JoeP

9 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Confusing and depressing interview. 
 

Repeats the budget and contract situation, which is fair enough. 
 

Says the owners and DR are the nicest and most helpful people he’s ever met. Goes on to say the players are all great lads, honest and hard working. 
 

“impossible job” 

Echo this.

DR might be a nice person, but he's either directly responsible or has employed the wrong people to oversee recruitment.  How can the money we've spent result in such a lack of competency in the team?

I'd love to know what the "other stuff" is.

I don't know if it is "impossible" or just impossible for him..

29 minutes ago, Guy Branston Pickle said:

Who would we want as a replacement then?

 

I don't want Parkinson. Don't think he'd get the Time or patience he'd need

 

Millington at Halifax maybe?

 

There's not a lot of choice out there. And I'm struggling to see why a lot of managers would want to come to Oldham

Whoever we get, we need to do a proper recruitment process.

Invite applications, then interview.

In spite of what anyone may think of Lee Johnson, he was bloody find at the time and came from nowhere..

15 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

The 3 previous games without him showed his replacements were nowhere near as effective.

 

And played when we were actually decent and got to fifth. 

"Our fans just love someone who runs around", though...

14 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

You mean the same players he's somehow got to inspire next season?, in a bit of trouble then aren't we.

There are good players there - there must be.  They've played well at other clubs.

They just need to have the right players around them to compliment them.  

Release everyone out of contract, apart from Big Mike and try and move out the bad apples that are bringing the others down.  With those still in contract, try and bring in people who will bring the best out of them.

100% got to keep Fondop.

Effort, scores, holds the ball up well, even defends.

1 minute ago, BP1960 said:

They played in Brazils colours and we looked in awe if their slick excellent passing.

Their number 2 played like Socrates with his calmness and immaculate distribution. 

Our players can't even pass a ball 5 yards to a colleague. 

Add a lack of desire to that and its a downhill slope.

 

 

Same last season. 

Wealdstone have become our nemesis. 

Fucking Wealdstone. 

Can we just play Big Mike on his own next season?

We have no defence as well as no midfield!

We're getting worse!

Just now, mcfluff1985 said:

I'd genuinely pick Fondop. 

Same here - sorry, I was being sarcastic in my last post.

I'd genuinely rather have Reid than Norwood!

1 minute ago, Gentleman said:

All a bit embarrassing in the main stand as Norwood comes off

Picked something up on the stream.  Did our James give it back?

Just now, mcfluff1985 said:

If you could only keep one. Fondop or Norwood?

Norwood.  Love that guy...

Just now, True Tic said:

he’s just awful isn’t he 

Worst striker we've got.

Big Mike being shit AGAIN!!

It's so bad it's funny...

3 minutes ago, True Tic said:

He’s not the messiah but I do wonder if we could have brought him on over the last few games what might have happened .

He's better than a lot of people give him credit for - he gets ridicule because he hasn't had the relatively impressive career that that other fella has had.

Scores when we were crap last season.  Scores when we've been crap this season.  Offers something different - something that's probably more suitable for this level than the other strikers do.

He stays for next season, for me..

There's Big Mike being shit again...

5 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Dead rubber today and he picks the clowns who've let us all down the past couple of months.

 

Fucking dinosaur

It is disappointing.

Give some of the kids a go who might be out of work because of our failure/potentially within a shout of a pro contract next season.

Hmmm....

43 minutes ago, oafc1955 said:

I know what good looks like too!!

It is a strange statement. I don't think you need to be "the most experienced person here" to know what it looks like. Real Madrid look alright, Arsenal, Bayen Munich..

It sure as fuck ain't this...

Didn't realise these can actually still go down if we beat them today.

It's live on National League TV, if anyone gives a fook...

24 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

 

b) linked to the above, to what extent is this season's "failure" a potential blessing in disguise?

Failure has never turned out to be a blessing for us.  Many have predicted our last four (FFS!) relegations would be a chance to rebuild and come back stronger.  It's yet to happen...

4 minutes ago, AndyB2 said:

But I’d rather have a couple more seasons in this league to ready ourselves properly for l2 so we can maintain good progress, as many do when they get out of the NL.

 

no one flukes going up. Obviously we weren’t ready to go up as we finished 9th/10th. The questions answers itself 

Get up at the first opportunity.

Build our charge through the leagues in the division above.

It's a hell of a lot easier surviving in League Two than trying to get promotion out of the National League.

4 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

It shouldn't be discounted as an issue but as has been said above by you and one 2 others some are rushing to the conclusion that it's the problem.

 

Success leaves the clues the fact that all the top clubs and athletes across any sport across the world are using data analysis to enhance performance probably suggests they are onto something. It could well be that they are using it properly but we aren't.

Yes, agreed. It also probably needs to be tailored for this level, if York are also using it in the same way. 

It is a problem, if we're using it in the way I suspect. It should be an extra tool for recruitment, rather than the main tool. As I say, the fact that we have a collection of individuals, rather than a team suggests to me that our recruitment has been heavily stats/attributes based and it hasn't worked. 

I don't mind them trying it and it not working, but they don't seem to have gone back to the drawing board at any point. They seem to be persevering with the way they use it at great cost. 

27 minutes ago, BerlinBlue said:

Yes, and our "traditional" scouting methods have made it so we haven't been in 30 years of decline either...!

My word, what is so scary about stats and incorporating a bit of data analysis into our scouting methods? We don't even know for sure how we use this information. Just something else to moan about, even though there's no proof as to what the moan is about. 

But this is the most potential we've had off the pitch for 30 years! You can't compare where we are now with the last 30 years of decline. 

"Something else to moan about" is another man's leaving no stone unturned. How can the stats recruitment model be completely discounted as an issue? We've got an imbalanced squad, who don't really seem to have much team spirit and don't seem to gel on the pitch. That sounds to me like we've just looked at a players attributes rather than the person too. From the outside, it looks like someone's been playing too much Football Manager, even without knowing the ins and outs of Statbomb, etc.

Yes, it works at a higher level, but they're teams that can afford to throw 100 darts with the hope one hits the bullseye. We can't. 

6 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

Stats department!! More trendy rubbish, you need a proper scouting network and management who will actually check  out recommendations.

It worked well at Nottingham Forest when I worked for Brian Clough and Peter Taylor, the likes of Gary Birtles wouldn't even be found on any stats database.

 

I mean I agree. Just because "that's not how recruitment is done anymore" in the game in general isn't a good enough reason not to do it like that, I don't think. 

I'm all for embracing modern ways of doing things, but it does feel we've gone balls deep into something that works for the top teams with lots of resources without really thinking about how it would work at our level..

7 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

On stats, you both and others keep saying this. But you have absolutely no evidence that we have “used stats too heavily”. It might be the case, but it might not also be the case. You are confusing causation and correlation. 

Similarly there's no evidence we don't use them too heavily. Why would we have a stats department if it wasn't fairly central to our recruitment?