The vitriol at the exit to the valley terrace on 95 minutes was appalling. WW had a bad day, we were beaten by a better side on the day. That is the first game I can remember when Pierre got dominated by an opposition centre forward.
The guy from Derbyshire (sorry I cannot remember your name) was absolutely spot on, defending Gareth and the team. I never thought they were not trying, the starting 11 were what I would have picked, bearing in mind the slim pickings on the bench. Having been very lucky to get the score back to 1-1. Our only option was to bring on the big guys up front and try more hoofball. This would play into Wimbledons hands.
Plus points from yesterday were Sellers #2 looks like a very good prospect, I fear he will not be with us long enough for WW to benefit. McGinn is becoming a favourite with me at least. On the down side too many players still suffering from a bug were not able to give 100% effort or focus to the game. (what are the rules in getting a game postponed due to illness?)
Finally my only criticism of Gareth is his timing of substitutions. Perhaps someone could tell me the last time Gareth made a substitution that changed the course of a game.
look at Leicester city top of the premier league hardly any money they look like winning it now goes to show you dont need a big budget to succeed raw talant and a manager with good ideas
True, but my point is Leicester have still spent a considerable amount of money and would arguably not be doing so well if they didn't enjoy the backing of that Thai billionaire fella.
GA stated on Friday that if a league table were drawn up on the basis of resources available (i.e. money) then we would be in the bottom four. My perception being that our "companions" would probably be Dagenham, Morecambe and Accrington. We are not in the bottom four: we are seventh. We should all get down on bended knee and thank GA for the phenomenal job that he, Dobbo, and the rest of the team have done and stop bloody well moaning about the entertainment value on a Saturday afternoon. The fact that we all still even have a club to support should be a cause for celebration in itself.
bottom four in league two its a joke right we should be top 8 in resources considering northern clubs are poorer generally we never used to be that low .
Whilst we do have a small squad there are others in League Two who have used less players than us this season. Statistics can be used to tell what ever tale you like.
I think most of the anger on Saturday came from those expecting to just turn up and watch us win. Those who've seen recent struggles against Wimbledon know this was never going to happen. They are set up well against us and are the type of side we always struggle against.
It's the quality of the squad that is the bigger indicator of budget and for me the quality this season is not as strong as last. We've had and have still got a fighters chance at promotion this season so at the end of the day I'm happy to think it's down to the footballers on the pitch rather than the losses racked up by the club.
If I'm honest I'm not really sure what the question in hand was but I think injuries and suspensions are of greater importance in a small squad. Dumb sendings off don't help and running players in to the ground is a massive problem at this stage of the season. I am very concerned this is what has happened to Luke O'Nien.
If the question is do Wycombe Wanderers have an unusually low budget for the division? then the small size of the squad is an indicator that they do - although of course not proof.
You can then move to the question how can Wycombe Wanderers overachieve in the division relative to their budget - maybe one answer is utilising a particular style of play, and signing players who play well in that system, and pushing the boundaries of game management. So the statistic of having a small squad isn't directly relevant to the style of play, but maybe it does throw some light on the thinking behind it.
There are other potential answers to the question, which might not involve the style of play that we currently adopt. But the current approach seems to be working in terms of results - being seventh in the league and all that. I guess there's a balance to be found between results and entertainment. But I'm delighted with this season so far, even if others aren't.
There is also a risk in that seeking entertaining football you end up with a team that neither achieves results nor entertains, which is I think what we ended up with under Waddock at times.
Sorry @Chris . I think I might have stumbled in to a debate I've had many times before and can't really find the enthusiasm for at the moment. I'm sure what you've said above is all perfectly reasonable but in my opinion the entertainment on offer is beyond poor and is not giving me any enjoyment at all.
Our wage budget ten years ago was substantially higher, as the club was being run at a significant loss by the then managing director Steve Hayes.
problem is even with selling players and the final least year where still told were losing money there's no money for improvements so whats the answer are we always now just going to scrape by with a very small team year in forever .
@Right_in_the_Middle I understand that Luke O has not been "run into the ground" (although not for the want of trying on his own part) but is currently out with an "impact injury": thought not to be too serious and we have a fair chance of seeing him back in action soon. No doubt much to the relief of everyone.
Comments
Don't you think all the other clubs are scouting at non league clubs Trevor?
The vitriol at the exit to the valley terrace on 95 minutes was appalling. WW had a bad day, we were beaten by a better side on the day. That is the first game I can remember when Pierre got dominated by an opposition centre forward.
The guy from Derbyshire (sorry I cannot remember your name) was absolutely spot on, defending Gareth and the team. I never thought they were not trying, the starting 11 were what I would have picked, bearing in mind the slim pickings on the bench. Having been very lucky to get the score back to 1-1. Our only option was to bring on the big guys up front and try more hoofball. This would play into Wimbledons hands.
Plus points from yesterday were Sellers #2 looks like a very good prospect, I fear he will not be with us long enough for WW to benefit. McGinn is becoming a favourite with me at least. On the down side too many players still suffering from a bug were not able to give 100% effort or focus to the game. (what are the rules in getting a game postponed due to illness?)
Finally my only criticism of Gareth is his timing of substitutions. Perhaps someone could tell me the last time Gareth made a substitution that changed the course of a game.
Ugwu at Accrington, if there's not one more recent.
Thanks Chris. Wednesday night at Accrington, I didnt go.
Perfectly understandable! Ugwu was a revelation that night, although he's not looked half as good since.
The money thing is boring...Accrington have a smaller budget than us however they play nive football and score goals!
One of the stewards there said they have come into some money, and that the ground is being renovated. No idea how true any of that is.
look at Leicester city top of the premier league hardly any money they look like winning it now goes to show you dont need a big budget to succeed raw talant and a manager with good ideas
Leicester signed Andrej Krameric for £9.5m in January last year and then loaned him out to some German side this season. I don't call that peanuts!
You can't compare us to Leicester. Their squad still cost something like £30m to assemble.
compared to most premier sides that's nothing
True, but my point is Leicester have still spent a considerable amount of money and would arguably not be doing so well if they didn't enjoy the backing of that Thai billionaire fella.
well i could say where a south east club and a advantage over northern clubs
We're also seventh, ie, having a successful season.
And we are only 5 points behind Pompey and they have FOUR times our attendances!
GA stated on Friday that if a league table were drawn up on the basis of resources available (i.e. money) then we would be in the bottom four. My perception being that our "companions" would probably be Dagenham, Morecambe and Accrington. We are not in the bottom four: we are seventh. We should all get down on bended knee and thank GA for the phenomenal job that he, Dobbo, and the rest of the team have done and stop bloody well moaning about the entertainment value on a Saturday afternoon. The fact that we all still even have a club to support should be a cause for celebration in itself.
bottom four in league two its a joke right we should be top 8 in resources considering northern clubs are poorer generally we never used to be that low .
Well, obviously that is not the case.
well what was our wage budget ten years ago compared to now
Our wage budget ten years ago was substantially higher, as the club was being run at a significant loss by the then managing director Steve Hayes.
Whilst we do have a small squad there are others in League Two who have used less players than us this season. Statistics can be used to tell what ever tale you like.
I think most of the anger on Saturday came from those expecting to just turn up and watch us win. Those who've seen recent struggles against Wimbledon know this was never going to happen. They are set up well against us and are the type of side we always struggle against.
That just means they've had less injuries and suspensions - it's an irrelevant statistic to the question at hand.
It's easy to dismiss all statistics with the line that you can say anything with statistics, but unhelpful. There is value in statistics used well.
Having a small squad is a very strong indicator of having a small budget.
@Chris not sure statistics are that relevant when most of the discontent I hear is about style of play and gamesmanship.
It's the quality of the squad that is the bigger indicator of budget and for me the quality this season is not as strong as last. We've had and have still got a fighters chance at promotion this season so at the end of the day I'm happy to think it's down to the footballers on the pitch rather than the losses racked up by the club.
If I'm honest I'm not really sure what the question in hand was but I think injuries and suspensions are of greater importance in a small squad. Dumb sendings off don't help and running players in to the ground is a massive problem at this stage of the season. I am very concerned this is what has happened to Luke O'Nien.
Well it depends what you're considering.
If the question is do Wycombe Wanderers have an unusually low budget for the division? then the small size of the squad is an indicator that they do - although of course not proof.
You can then move to the question how can Wycombe Wanderers overachieve in the division relative to their budget - maybe one answer is utilising a particular style of play, and signing players who play well in that system, and pushing the boundaries of game management. So the statistic of having a small squad isn't directly relevant to the style of play, but maybe it does throw some light on the thinking behind it.
There are other potential answers to the question, which might not involve the style of play that we currently adopt. But the current approach seems to be working in terms of results - being seventh in the league and all that. I guess there's a balance to be found between results and entertainment. But I'm delighted with this season so far, even if others aren't.
There is also a risk in that seeking entertaining football you end up with a team that neither achieves results nor entertains, which is I think what we ended up with under Waddock at times.
Sorry @Chris . I think I might have stumbled in to a debate I've had many times before and can't really find the enthusiasm for at the moment. I'm sure what you've said above is all perfectly reasonable but in my opinion the entertainment on offer is beyond poor and is not giving me any enjoyment at all.
Yours is also a perfectly reasonable view
Our wage budget ten years ago was substantially higher, as the club was being run at a significant loss by the then managing director Steve Hayes.
problem is even with selling players and the final least year where still told were losing money there's no money for improvements so whats the answer are we always now just going to scrape by with a very small team year in forever .
@Right_in_the_Middle I understand that Luke O has not been "run into the ground" (although not for the want of trying on his own part) but is currently out with an "impact injury": thought not to be too serious and we have a fair chance of seeing him back in action soon. No doubt much to the relief of everyone.
Give over you big baby. Great achievement for sure but the owner is not exactly penniless - $2.8bn wealth at the last count
http://www.forbes.com/profile/vichai-srivaddhanaprabha/