As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available. I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

Again the mighty Tyker has spoken, aren't we the most fortunate fans in the world to have the most knowledgeable supporter anywhere in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm he used to tell McCall which players were any good and what subs and tactics to employ and now he sees fit to tell a man that has managed at every level to a degree of success how to coach his team, what players to pick and rest which players to sign. Do us all a favour Tyker apply for the job or f@@k off

Peter Taylor is not a demi-god, his remit is to stabilize an unsteady team and use this seasons end to prepare for the next, we all know that half the team will not be here including loanees, Peter will be formulising a pattern as to what is wanted\needed and that is why i believe he and the club will tie each other down for a further 30 months. In finishing may i add that there will be a mixture of excellent and poor performances before the season has ended,frustrating but i believe necessary.

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote:
i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham. It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period. As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available. I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

Again the mighty Tyker has spoken, aren't we the most fortunate fans in the world to have the most knowledgeable supporter anywhere in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm he used to tell McCall which players were any good and what subs and tactics to employ and now he sees fit to tell a man that has managed at every level to a degree of success how to coach his team, what players to pick and rest which players to sign. Do us all a favour Tyker apply for the job or f@@k off

don't need a job as I employ people with minimum education requirements to work for me :You know the type. I expressed an opinion that the players were looking very tired and this was, i believe, stated by many others and implied by Taylor himself in interviews. If you cannot see that I think spec savers needs your trade .

the fact is the vast majority of these players have never experienced such a punishing schedule especially on a pitches as heavy as some have been.

The other facts are that some players have not been used until late in a game: another brought in on loan and not used.

these are not criticisms but observations.

As a 40 year old you should be able to see that. you will probably see a very different looking team come saturday

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham. It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period. As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available. I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

Again the mighty Tyker has spoken, aren't we the most fortunate fans in the world to have the most knowledgeable supporter anywhere in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm he used to tell McCall which players were any good and what subs and tactics to employ and now he sees fit to tell a man that has managed at every level to a degree of success how to coach his team, what players to pick and rest which players to sign. Do us all a favour Tyker apply for the job or f@@k off

don't need a job as I employ people with minimum education requirements to work for me :You know the type. I expressed an opinion that the players were looking very tired and this was, i believe, stated by many others and implied by Taylor himself in interviews. If you cannot see that I think spec savers needs your trade . the fact is the vast majority of these players have never experienced such a punishing schedule especially on a pitches as heavy as some have been. The other facts are that some players have not been used until late in a game: another brought in on loan and not used. these are not criticisms but observations. As a 40 year old you should be able to see that. you will probably see a very different looking team come saturday

He could be the 1969th Macca also, no? Quite simply, we really shouldn't get carried away about what can be achieved this season. The odds are very much against PT not only because of the number of games left, but many other internal and resource related factors too. I can see Taylor leaving at the end of the season after his period of 'consultancy', although I'm all for stability. Whilst picking on no individuals, I do sympathise with Macca's sentiment however that there are far too many posts on here claiming superior critical knowledge over others, which let's face it is arguably unqualified - at least in comparison to those who are actually paid to do the job.

And very sorry hear about the demise of Farsley Celtic/Chester City. I feel for those fans and thank the current chairmen for ensuring that we didn't suffer the same fate...

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?).

My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?). My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

Apart from your now 'comedy' name...

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham. It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period. As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available. I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

Again the mighty Tyker has spoken, aren't we the most fortunate fans in the world to have the most knowledgeable supporter anywhere in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm he used to tell McCall which players were any good and what subs and tactics to employ and now he sees fit to tell a man that has managed at every level to a degree of success how to coach his team, what players to pick and rest which players to sign. Do us all a favour Tyker apply for the job or f@@k off

don't need a job as I employ people with minimum education requirements to work for me :You know the type. I expressed an opinion that the players were looking very tired and this was, i believe, stated by many others and implied by Taylor himself in interviews. If you cannot see that I think spec savers needs your trade . the fact is the vast majority of these players have never experienced such a punishing schedule especially on a pitches as heavy as some have been. The other facts are that some players have not been used until late in a game: another brought in on loan and not used. these are not criticisms but observations. As a 40 year old you should be able to see that. you will probably see a very different looking team come saturday

I do know the type yes i can't believe i'm replying to one. Although 40 as you correctly point out my point is let the manager employed sign,train and pick the players he wants. Maybe he wanted to see which players were fit enough and those that weren't. Its ok going on about how many games we have played in a short space of time but its only one more than PV. He may have wanted to keep the momentum going but unfortunately it didn't work out. You constantly criticised McCall for everything from the players he signed, his tactics subs etc and although you are clearly pro Taylor you are already stating why the new big striker is no good, why he didn't pick the centerback etc etc. Just let him get on with it and i wager now you shout for PT's head before me. Nothing could ever be achieved this season its just about who PT wants and who he doesn't want come the end of season. I also predict a few changes this sat but only 1 or 2 at most. Does that make me qualified like you. Also i wonder how you are still in business when you refer to your staff as min education requirements, thats not very respectful and i wonder how their productivity would be affected if they knew how their boss reffered to them. Myself i am a manager who also has to employ some lower skilled staff but i treat them with respect and try to install a bit of self motivation and belief in themselves. As a result i have a very happy work force and profits were up by 38% last year not bad in the current climate. Try not being so arrogant all the time Tyker and you might not rub people up the wrong way

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?).

My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

Please explain how I could possibly 'select the bits' I want, when I copied the whole paragraph!

The only thing that has been said is that we are moving in the right direction, we have a proven manager/coach in charge and to get him tied down. It isn't exactly 'bigging him up' is it? It is a fact we are moving in the right direction. We are making less defensive mistakes and we are 200% better on set-pieces, or can't you see that?

One thing I will agree with you on is that there shouldn't be any 'over-reaction' and although I have praised Taylor, I am not niave enough to know he will experience problems along the way. However, as we shouldn't over-hype him, you shouldn't be knocking him either! And before you say you weren't, your all post was negative towards his decisions etc.

As for McCall not getting any 'balance', I think you will find he got the best part of 2 seasons before fans (and I include myself in that) started to question his ability. Besides, when you are in your first managerial job and are failing/struggling, you can't exactly fall back on your previous managerial record. Taylor can!

My whole point was that for the last 3 months of last season and for parts of this, you criticised those that dared speak out against your beloved McCall, but here you are, just 6 games into Taylor's reign and you are doing EXACTLY the same. At least I gave it 1.5 seasons before highlighting my concerns!

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: i will back Taylor 100% but feel that that support does not stop me commenting on a mistake he made at Port vale-- as he readily admits it was a punishing schedule of travel and heavy pitches (not at Aldershot) but certainly at Rotherham. It would have been prudent to make some changes such as playing Oleary and Oliver and possibly Daley from the beginning as they are relatively fresh:ok jf it then needed change possibly bring on the "tired dogs" later in the game OR was he establishing who could and who could not handle the pressire of so many away games in such a short period. As stated above a 50% win ratio gets us into the play offs. Add a few more draws and it's automatic promotion place is available. I believe that the team will be stronger next season and there will not, hopefully, be such a pile up of fixtures which include so many away games. .

Again the mighty Tyker has spoken, aren't we the most fortunate fans in the world to have the most knowledgeable supporter anywhere in the world. mmmmmmmmmmmm he used to tell McCall which players were any good and what subs and tactics to employ and now he sees fit to tell a man that has managed at every level to a degree of success how to coach his team, what players to pick and rest which players to sign. Do us all a favour Tyker apply for the job or f@@k off

don't need a job as I employ people with minimum education requirements to work for me :You know the type. I expressed an opinion that the players were looking very tired and this was, i believe, stated by many others and implied by Taylor himself in interviews. If you cannot see that I think spec savers needs your trade . the fact is the vast majority of these players have never experienced such a punishing schedule especially on a pitches as heavy as some have been. The other facts are that some players have not been used until late in a game: another brought in on loan and not used. these are not criticisms but observations. As a 40 year old you should be able to see that. you will probably see a very different looking team come saturday

I do know the type yes i can't believe i'm replying to one. Although 40 as you correctly point out my point is let the manager employed sign,train and pick the players he wants. Maybe he wanted to see which players were fit enough and those that weren't. Its ok going on about how many games we have played in a short space of time but its only one more than PV. He may have wanted to keep the momentum going but unfortunately it didn't work out. You constantly criticised McCall for everything from the players he signed, his tactics subs etc and although you are clearly pro Taylor you are already stating why the new big striker is no good, why he didn't pick the centerback etc etc. Just let him get on with it and i wager now you shout for PT's head before me. Nothing could ever be achieved this season its just about who PT wants and who he doesn't want come the end of season. I also predict a few changes this sat but only 1 or 2 at most. Does that make me qualified like you. Also i wonder how you are still in business when you refer to your staff as min education requirements, thats not very respectful and i wonder how their productivity would be affected if they knew how their boss reffered to them. Myself i am a manager who also has to employ some lower skilled staff but i treat them with respect and try to install a bit of self motivation and belief in themselves. As a result i have a very happy work force and profits were up by 38% last year not bad in the current climate. Try not being so arrogant all the time Tyker and you might not rub people up the wrong way

so you are a manager:you don't employ people you manage them for an employer. Spot the difference between us. My staff are all happy to work for me. I don't think I would ever employ anyone who swears in written form at someone they do not know or will ever know.

Hope you don't use the same language to them as you do to me.

If I rub you up the wrong way perhaps you would like to be rubbed up the right way:I agree with everything you say but then an odd porkie here or there is allowed is it not. Even managers are using them at times by telling people they are just right for the job when they know deep down they would like to get rid of them.

We may see a change of keeper after Taylor's comments about Glennon's failure to save the shot!!

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?). My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

Please explain how I could possibly 'select the bits' I want, when I copied the whole paragraph! The only thing that has been said is that we are moving in the right direction, we have a proven manager/coach in charge and to get him tied down. It isn't exactly 'bigging him up' is it? It is a fact we are moving in the right direction. We are making less defensive mistakes and we are 200% better on set-pieces, or can't you see that? One thing I will agree with you on is that there shouldn't be any 'over-reaction' and although I have praised Taylor, I am not niave enough to know he will experience problems along the way. However, as we shouldn't over-hype him, you shouldn't be knocking him either! And before you say you weren't, your all post was negative towards his decisions etc. As for McCall not getting any 'balance', I think you will find he got the best part of 2 seasons before fans (and I include myself in that) started to question his ability. Besides, when you are in your first managerial job and are failing/struggling, you can't exactly fall back on your previous managerial record. Taylor can! My whole point was that for the last 3 months of last season and for parts of this, you criticised those that dared speak out against your beloved McCall, but here you are, just 6 games into Taylor's reign and you are doing EXACTLY the same. At least I gave it 1.5 seasons before highlighting my concerns!

Still don't get it do you! I was commenting on one game of football and other than the substitutions, you can't actually find anything that I have said that you disagree with can you? It was an awful performance and I don't see why I need to wait 1.5 seasons before I can say what I see. Did I call for wholesale changes, did I suggest that anyone should be blamed? NO - it's football and sh!t happens.

I'm telling you now, there will be fans calling for PT's head in less than 12 months and I will not be one of them! I never defended McCall just for being McCall and with PT you will see that I am just the same; i.e. much more balanced and considered and more accepting that no matter what you do in football you will never guarantee success. We were terrible on Tuesday and hope for much better today because with trips to Hereford and Bournemouth coming up; I need some glimmer of hope that they will be enjoyable.

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?). My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

Please explain how I could possibly 'select the bits' I want, when I copied the whole paragraph! The only thing that has been said is that we are moving in the right direction, we have a proven manager/coach in charge and to get him tied down. It isn't exactly 'bigging him up' is it? It is a fact we are moving in the right direction. We are making less defensive mistakes and we are 200% better on set-pieces, or can't you see that? One thing I will agree with you on is that there shouldn't be any 'over-reaction' and although I have praised Taylor, I am not niave enough to know he will experience problems along the way. However, as we shouldn't over-hype him, you shouldn't be knocking him either! And before you say you weren't, your all post was negative towards his decisions etc. As for McCall not getting any 'balance', I think you will find he got the best part of 2 seasons before fans (and I include myself in that) started to question his ability. Besides, when you are in your first managerial job and are failing/struggling, you can't exactly fall back on your previous managerial record. Taylor can! My whole point was that for the last 3 months of last season and for parts of this, you criticised those that dared speak out against your beloved McCall, but here you are, just 6 games into Taylor's reign and you are doing EXACTLY the same. At least I gave it 1.5 seasons before highlighting my concerns!

BTW - how is it a fact that we are moving in the right direction? A dour home win against the worst team in professional football and a last minute victory against Rotherham has somewhat glossed over the performances since PT arrived.

Less defensive mistakes? Did you go to Port Vale - they tore us apart in the first ten minutes and continued to do so for the rest of the game; or perhaps StaffBantam and I were watching a different game along with the fans who were taunting Marc Richards for missing chance after chance (until he scored). Rotherham also missed three sitters in the ten minutes leading up to the penalty so I'm not sure where you are seeing better defending.

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

keefluarr wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

Rambo wrote: If he has really blasted them, then excellent! We did wonder if this was something SMC ever did, with him being too pally-pally with his players. . From what we heard Evans wasn't in the game at all. Was this true? It seems he does have a tendancy to totally vanish at times.

Evans did plenty in the first half but the performance as a whole was terrible, Hanson looked very leggy too and won very little in the air but we continually hoofed it up to him. It's already mentioned above but City were very lucky to be in front at half time and but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. It was pretty clear that the port-vale number 4 was controlling the game and nothing was done to cut this out. Flynn looked a yard off the pace but OB and Bolder were taken off? Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract? BTW - can anyone name the last City manager who actually stayed for more than 36 months?

Isn't it fascinating how different people, watching the same game, can have so different an opinion. Personally, I think Taylor was right to take off Boulder, he was never in the game and was one of the main reasons their 'no4' was pulling the strings forthem. I believe Taylor thought that by dropping Flynn further back, would help out. As for O'B, despite doing well defensively, he didn't do enough going forward and was probably the reason Taylor subbed him for Daley in the 2nd half. Evans, again did a lot of running, but it wasn't his best game. I can see why Taylor brought Boulding on for him. You say they weren't "decent" substitutions, but I can't disagree more. What more could he have done; tried O'Leary and tried to defend the 1 goal lead? We have now won three of his 6 games and already you are waiting to to criticise ("but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" The fact is, we have just played 6 games in the space of 18 days, with 5 of them being away from home and on heavy pitches. Peter Taylor hasn't really had much opportunity to coach the boys and get them playing how he likes. They have made small improvements, but he isn't going to fix all our problems with a couple of hours here and there. As an example of a current week; Saturday - play game Sunday - rest day Monday - prepare for midweek game Tuesday - play game Wednesday - rest day Thursday - train/coach Friday - prepare for weekend game. Where will this extra coaching fit in to improve us as you want? We will improve under Taylor, give him a chance and get off his back! Then again, as one of McCall's "die-hards", why shouldn't we be surprised that you gave Stuart more lives than a dozen cats, but can't wait to hang Taylor????

Again, a massive over-reaction. I didn't read that from KnightMcCall at all (presumably this name now takes on a chess-playing metaphor?). It might appear however, appear to be a reaction to the numerous (and frankly tiresome) "I purportedly know more about footy than thee" posts on here. Peter Taylor is not an uber-god as some would make out, but clearly he knows a shed-load about football and playing in this League. He's absolutely a more accomplished and successful manager than Stuart McCall - no question, but from the last six games, including last night's poor display, you wouldn't really know it. Are you denying that McCall's team didn't have a ten game unbeaten run only this season? Probably not, but all this "time to coach" argument does not wash - haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment? It's very important NOT to hype Peter Taylor because of WHO he is (SM - lesson learned) and start basing him on results and performances. So far after 6 games, a fifty percent record of wins and at least two poor performances - let's hope that improves significantly. If 50/50 is all we can expect (based on facts), would you want him at the helm come the new season?

Yeah, sorry 'Keeflaur', because my glass is half empty, I read the post from 'KnightMcCall' as being somewhat negative. I mean, how can you read, "but for some comedy finishing it would have been a hiding. One of the worst performances of the season. No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract?" as being negative? As for "haven't previous experienced managers also faced this environment?" I can't think of any other examples of when a new manager (who doesn't yet know his team but are clearly struggling in 18th place) has to fit in THREE postponed games (all away) in his first few weeks in charge. Perhaps you could confirm examples of this! Finally, if Peter Taylor was to go a full season winning 50% of his games, we would finish with a MINIMUM of 69 points, enough for a play-off place last season. As he has only been at the club three weeks, I don't think 9 points from 6 games is bad, do you?

Waynus, as ever you completely miss my point and select the bits that you want. Is it not true that comedy finishing kept us in the game? I was certainly laughing at half-time. BTW - I am not the only one on here who thinks that we were lucky to excape with a 2-1 defeat; this is not negativity it is a comment on the game as I witnessed it. My observations of the game are what I saw and I am more than happy that you disagree with regards the substitutions - I just thought Flynn was having a poor game (looked tired) and that Hanson should also have been removed for a change in tactics. It was a very poor performance for 90 minutes (check out the stats - 4 shots in the whole game! weren't you blaming Stuart for not getting a striker in to convert the endless chances that his team were creating?). My real point though is that I am asking for "balance". McCall didn't get any from those who slated him and the same people are bigging up PT after a handful of games and making rash predictions that all our problems are behind us; it's ridiculous. I will also put money on it that I will give PT more time than those who are now saying he is the best thing since sliced bread just because they so desperately wanted rid of McCall. If I was offered the choice between PT and McCall as manager then I would choose PT based on his track record - so this has nothing to do with my opinion on McCall or the fact that I am sorry that he has gone. I didn't even mention McCall.

Please explain how I could possibly 'select the bits' I want, when I copied the whole paragraph! The only thing that has been said is that we are moving in the right direction, we have a proven manager/coach in charge and to get him tied down. It isn't exactly 'bigging him up' is it? It is a fact we are moving in the right direction. We are making less defensive mistakes and we are 200% better on set-pieces, or can't you see that? One thing I will agree with you on is that there shouldn't be any 'over-reaction' and although I have praised Taylor, I am not niave enough to know he will experience problems along the way. However, as we shouldn't over-hype him, you shouldn't be knocking him either! And before you say you weren't, your all post was negative towards his decisions etc. As for McCall not getting any 'balance', I think you will find he got the best part of 2 seasons before fans (and I include myself in that) started to question his ability. Besides, when you are in your first managerial job and are failing/struggling, you can't exactly fall back on your previous managerial record. Taylor can! My whole point was that for the last 3 months of last season and for parts of this, you criticised those that dared speak out against your beloved McCall, but here you are, just 6 games into Taylor's reign and you are doing EXACTLY the same. At least I gave it 1.5 seasons before highlighting my concerns!

BTW - how is it a fact that we are moving in the right direction? A dour home win against the worst team in professional football and a last minute victory against Rotherham has somewhat glossed over the performances since PT arrived. Less defensive mistakes? Did you go to Port Vale - they tore us apart in the first ten minutes and continued to do so for the rest of the game; or perhaps StaffBantam and I were watching a different game along with the fans who were taunting Marc Richards for missing chance after chance (until he scored). Rotherham also missed three sitters in the ten minutes leading up to the penalty so I'm not sure where you are seeing better defending.

Come off it. You used an abysmal performance as an excuse to have a dig at Taylor and those that have praised his signing. You claim to have only been commenting on one game of football, but in effect, "Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale", is THREE different games!!! You then added, "and other than the substitutions, you can't actually find anything that I have said that you disagree with can you?" Other than the obvious, "Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract" quip, no I don't.

The fact is, I agreed with you that it was a poor performance, but lets bear in mind we weren't playing a mug team, we were playing a decent side. Although they are as inconsistent as we are, when they play well, Vale are a match for anyone. Did you notice their score at the weekend? When did we last win as emphatically as that?

The point I have been trying to make is that, although I agree with you that it was a poor performance, you didn't need to criticise him in the way you did. It was an awful performance but I don't see why Taylor should be blamed. You even suggested above that you didn't blame anyone, but the whole emphasis of your post was that Taylor WAS to blame, i.e. "No pattern, no shape and no decent substitutions!. Rave about a new manager all you want but we have been poor against Acc Stan, Darlo and now Port Vale. Where's Shaun with his 3 year contract"!!

Oh and onto the subsequent post, where is our improvement? Have you actually watched City this season? We have been dire at defending all season. Yes, we were poor against Vale, but overall, we have defended much better in Taylor's games than under the previous charges. Look at the improvement in our set-pieces. How many goals had we scored from free-kicks/corners this season before Taylor became manager? How many have we scored since? No improvement??????

The fact is, despite not having a lot of time on the training ground to iron out our flaws, we HAVE made significant improvement. If you can't see that, may I politely suggest you go watch a different sport!