Hunt out.

[stealthpapes]

The other angle - that Selles made HUGE changes in his formations etc - that also doesn't hold up.

I posted the interview where he literally states that he kept the same overall vision and tightened up in a few key areas. That also accompanied the squad 'changes' - Hutchison rendering himself persona non grata was the last in about four or five players being moved on or away from the squad.

It was evolution, not revolution (plus, maybe, forced by losing Ballard and only having one real striker left).

[Hound]

The other angle - that Selles made HUGE changes in his formations etc - that also doesn't hold up.

I posted the interview where he literally states that he kept the same overall vision and tightened up in a few key areas. That also accompanied the squad 'changes' - Hutchison rendering himself persona non grata was the last in about four or five players being moved on or away from the squad.

It was evolution, not revolution (plus, maybe, forced by losing Ballard and only having one real striker left).

Yeah agreed. Got bored of arguing at the time but this revision that we suddenly changed from 4-2-2-2 and then became good is stupidly simplistic

That middle ‘2’ was playing very wide long before the perceived switch vs Portsmouth. Too wide and isolated iirc

I think there were more subtle revisions in terms of getting players close together and the understanding between our key men improving eventually

Formations change massively whether you’re in or out of possession anyway. 4-2-2-2 or 4-2-3-1 or whatever is just a very minor change in practice

[West F]

The other angle - that Selles made HUGE changes in his formations etc - that also doesn't hold up.

I posted the interview where he literally states that he kept the same overall vision and tightened up in a few key areas. That also accompanied the squad 'changes' - Hutchison rendering himself persona non grata was the last in about four or five players being moved on or away from the squad.

It was evolution, not revolution (plus, maybe, forced by losing Ballard and only having one real striker left).

Ballard was Ruben’s player. He was heavily invested in him being a success after the time they would have spent together at Southampton. Losing him forced him to evolve his tactics to one that required the use of a front three. Noel has a similar relationship with O’Mahony, but in his case it is more like Noel is invested in a ‘Baby Noel’, hoping to relive his career through a vicarious parental ambition.

[BarryWhiteRFC]

Not read this whole thread as I am very much a Hunt in, however, can I ask a quick question? Are all the Hunt out people the same ones that were probably calling for Brian McDermott's head in September 2011? The season we won the league? Give him some more time and then have look at the situation at the end of November. Sick of kneejerk reactions and demands for instant success.

[Snowflake Royal]

The other angle - that Selles made HUGE changes in his formations etc - that also doesn't hold up.

I posted the interview where he literally states that he kept the same overall vision and tightened up in a few key areas. That also accompanied the squad 'changes' - Hutchison rendering himself persona non grata was the last in about four or five players being moved on or away from the squad.

It was evolution, not revolution (plus, maybe, forced by losing Ballard and only having one real striker left).

Whatever he says, it only took eyes to see the significant change to shape that was made and the huge change it had on performance. He has a vested interest to downplay how much he got it wrong.

[West F]

The other angle - that Selles made HUGE changes in his formations etc - that also doesn't hold up.

I posted the interview where he literally states that he kept the same overall vision and tightened up in a few key areas. That also accompanied the squad 'changes' - Hutchison rendering himself persona non grata was the last in about four or five players being moved on or away from the squad.

It was evolution, not revolution (plus, maybe, forced by losing Ballard and only having one real striker left).

Whatever he says, it only took eyes to see the significant change to shape that was made and the huge change it had on performance. He has a vested interest to downplay how much he got it wrong.

This is very true. I think in defence of Seles, he did show that he could and would adapt to circumstances. I believe it is the mark of a potentially great manager, to be remote from the dressing room and make objective decisions and not emotive ones. I am still Hunt in until the situation becomes untenable. There have been signs of improvement over the last few games. I genuinely hope this continues and the team evolves itself by developing a definitive first eleven that begins to gel. But I would still like to see some natural width at some point.

[leon]

not so sure - get to mid October and we're still in trouble there will be serious questions getting asked. The owners aren't interested in sentimentality and a trip to L2 is not part of the plan.

Relying on one player coming back and fixing everything is hardly a strategy. Hunt needs to show that he's learning from mistakes - I'm just not sure he is.

Went to go into the season with O'Connor as main CB and MOM main striker.

O'Connor gets injured, quickly brings in Williams. Williams our best defender.

MOM struggling and missing chances, brings in Marriott. Marriott scores 2 in 2 starts.

Start the season firing blanks. Now scoring in each game. 5 in past 3 in league. 9 in last 5 all comps.

Played Wing, Fraser, Savage in midfield. Didn't work. Reset the balance to Wing, Elliott, Savage, working better, but still in progress.

Hunt is certainly tweaking things. Some things improve, some still an issue. Results still some way off but the defeats are narrowing and we're giving ourselves a chance.

No one knows if he'll get it right and it'll come off, but I think it's clear that he is making improvements, and his recent team selections have had very little to criticise, based on what he has available.

Yup.
Extended P made a similar argument a few weeks ago.
The idea that he's not changing things, just throwing the same shit at the same wall, doesn't stack.

My point was more about the style of play and tactics rather than personnel changes enforced or otherwise but I'm more than happy for Noel to turn this around and prove me wrong. I don't particularly like management changes in football (or business) it doesn't help strategic (or tactical) planning and can be highly disruptive.

[RoyalBlue]

Maybe one for ex-players thread, but it looks like Parkinson could leave Wrexham without quick improvements.

If Hunt did get sacked, there is a Reading legend who you would back to bring immediate improvements to the team. However, football would be "pragmatic" and if he did get us promoted in a couple of years, his Championship record is dire.

Maybe worth rolling the dice on potential with a higher ceiling?

Parky appears to be a bit of dinosaur when it comes to style of play, would be a complete departure from the sort of players we have at our disposal and the same tactics Hunt is getting pelters for for seemingly reverting to in a panic.

And as you say, he has never made the step up beyond the third tier which appears to be happening again with Wrexham.

IMO Parky has spent too long being spoilt by the Hollywood boys and just buying his way to success. And, as you say, he is a footballing dinosaur who wouldn't be able to utilise the talents and/or adapt to cater for the strengths and weaknesses of our current squad.

Hunt could work IMO IF the owners were to bring in a very experienced coach to work alongside/mentor him.

[morganb]

If/when Hunt does eventually go, why do people keep saying that he'll go back to the U21s?

They've got a manager at the moment (Peter Scott) plus if you've been relieved of your Senior Team Manager role would you really want to stay working at the same club but in a lesser role? Have there been instances of this happening elsewhere?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Given he's only really had his preferred front three available for a couple of games, hasn't had his preferred CB available at all and hasn't quite found the right combination to work in midfield yet, I think it would be very early to consider changing tactics significantly.

Sure. As I said, it’s tricky to know whether the difficult start is tactical or player-based.

What are the alternatives? 5-3-2 - not sure we have the CBs and wing backs for that, and it's a waste of all the wide forwards. 4-4-2? Ok, so which midfielder do you drop for MOM/Kelvin? Our midfield already gets played through a bit too much at times, I don't think that does anything to stop that, and I don't think it does a lot to help the defence, maybe the fullbacks get a bit more support. 4-5-1? It's much the same as the 4-3-3, but maybe more defensive and less creative.

Nod. But there is more to tactics than formation, which was really where my head was at. Are there more nuanced changes/improvements that could be made? Are we using the players we have in the right way, even if it feels like we have them in the right positions?

As an example, it's been mentioned a few times that, while there is a decent argument for playing Wing as the deepest of a midfield 3, I can also see an argument for playing him further forward - especially as we have (a) defensive midfielder(s) in our squad now.