Selles In

[Snowflake Royal]

Whilst I find the discussions on here interesting, the only thing that a manager is judged on is results. Whether Selles stays or goes won't come down to formation or tactics or man management or anything like that - it will come down to whether the new owners think our league position is good or bad considering the quality of the squad and circumstance. He's more likely to stay if we're playing terrible football, everyone hates him, but scrapping wins than if we're showing promise, he's loved by players, but we're narrowly losing games.

Agreed. Obviously in an ideal world we'd want both, I'd like to see us play nice football and have a lot of promise whilst getting results, but that's few and far between at this level. Teams that do have all those attributes tend to go up and find themselves doing well in the Championship, Ipswich for example.

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Whilst I find the discussions on here interesting, the only thing that a manager is judged on is results. Whether Selles stays or goes won't come down to formation or tactics or man management or anything like that - it will come down to whether the new owners think our league position is good or bad considering the quality of the squad and circumstance. He's more likely to stay if we're playing terrible football, everyone hates him, but scrapping wins than if we're showing promise, he's loved by players, but we're narrowly losing games.

Agreed. Obviously in an ideal world we'd want both, I'd like to see us play nice football and have a lot of promise whilst getting results, but that's few and far between at this level. Teams that do have all those attributes tend to go up and find themselves doing well in the Championship, Ipswich for example.

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

[Snowflake Royal]

Agreed. Obviously in an ideal world we'd want both, I'd like to see us play nice football and have a lot of promise whilst getting results, but that's few and far between at this level. Teams that do have all those attributes tend to go up and find themselves doing well in the Championship, Ipswich for example.

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

I wouldn't say we are playing badly to be honest. A couple of dodgy performances recently, Exeter wasn't our best and Cheltenham was poor for 40 minutes but previous to that on our recent upturn, most of the performances have been pretty good, even against Barnsley where we lost.

Certainly room for improvement, but our actual football and performances really aren't that bad. I would like to see us play more direct if it means giving us a better opportunity of getting results.

[Hound]

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

We’ve not been playing proper badly. We’ve not been brilliant but other than second half at Oxford and the half at Cheltenham we’ve matched whoever we’ve played fairly well and often been the better side in recent times. And we’ve good efficient strikers which has been making the difference

[Snowflake Royal]

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

We’ve not been playing proper badly. We’ve not been brilliant but other than second half at Oxford and the half at Cheltenham we’ve matched whoever we’ve played fairly well and often been the better side in recent times. And we’ve good efficient strikers which has been making the difference

I don't agree we've been playing well.

We have little to no control in midfield, we can't keep a clean sheet and our results are heavily reliant on the individual quality of a couple of key players.

We have moments in games where we certainly play some good stuff. That isn't the same as playing well though.

[Royal Rother]

He didn't actually say we've been playing well.

I think the problem here Ian is that you're only interested in the sound of your own voice to the point that you blank out most things that you can't argue with.

And find something to argue with even when you do actually agree.

[WestYorksRoyal]

We've not been playing well, but we've not been getting dominated because of the division we're in. I knew L1 would be lower quality than the Championship, but I underestimated the extent of the gap. Teams aren't capable of dominating us so we put in uninspiring performances which are enough to get results. I think even lower Championship teams like Birmingham, Plymouth and Stoke would have enough to comfortably beat us, let alone the better ones.

Was the gulf this big last time we were at this level? It didn't feel like it, but then we were a top L1 team. The likes of Bolton and Portsmouth could probably compete.

[Hendo]

Playing badly and getting results.

We’ve not been playing proper badly. We’ve not been brilliant but other than second half at Oxford and the half at Cheltenham we’ve matched whoever we’ve played fairly well and often been the better side in recent times. And we’ve good efficient strikers which has been making the difference

I don't agree we've been playing well.

We have little to no control in midfield, we can't keep a clean sheet and our results are heavily reliant on the individual quality of a couple of key players.

We have moments in games where we certainly play some good stuff. That isn't the same as playing well though.

Think the same can be said for nearly every team in the league, tbh.

[Hound]

We’ve not been playing proper badly. We’ve not been brilliant but other than second half at Oxford and the half at Cheltenham we’ve matched whoever we’ve played fairly well and often been the better side in recent times. And we’ve good efficient strikers which has been making the difference

I don't agree we've been playing well.

We have little to no control in midfield, we can't keep a clean sheet and our results are heavily reliant on the individual quality of a couple of key players.

We have moments in games where we certainly play some good stuff. That isn't the same as playing well though.

Think the same can be said for nearly every team in the league, tbh.

Yes I think that’s partly the point. Don’t think we’ve been great - playing fairly well other than 2 very poor halves in the last 5 isn’t great praise - but we’ve been slightly better than the opposition generally hence winning the points we have

Haven’t been impressed by any team this year tbh. Thought Bolton were poor, we were better than Barnsley, Oxford were very limited. Missed Portsmouth but doesn’t sound like we were miles off them

[Hendo]

I don't agree we've been playing well.

We have little to no control in midfield, we can't keep a clean sheet and our results are heavily reliant on the individual quality of a couple of key players.

We have moments in games where we certainly play some good stuff. That isn't the same as playing well though.

Think the same can be said for nearly every team in the league, tbh.

Yes I think that’s partly the point. Don’t think we’ve been great - playing fairly well other than 2 very poor halves in the last 5 isn’t great praise - but we’ve been slightly better than the opposition generally hence winning the points we have

Haven’t been impressed by any team this year tbh. Thought Bolton were poor, we were better than Barnsley, Oxford were very limited. Missed Portsmouth but doesn’t sound like we were miles off them

Portsmouth game was a funny one, both teams were equally very good and very bad for sections of the game. The good stuff Portsmouth played was very good and probably the best I've seen this year.

[Snowflake Royal]

We’ve not been playing proper badly. We’ve not been brilliant but other than second half at Oxford and the half at Cheltenham we’ve matched whoever we’ve played fairly well and often been the better side in recent times. And we’ve good efficient strikers which has been making the difference

I don't agree we've been playing well.

We have little to no control in midfield, we can't keep a clean sheet and our results are heavily reliant on the individual quality of a couple of key players.

We have moments in games where we certainly play some good stuff. That isn't the same as playing well though.

Think the same can be said for nearly every team in the league, tbh.

I think a lot of the teams have lower quality than us, but also look much better in midfield and general possession, despite some quite poor errors sprinkled in.

The division certainly has more poor teams than I was expecting. Although the fun level is still quite high when we aren’t soul destroyingly bad.

[Elm Park Kid]

Although the former is not sustainable and so he won't last long under new ownership anyway in that case.

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

[Snowflake Royal]

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

May have figured in my thinking.

[Orion1871]

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

The defence wasn't that well marshalled given Al Habsi made a huge amount of saves during that season. Shots against was one of the biggest sticks to beat us with when people were accusing us of being in a "false position."

Those drubbings by the likes of Norwich didn't come out of nowhere.

[Rax]

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

The defence wasn't that well marshalled given Al Habsi made a huge amount of saves during that season. Shots against was one of the biggest sticks to beat us with when people were accusing us of being in a "false position."

Those drubbings by the likes of Norwich didn't come out of nowhere.

That was the thing that people forget about that season - when we lost, we lost big - remember Brighton absolutely rinsed us and we were lucky to escape with 3-0.

[tmesis]

What's not sustainable? Playing good football and getting results?

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

We didn't play 'badly' under Stam. The whole plan was based around passing the other team to death, not letting them have the ball, and grinding out wins as a result.

It was dull, definitely, but we stuck to the plan very well.

[blythspartan]

Playing badly and getting results.

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

We didn't play 'badly' under Stam. The whole plan was based around passing the other team to death, not letting them have the ball, and grinding out wins as a result.

It was dull, definitely, but we stuck to the plan very well.

Was it the home game against Sunderland which became laughable?

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Don't forget the Stam season.

Isn't it generally agreed that that was some of the worst football ever played at the Mad Stad, saved by an awesome striker and well marshalled defence.

We didn't play 'badly' under Stam. The whole plan was based around passing the other team to death, not letting them have the ball, and grinding out wins as a result.

It was dull, definitely, but we stuck to the plan very well.

Was it the home game against Sunderland which became laughable?

If you're referring to the 2-2 draw, that was in Stam's second season. Case in point, that was a ridiculous game.

In his first season though, as boring as it was, it was quite intelligent. Is it that the ball is in play for around 60-65 minutes in the average game, with the remainder accounting for set pieces? If we were having 75% of the ball in most games, from that we would have possession (in play) for 45 minutes, whereas the opposition would only have it for 15 minutes. A lot harder for the opposition to create/score when they are only in possession for that amount of time. Of course, it didn't always work out like that...

[Hound]

It was really odd to watch, not really seen another team do it

It seemed like keeping possession as a very negative defensive strategy first and foremost. We had some decent players in that side which could create a goal out of very little which helped. Think we confused teams a bit - I don’t think pressing from the front was quite such a thing then