Williams dismissal leaves McCall’s men still searching for elusive home comfort (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

"Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion.
Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months".
Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

spleen ventor wrote:
"Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive.

At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!!
!!!

The performance was dire but the concern must be the size of the attendance 10,831 on a day when most clubs get one of there best attendances of the season, the board will have to take notice soon if they have not already, its O/K having cheap season tickets but to be honest the product on the feild is still poor value, I personally would like some comment from the board room,as the lack of comments/statement might suggest they are happy with the situation ??.

waynus71 wrote:

spleen ventor wrote: "Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive. At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!! !!!

I suppose sarcasm is a better argument than stability?

Four years ago, we were all supposedly happy just to have a team. It seems that the expectations are higher amongst those with short memories.

Then McCall arrived with the chairmen and McCall promising promotion and Rhodes talking about back to back promotions. This was a really stupid thing to promise.

The reality should have been that City had no money, Gibb was strangling any hope of moving ahead and it would be a long road to recovery. For all those that want change, it is becuase you still seem to think that promotion is a given. You state as fact that McCall cannot coach and is tactically inept; you state with confidence that a new manager will lead to this "rightful" promotion; these are not facts they are your opinions. McCall is now being criticsed for not getting more out of O'Grady and Mullin - this is hilarious. O'Grady came to city after an injury, he was sent to get match fit but McCall sent him back swiftly; probably because he realised that he wasn't fit enough to add anything - he should be applauded for that. Mullin is just a cart-horse and he is not exactly lighting up the league.

In effect, you are delusional. The club is in a mess, it has no money and McCall is now trying to build something for the longer term because the short-term (and foolish) aims for a quick jump back to League 1 have not materialised. A new manager is highly unlikely to get this team promoted and this new manager will have the same bleating "fans" crying for his head before the end of this season if things don't go our way. It is not so much stability that I am after as long-term thinking. McCall has made loads of mistakes and I do not understand his tactics and some of his substitutions but I back him to succeed. If he goes, I would put money on it that you, Shaun, Halifax Bantam and many others will be screaming for the next manager to be sacked within 18 months.

Waynus, you are clearly frustrated and so are the rest of us but we need to look beyond the obvious and accept that City are a struggling club (I use the word club as opposed to team on purpose). McCall is doing OK in the circumstances and should at least be given the season with his new squad.

If I was making excuses for him, I would point out that he has not had the services of his two best goalscorers for most of the season and it appears to me that he has been playing Eastwood against his own wishes. It's time to dig in and fight - if the players continue to battle the way they did on Saturday then we will see better results.

KnightMcCall wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

spleen ventor wrote: "Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive. At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!! !!!

I suppose sarcasm is a better argument than stability? Four years ago, we were all supposedly happy just to have a team. It seems that the expectations are higher amongst those with short memories. Then McCall arrived with the chairmen and McCall promising promotion and Rhodes talking about back to back promotions. This was a really stupid thing to promise. The reality should have been that City had no money, Gibb was strangling any hope of moving ahead and it would be a long road to recovery. For all those that want change, it is becuase you still seem to think that promotion is a given. You state as fact that McCall cannot coach and is tactically inept; you state with confidence that a new manager will lead to this "rightful" promotion; these are not facts they are your opinions. McCall is now being criticsed for not getting more out of O'Grady and Mullin - this is hilarious. O'Grady came to city after an injury, he was sent to get match fit but McCall sent him back swiftly; probably because he realised that he wasn't fit enough to add anything - he should be applauded for that. Mullin is just a cart-horse and he is not exactly lighting up the league. In effect, you are delusional. The club is in a mess, it has no money and McCall is now trying to build something for the longer term because the short-term (and foolish) aims for a quick jump back to League 1 have not materialised. A new manager is highly unlikely to get this team promoted and this new manager will have the same bleating "fans" crying for his head before the end of this season if things don't go our way. It is not so much stability that I am after as long-term thinking. McCall has made loads of mistakes and I do not understand his tactics and some of his substitutions but I back him to succeed. If he goes, I would put money on it that you, Shaun, Halifax Bantam and many others will be screaming for the next manager to be sacked within 18 months. Waynus, you are clearly frustrated and so are the rest of us but we need to look beyond the obvious and accept that City are a struggling club (I use the word club as opposed to team on purpose). McCall is doing OK in the circumstances and should at least be given the season with his new squad. If I was making excuses for him, I would point out that he has not had the services of his two best goalscorers for most of the season and it appears to me that he has been playing Eastwood against his own wishes. It's time to dig in and fight - if the players continue to battle the way they did on Saturday then we will see better results.

If as you say McCall appeared to be playing Eastwood against his wishes (I totally agree with that assumption) it appeared to be a similar situation with Willie Topp so I would suggest Stuart is not in total control of the football side of things down at Valley Parade, we hear rightly or wrongly the Eastwood situation was he played if he was fit (no matter how he performed) as Huddersfeld were paying his wages and if not played Bradford city would have to pay his wages for the term of his loan to us,and Stuart was not involved with the signing of Willie Topp, now if both these situations are correct then Stuart is not the man I thought he was, he's the manager and he signs the players and picks the team if he is getting interfearance from the board room then he should tell him/them to keep their noses out or he will resign.

KnightMcCall wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

spleen ventor wrote: "Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive. At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!! !!!

I suppose sarcasm is a better argument than stability? Four years ago, we were all supposedly happy just to have a team. It seems that the expectations are higher amongst those with short memories. Then McCall arrived with the chairmen and McCall promising promotion and Rhodes talking about back to back promotions. This was a really stupid thing to promise. The reality should have been that City had no money, Gibb was strangling any hope of moving ahead and it would be a long road to recovery. For all those that want change, it is becuase you still seem to think that promotion is a given. You state as fact that McCall cannot coach and is tactically inept; you state with confidence that a new manager will lead to this "rightful" promotion; these are not facts they are your opinions. McCall is now being criticsed for not getting more out of O'Grady and Mullin - this is hilarious. O'Grady came to city after an injury, he was sent to get match fit but McCall sent him back swiftly; probably because he realised that he wasn't fit enough to add anything - he should be applauded for that. Mullin is just a cart-horse and he is not exactly lighting up the league. In effect, you are delusional. The club is in a mess, it has no money and McCall is now trying to build something for the longer term because the short-term (and foolish) aims for a quick jump back to League 1 have not materialised. A new manager is highly unlikely to get this team promoted and this new manager will have the same bleating "fans" crying for his head before the end of this season if things don't go our way. It is not so much stability that I am after as long-term thinking. McCall has made loads of mistakes and I do not understand his tactics and some of his substitutions but I back him to succeed. If he goes, I would put money on it that you, Shaun, Halifax Bantam and many others will be screaming for the next manager to be sacked within 18 months. Waynus, you are clearly frustrated and so are the rest of us but we need to look beyond the obvious and accept that City are a struggling club (I use the word club as opposed to team on purpose). McCall is doing OK in the circumstances and should at least be given the season with his new squad. If I was making excuses for him, I would point out that he has not had the services of his two best goalscorers for most of the season and it appears to me that he has been playing Eastwood against his own wishes. It's time to dig in and fight - if the players continue to battle the way they did on Saturday then we will see better results.

You refer to my 'opinions' instead of fact, but then throw in that McCall has been 'playing Eastwood against his own wishes'. Where does that little nugget come from?

As for my own expectations, if you have followed my views this season, I was one of the minority defending McCall. I didn't expect promotion, I just expected a squad building together and improving.

The reason for my frustration is McCall's insistence in trying to counter the opponents instead of picking his best team. I haven't got issues with the squad. They are decent players trying to improve. However, in the last 3 games, we have created in excess of 15 chances per match. Only poor finishing and defensive errors have stopped us from picking up more. yet, despite this, McCall insisted on making changes to his midfield. Surely he could see it was the strikers (not both) that needed changing? He put Boulders on the bench, but has no intention of using him. Wasn't this reminiscent of Thorne last season and proves he has learnt nothing.

You take positive out of McCall sending back O'Grady after deciding he was unfit. I would argue that he took him on loan in the first place, when clearly not fit. Mullin may be a cart-horse, but he has scored more goals for the mighty Morecambe than he did for us and than Evans has so far this season.

You refer to Thorne's injury and Boulding's illnesses and I agree entirely that if these had been fit, they would have taken chances that Evans has missed. However, that again is a failure of Mccall. This week he insisted that we only need a keeper, despite Thorne being some 6-8 weeks away from being sharp enough to play for the first team. We need four fit strikers, as was proved last january when Thorne was injured and Boulding lost form.

All fans are entitled to their point of view and there will always be differences of opinion. Mine (and I hope i am wrong) is that with SM we will be mid table at best and income will gradually decline making attracting good players harder. All those who renewed season tickets deserve credit. We have only seen 3 home wins this season and we get 6400 to renew, that is fantastic. But how long will people turn up to see the occasional win? We have to assume that the board are always looking at options, What if SM quits? This must have crossed their minds. If as knightMccall says the club are in financial dire straights and we have a low player budget for this league then we are doing ok. If it is top 8 or even top 5 as has been mentioned then its a different story. At the start of the season the board said the budget was competitive despite the cuts. Until we hear different from the club what are we to belive? Recent articles suggest A) Mark Lawn is not optimistic we will turn things round on the pitch and B) Julian Rhodes thinks we have a better squad than last year yet are languishing in the bottom half of the table. Without Julian and Mark there probably would not be a league club in the City, but until we hear some straight talking on the situation at the club the fans can only base their view on what they see on the pitch which is lower mid table mediocrity. Bradford should be big draw for good managers at this level but it is unfair to expect anyone to do something with nothing. The board should act to make the picture clear.

Paulvh wrote:
All fans are entitled to their point of view and there will always be differences of opinion. Mine (and I hope i am wrong) is that with SM we will be mid table at best and income will gradually decline making attracting good players harder. All those who renewed season tickets deserve credit. We have only seen 3 home wins this season and we get 6400 to renew, that is fantastic. But how long will people turn up to see the occasional win? We have to assume that the board are always looking at options, What if SM quits? This must have crossed their minds. If as knightMccall says the club are in financial dire straights and we have a low player budget for this league then we are doing ok. If it is top 8 or even top 5 as has been mentioned then its a different story. At the start of the season the board said the budget was competitive despite the cuts. Until we hear different from the club what are we to belive? Recent articles suggest A) Mark Lawn is not optimistic we will turn things round on the pitch and B) Julian Rhodes thinks we have a better squad than last year yet are languishing in the bottom half of the table. Without Julian and Mark there probably would not be a league club in the City, but until we hear some straight talking on the situation at the club the fans can only base their view on what they see on the pitch which is lower mid table mediocrity. Bradford should be big draw for good managers at this level but it is unfair to expect anyone to do something with nothing. The board should act to make the picture clear.

You make some fair points,and you may well be correct in saying we are a 'big draw' for managers. However, what do we expect a Manager to be achieving with what most people believe is a shortage of money. We had managers come to Bradford after the 'spending spree' of Jewell's era and they were either ALL crap managers or they were too short of cash to make any progress (maybe both) McCall was only able to keep part of his squad from last year because he failed to get promotion by 1 League win, 3 points. I stand to be corrected, but I understand the only Transfer Fee we paid out was around £35000. The players we brought in we got through paying wages higher than other teams were prepared to pay them. It didn't quite get us into the play-offs but it wasn't because McCall wasted huge amounts on transfer fees on players that turned out to be duds. He got the best he could of players that Clubs did not require a fee for.Their is a big difference as to who you can or can not bring to the Club if there isn't enough money to 'buy' players. If he could have kept his squad together he would have been improving on last season instead of having to let players go that he would rather have kept, but we didn't even have enough money to keep the players on their wages for two seasons. It is extremely harsh criticism McCall is receiving from a lot of supporters for things that are out of his control.

waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

spleen ventor wrote: "Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive. At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!! !!!

I suppose sarcasm is a better argument than stability? Four years ago, we were all supposedly happy just to have a team. It seems that the expectations are higher amongst those with short memories. Then McCall arrived with the chairmen and McCall promising promotion and Rhodes talking about back to back promotions. This was a really stupid thing to promise. The reality should have been that City had no money, Gibb was strangling any hope of moving ahead and it would be a long road to recovery. For all those that want change, it is becuase you still seem to think that promotion is a given. You state as fact that McCall cannot coach and is tactically inept; you state with confidence that a new manager will lead to this "rightful" promotion; these are not facts they are your opinions. McCall is now being criticsed for not getting more out of O'Grady and Mullin - this is hilarious. O'Grady came to city after an injury, he was sent to get match fit but McCall sent him back swiftly; probably because he realised that he wasn't fit enough to add anything - he should be applauded for that. Mullin is just a cart-horse and he is not exactly lighting up the league. In effect, you are delusional. The club is in a mess, it has no money and McCall is now trying to build something for the longer term because the short-term (and foolish) aims for a quick jump back to League 1 have not materialised. A new manager is highly unlikely to get this team promoted and this new manager will have the same bleating "fans" crying for his head before the end of this season if things don't go our way. It is not so much stability that I am after as long-term thinking. McCall has made loads of mistakes and I do not understand his tactics and some of his substitutions but I back him to succeed. If he goes, I would put money on it that you, Shaun, Halifax Bantam and many others will be screaming for the next manager to be sacked within 18 months. Waynus, you are clearly frustrated and so are the rest of us but we need to look beyond the obvious and accept that City are a struggling club (I use the word club as opposed to team on purpose). McCall is doing OK in the circumstances and should at least be given the season with his new squad. If I was making excuses for him, I would point out that he has not had the services of his two best goalscorers for most of the season and it appears to me that he has been playing Eastwood against his own wishes. It's time to dig in and fight - if the players continue to battle the way they did on Saturday then we will see better results.

You refer to my 'opinions' instead of fact, but then throw in that McCall has been 'playing Eastwood against his own wishes'. Where does that little nugget come from? As for my own expectations, if you have followed my views this season, I was one of the minority defending McCall. I didn't expect promotion, I just expected a squad building together and improving. The reason for my frustration is McCall's insistence in trying to counter the opponents instead of picking his best team. I haven't got issues with the squad. They are decent players trying to improve. However, in the last 3 games, we have created in excess of 15 chances per match. Only poor finishing and defensive errors have stopped us from picking up more. yet, despite this, McCall insisted on making changes to his midfield. Surely he could see it was the strikers (not both) that needed changing? He put Boulders on the bench, but has no intention of using him. Wasn't this reminiscent of Thorne last season and proves he has learnt nothing. You take positive out of McCall sending back O'Grady after deciding he was unfit. I would argue that he took him on loan in the first place, when clearly not fit. Mullin may be a cart-horse, but he has scored more goals for the mighty Morecambe than he did for us and than Evans has so far this season. You refer to Thorne's injury and Boulding's illnesses and I agree entirely that if these had been fit, they would have taken chances that Evans has missed. However, that again is a failure of Mccall. This week he insisted that we only need a keeper, despite Thorne being some 6-8 weeks away from being sharp enough to play for the first team. We need four fit strikers, as was proved last january when Thorne was injured and Boulding lost form.

I said "appears" to have played Eastwood against his wishes. I don't know how true it is but I heard McCalls views of Eastwood after the Shrewsbury game and he didn't sound too upset that the loan deal had come to and end.

Do you not think that Boulding would have come on if we hadn't had a man sent off? It certainly restricted his options having Williams sent off but Boulding is coming back from injury and he would have had to take a risk in bringing him on (I assume you mean M Boulding as both were on the bench?).

Can you also confirm that you would rather have Mullin than Evans? That "appears" to be what you are saying.

We may need four fit strikers but we don't have the cash to go out and replace them. Besides, goals are not the problem, conceding them is and that might be why we are looking for an experienced keeper. Given that you argued that we should blood "our own keeper" rather than a loanee, don't you think that McCall is right to give his squad the time on the pitch rather than replacing them with temporary players from other clubs.

It also makes little sense to say that we are creating 15 chances per game and then saying that we need a new manager. If we are creating that many chances then surely we are heading in the right direction with this manager?

I don't think that you have thought this through.

I thought it was only General Pinochet who rounded people up in a football stadium & tortured them - obviously not ?

Can't believe Parker makes no reference to the foul on Flynn in the 2nd half, which was a definite penalty.

Hope you enjoyed watching our victory over our main rivals from across the pennines, very nice of sir Alex to say we will be back in the premier within a couple of years and how he misses the games with us, not bad for a little 3rd division outfit lol. I actually think it will be three years not two but there you go. Also nice to get a few quid in the bank as well and more to come in the televised Spurs game, should be enough for a replacement for Beckford if he decides to join the smaller outfit that is Newcastle although i think he will stay to enjoy the promotion then maybe leave in the summer. Carry on dreaming about which non league players you can afford to sign and enjoy the rest of the season.

will you morons lay off McCall, a lot of you need to get real. Maybe you deserve him to be walking away and leaving the club to go in the admin again. Give the man some space, he deservs our backing.
You are so depressing, go and watch something elsse. Maybe we'll be better off with smaller TRUE supporters.

Oakenshaw white wrote:
Hope you enjoyed watching our victory over our main rivals from across the pennines, very nice of sir Alex to say we will be back in the premier within a couple of years and how he misses the games with us, not bad for a little 3rd division outfit lol. I actually think it will be three years not two but there you go. Also nice to get a few quid in the bank as well and more to come in the televised Spurs game, should be enough for a replacement for Beckford if he decides to join the smaller outfit that is Newcastle although i think he will stay to enjoy the promotion then maybe leave in the summer. Carry on dreaming about which non league players you can afford to sign and enjoy the rest of the season.

Congratulations, you deserved your win. And the Televised game at Spurs won't do you Bank Balance any harm either.

KnightMcCall wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

KnightMcCall wrote:

waynus71 wrote:

spleen ventor wrote: "Stuart McCall must wonder if City are stuck in the same delayed time zone. McCall could not wait to slam the door on 2009 but 2010 has dawned in dispiritingly familiar fashion. Saturday mirrored countless frustrating Valley Parade afternoons from the previous 12 months". Call me astute, but it might just have something to do with the same old manager employing the same old tactics!

You're not allowed to question McCall's ability to coach or his choice of tactics.... unless you are being positive. At least at the end of the 2017-18 season, McCall was still be in charge and we will still be a mid-table League 2 side. But the key will still be 'stability'!!!!!!!!! !!!

I suppose sarcasm is a better argument than stability? Four years ago, we were all supposedly happy just to have a team. It seems that the expectations are higher amongst those with short memories. Then McCall arrived with the chairmen and McCall promising promotion and Rhodes talking about back to back promotions. This was a really stupid thing to promise. The reality should have been that City had no money, Gibb was strangling any hope of moving ahead and it would be a long road to recovery. For all those that want change, it is becuase you still seem to think that promotion is a given. You state as fact that McCall cannot coach and is tactically inept; you state with confidence that a new manager will lead to this "rightful" promotion; these are not facts they are your opinions. McCall is now being criticsed for not getting more out of O'Grady and Mullin - this is hilarious. O'Grady came to city after an injury, he was sent to get match fit but McCall sent him back swiftly; probably because he realised that he wasn't fit enough to add anything - he should be applauded for that. Mullin is just a cart-horse and he is not exactly lighting up the league. In effect, you are delusional. The club is in a mess, it has no money and McCall is now trying to build something for the longer term because the short-term (and foolish) aims for a quick jump back to League 1 have not materialised. A new manager is highly unlikely to get this team promoted and this new manager will have the same bleating "fans" crying for his head before the end of this season if things don't go our way. It is not so much stability that I am after as long-term thinking. McCall has made loads of mistakes and I do not understand his tactics and some of his substitutions but I back him to succeed. If he goes, I would put money on it that you, Shaun, Halifax Bantam and many others will be screaming for the next manager to be sacked within 18 months. Waynus, you are clearly frustrated and so are the rest of us but we need to look beyond the obvious and accept that City are a struggling club (I use the word club as opposed to team on purpose). McCall is doing OK in the circumstances and should at least be given the season with his new squad. If I was making excuses for him, I would point out that he has not had the services of his two best goalscorers for most of the season and it appears to me that he has been playing Eastwood against his own wishes. It's time to dig in and fight - if the players continue to battle the way they did on Saturday then we will see better results.

You refer to my 'opinions' instead of fact, but then throw in that McCall has been 'playing Eastwood against his own wishes'. Where does that little nugget come from? As for my own expectations, if you have followed my views this season, I was one of the minority defending McCall. I didn't expect promotion, I just expected a squad building together and improving. The reason for my frustration is McCall's insistence in trying to counter the opponents instead of picking his best team. I haven't got issues with the squad. They are decent players trying to improve. However, in the last 3 games, we have created in excess of 15 chances per match. Only poor finishing and defensive errors have stopped us from picking up more. yet, despite this, McCall insisted on making changes to his midfield. Surely he could see it was the strikers (not both) that needed changing? He put Boulders on the bench, but has no intention of using him. Wasn't this reminiscent of Thorne last season and proves he has learnt nothing. You take positive out of McCall sending back O'Grady after deciding he was unfit. I would argue that he took him on loan in the first place, when clearly not fit. Mullin may be a cart-horse, but he has scored more goals for the mighty Morecambe than he did for us and than Evans has so far this season. You refer to Thorne's injury and Boulding's illnesses and I agree entirely that if these had been fit, they would have taken chances that Evans has missed. However, that again is a failure of Mccall. This week he insisted that we only need a keeper, despite Thorne being some 6-8 weeks away from being sharp enough to play for the first team. We need four fit strikers, as was proved last january when Thorne was injured and Boulding lost form.

I said "appears" to have played Eastwood against his wishes. I don't know how true it is but I heard McCalls views of Eastwood after the Shrewsbury game and he didn't sound too upset that the loan deal had come to and end. Do you not think that Boulding would have come on if we hadn't had a man sent off? It certainly restricted his options having Williams sent off but Boulding is coming back from injury and he would have had to take a risk in bringing him on (I assume you mean M Boulding as both were on the bench?). Can you also confirm that you would rather have Mullin than Evans? That "appears" to be what you are saying. We may need four fit strikers but we don't have the cash to go out and replace them. Besides, goals are not the problem, conceding them is and that might be why we are looking for an experienced keeper. Given that you argued that we should blood "our own keeper" rather than a loanee, don't you think that McCall is right to give his squad the time on the pitch rather than replacing them with temporary players from other clubs. It also makes little sense to say that we are creating 15 chances per game and then saying that we need a new manager. If we are creating that many chances then surely we are heading in the right direction with this manager? I don't think that you have thought this through.

No disrespect, but I think it's incredibly naive to assume that it was in Eastwood's loan agreement that he had to play.

I just can't believe that we as a club would agree to such a clause; imagine the affect it would have on team spirit for one.

People seem to forget why Eastwood was signed in the 1st place; it was because McCall didn't have sufficient confidence in McLaughlin to be his number 1, and that is why he persisted with him throughout his loan spell.

As I've metioned before, I reckon the reason Eastwood wasn't sent back earlier, is because we weren't allowed to terminate his loan agreement until it ended in January. And because of our finances, we certainly wouldn't have been able to afford to bring in another keeper, and have 3 on our books.

Oh come on, are you trying to keep this argument going for the sake of it?

My point being, I have been happy with our recent form BUT we have missed the chances being created. However, despite this, McCall (yet again) decided to change out style and formation to take on Cheltenham. Why? Nobody has yet explained the rationale behind changing a formation that was working in terms of creating chances for our forwards.

If you agree, that we have been creating 15+ chances per game (and therefore reinstating your belief that McCall is doing the right things), then you have to admit our strikers AREN'T doing the business.

You continue to say our defence is at fault. Going back to the Accrington game, Rehman was fouled before the ball was squared to Symes to score.

We then had a clean sheet against Grimsby.

In relation to the Rochdale game, ALL the players were poor, so to single out the defence would be very unfair.

Another clean sheet against Darlington followed.

Admittedly, we then conceded two poor goals (by Ellison) against Rotherham. However, their 3rd was a wonder goal and 4th was clearly offside.

We then shipped three against Carlisle. However, the first goal came after the harsh dismissal of Ramsden. Then when chasing the game (with 10 men), they hit us on the break twice. Hardly poor defensively.

Next up was Shrewsbury. A similar story to the Carlisle game followed. A defensive error gave the Shrews player the ball and from 25 yards out, he beat Eastwood. However, their 2nd came from a very dubious penalty decision and we conceded a third when, chasing the game, they hit us on a counter attack after a mistake by Daley from our corner.

So, as you can see, there are the odd mistakes, but hardly woeful defensively. However, missing 13/14 good chances per game, needs addressing.

As for 'blooding our own', I agree. However, like McLaughlin, McCall clearly doesn't rate Rory B and with Thorne at least 4 weeks from being able to play, why not bring in a temporary loan. Lawn said only last week that funds are available! He put Mickey B on the bench, but had no intention of playing him. You say this may have something to do with the sending off, but this didn't stop him bringing on Daley. And for that matter, why didn't he bring on Neilson before Omar, as he has played more football and would have been more match-fit?

Finally, no, I am not saying I would prefer Mullin. My point is that the Morecambe manager is getting the best out of an average manager, yet our boss can't get the best from Evans.

you amazingly defend the defence and then highlight their mistakes. this defence also included Clarke for some games a player that you have lambasted in the past and said was rubbish.

How can Daley get match-fit if he doesn't come on? He has played in the reserves but that is not the same intensity or carry the same nerves/meaning

You then attempt to blame McCall for a players Evans performances. You cannot blame Stu for a players finishing and the rest of his game appears ok to me. he puts in so much work and he must be getting in the right positions to get chances going by your own stats. TOO many times lalely you are contradicting your statements for them to be taken serious. You usually think before posting but lately that is not the case and your credibility is been lost