Dean Austin

[guest3103]

If he gets a win against Plymouth, the job's his.

Good god no. He went with Van Veen as the lone striker.

A helter skelter ride to the conference.

[guest3103]

Two bad errors, from RO'D and Ash Taylor and you're blaming the manager?
Not saying that he should get the job but give him a chance.

We defended so deep you could see the piles.

[Glastonbury Cobbler]

Two bad errors, from RO'D and Ash Taylor and you're blaming the manager?
Not saying that he should get the job but give him a chance.

When did I blame the manager???

I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a chance - he should be given till the summer as he will be.

As others gave said it's not just about results, it's about what he can get out of this group that jimmy didn't.

All I was saying us there is no way he should be given the job just off the back of if we beat Plymouth.

[guest2487]

Yeah tbf we JUST beat Bury. Not enough to give the man the job yet.

[Dr Feelgood]

Austin Powers to Bury win...

[SteveRiches]

Austin got a win so well done BUT the rest of the games will be harder and we won't get thro' with one pathetic lone striker - and today Van Veen was useless in that position, mercifully he went off injured. We looked poor today when we sat back, we looked better when events forced us to attack. AUSTIN TAKE NOTE!

[memyhead]

Bury are utter s***e, so let's just see how we get on in our final 3 games, rather than take the cheap option by naming Austin our next full time manager.

Next appointment is crucial else we will be doing a Chesterfield next season.

[guest47]

Dean Austin seems basically a hatchet man first team coach in the John Carver style. I bet he took a lot of the training sessions when JFH was in charge and gave out the rollockings for lack of effort and the like. Honest bloke and knows his football but not really management material unless the plan is to go straight into the conference after next season.

[everbrite]

Dean Austin seems basically a hatchet man first team coach in the John Carver style. I bet he took a lot of the training sessions when JFH was in charge and gave out the rollockings for lack of effort and the like. Honest bloke and knows his football but not really management material unless the plan is to go straight into the conference after next season.

Not sure you are right here Alton. DA performance at Bury was interesting. He more or less got his team selection right although selection of vV was perhaps flawed given his injury concerns. He also identified himself with supporters at Bury something CW used to do. That the side performed well for DA and supporters on the day there is no doubt.

[Ralap]

Bury are utter s***e, so let's just see how we get on in our final 3 games, rather than take the cheap option by naming Austin our next full time manager.

Next appointment is crucial else we will be doing a Chesterfield next season.

[Ralap]

Yesterday’s performance will hopefully prove a confidence booster but nothing more. Bury are comfortably the worst team in this division and we still conceded two goals. They are going to have to up their game substantially for the next three games. This team have consistently proved this season that they aren’t capable of that and so far Austin doesn’t strike me as somebody who can make that much of a difference wether he shakes a fans hand or not.

We’ll See.

[guest47]

Not sure you are right here Alton. DA performance at Bury was interesting. He more or less got his team selection right although selection of vV was perhaps flawed given his injury concerns. He also identified himself with supporters at Bury something CW used to do. That the side performed well for DA and supporters on the day there is no doubt.

You had the advantage of seeing the game in person, I agree the selection was pretty much spot on although Buchs might be rather heart over head.
The point is they beat the only team that's worse than them this season. You can have all the passion, desire and team spirit in the world but that only get's you so far, it's football ability that really wins you games. This sounds obvious but so many people forget it and unfortunately the current squad doesn't have as much ability as the majority of other teams.

[bungle]

it's football ability that really wins you games. This sounds obvious but so many people forget it and unfortunately the current squad doesn't have as much ability as the majority of other teams.

Disagree. There are numerous examples (Greece's Euro win in 2004, Iceland beating England, Shrewsbury in L1 this year etc) of teams who achieve better results than more talented opponents due to superior tactical organisation and team cohesion. (I do agree with you, however, that 'passion' and 'desire' are pretty nebulous terms that are bandied about far too much; when people talk about a 'passionate' or hard-working side they're often simply watching a well-drilled side with a clear system who respect and trust their manager.)

On paper, players such as Crooks, Grimes, Facey, Van Veen and O'Toole should be plying their trade at the top end of League One. We've struggled primarily due to poor tactical organisation and team selection coupled with a lack of nous in assembling a balance between 'fighters and artisans'.

I've felt all season that if someone could come in and give the players a simple, clear system, pick some experienced fighters to compliment the talented 'artisans' and play people in their proper positions that we might do better. Can Austin do that? We'll find out more against Plymouth, but the signs against an admittedly-awful Bury side were that we at least looked like something resembling a cohesive unit for the first time in a long time.

[guest47]

Disagree. There are numerous examples (Greece's Euro win in 2004, Iceland beating England, Shrewsbury in L1 this year etc) of teams who achieve better results than more talented opponents due to superior tactical organisation and team cohesion. (I agree with you that 'passion' and 'desire' are pretty nebulous terms that are bandied about far too much; when people talk about a 'passionate' or hard-working side they're often simply watching a well-drilled side with a clear system who respect and trust their manager.)

On paper, players such as Crooks, Grimes, Facey, Van Veen and O'Toole should be plying their trade at the top end of League One. We've struggled primarily due to poor tactical organisation and team selection coupled with a lack of nous in assembling a balance between 'fighters and artisans'.

I've felt all season that if someone could come in and give the players a simple system, pick some experienced fighters to compliment the talented 'artisans' and play people in their proper positions that we might do better. Can Austin do that? We'll find out more against Plymouth, but the signs against an admittedly-awful Bury side were that we at least looked like something resembling a cohesive unit for the first time in a long time.

It's telling you had to go back 14 years to give an example of a team with presumably lesser skills winning games. Euro 2004 was a strange tournament with  Germany, Spain and Italy all being knocked out in qualifying stages.
England's loss to Iceland was a freak result, you do know they were thrashed 5-2 by France in their next game? Where was the tactical organisation and team cohesion there?.
Shrewsbury are doing well and good luck to them in the play offs. The rest of the table however is panning out as expected. Before anyone starts making claims about our budgets it's fair to say we were one of the outsiders to win the league - I managed to get 66/1.

I don't want to go overly criticise the players suggested as being our stars but I'm afraid none would attract any clubs with any ambitions in the Championship. Let's face it, no players were poached in the January window.

If a team is not performing then the manager has to make changes in an attempt to stimulate results, this inevitably results in accusations of tinkering. I would suggest that it's not a settled side that gets results but the other way round. It would be interesting to see how many of our managers were responsible for bringing in the various players we have and I bet it's a good three or four. Until we allow a manager the time to build his own squad we will never get the cohesive unit you think you saw at Bury.

[guest3181]

It's telling you had to go back 14 years to give an example of a team with presumably lesser skills winning games. Euro 2004 was a strange tournament with  Germany, Spain and Italy all being knocked out in qualifying stages.
England's loss to Iceland was a freak result, you do know they were thrashed 5-2 by France in their next game? Where was the tactical organisation and team cohesion there?.
Shrewsbury are doing well and good luck to them in the play offs. The rest of the table however is panning out as expected. Before anyone starts making claims about our budgets it's fair to say we were one of the outsiders to win the league - I managed to get 66/1.

I don't want to go overly criticise the players suggested as being our stars but I'm afraid none would attract any clubs with any ambitions in the Championship. Let's face it, no players were poached in the January window.

If a team is not performing then the manager has to make changes in an attempt to stimulate results, this inevitably results in accusations of tinkering. I would suggest that it's not a settled side that gets results but the other way round. It would be interesting to see how many of our managers were responsible for bring in the various players we have. I bet it's a good three or four. Until we allow a manager the time to build his own squad we will never get the cohesive unit you think you saw at Bury.

Leicester City winning the Prem?

Quite recent, I believe......

[OCoole]

Disagree. There are numerous examples (Greece's Euro win in 2004, Iceland beating England, Shrewsbury in L1 this year etc) of teams who achieve better results than more talented opponents due to superior tactical organisation and team cohesion. (I do agree with you, however, that 'passion' and 'desire' are pretty nebulous terms that are bandied about far too much; when people talk about a 'passionate' or hard-working side they're often simply watching a well-drilled side with a clear system who respect and trust their manager.)

On paper, players such as Crooks, Grimes, Facey, Van Veen and O'Toole should be plying their trade at the top end of League One. We've struggled primarily due to poor tactical organisation and team selection coupled with a lack of nous in assembling a balance between 'fighters and artisans'.

I've felt all season that if someone could come in and give the players a simple, clear system, pick some experienced fighters to compliment the talented 'artisans' and play people in their proper positions that we might do better. Can Austin do that? We'll find out more against Plymouth, but the signs against an admittedly-awful Bury side were that we at least looked like something resembling a cohesive unit for the first time in a long time.

This is why Bungle is the best poster on this site. Articulate, precise and observant, bravo sir!

[guest3181]

It's telling you had to go back 14 years to give an example of a team with presumably lesser skills winning games. Euro 2004 was a strange tournament with  Germany, Spain and Italy all being knocked out in qualifying stages.
England's loss to Iceland was a freak result, you do know they were thrashed 5-2 by France in their next game? Where was the tactical organisation and team cohesion there?.
Shrewsbury are doing well and good luck to them in the play offs. The rest of the table however is panning out as expected. Before anyone starts making claims about our budgets it's fair to say we were one of the outsiders to win the league - I managed to get 66/1.

I don't want to go overly criticise the players suggested as being our stars but I'm afraid none would attract any clubs with any ambitions in the Championship. Let's face it, no players were poached in the January window.

If a team is not performing then the manager has to make changes in an attempt to stimulate results, this inevitably results in accusations of tinkering. I would suggest that it's not a settled side that gets results but the other way round. It would be interesting to see how many of our managers were responsible for bringing in the various players we have and I bet it's a good three or four. Until we allow a manager the time to build his own squad we will never get the cohesive unit you think you saw at Bury.

Oh, and Burnley in the Prem this season......  Also quite recent......

[OCoole]

If a team is not performing then the manager has to make changes in an attempt to stimulate results, this inevitably results in accusations of tinkering. I would suggest that it's not a settled side that gets results but the other way round. It would be interesting to see how many of our managers were responsible for bringing in the various players we have and I bet it's a good three or four. Until we allow a manager the time to build his own squad we will never get the cohesive unit you think you saw at Bury.

You've contradicted yourself here somewhat

[guest3181]

It's telling you had to go back 14 years to give an example of a team with presumably lesser skills winning games. Euro 2004 was a strange tournament with  Germany, Spain and Italy all being knocked out in qualifying stages.
England's loss to Iceland was a freak result, you do know they were thrashed 5-2 by France in their next game? Where was the tactical organisation and team cohesion there?.
Shrewsbury are doing well and good luck to them in the play offs. The rest of the table however is panning out as expected. Before anyone starts making claims about our budgets it's fair to say we were one of the outsiders to win the league - I managed to get 66/1.

I don't want to go overly criticise the players suggested as being our stars but I'm afraid none would attract any clubs with any ambitions in the Championship. Let's face it, no players were poached in the January window.

If a team is not performing then the manager has to make changes in an attempt to stimulate results, this inevitably results in accusations of tinkering. I would suggest that it's not a settled side that gets results but the other way round. It would be interesting to see how many of our managers were responsible for bringing in the various players we have and I bet it's a good three or four. Until we allow a manager the time to build his own squad we will never get the cohesive unit you think you saw at Bury.

Oh, and while we're looking at this season, how about Accrington in League 2?  Compare their position with that of the big money clubs down there.....(ie, those that take more away (stadiums permitting) than Accrington get at home games).

[guest47]

You've contradicted yourself here somewhat

Ok, my point is that if a team is doing well then the manager wont have to make any changes - 'if it ain't broke why fix it?' and all that. This inevitably leads people to believe that it's the fact that it's a settled side that's getting results whereas I'm suggesting it's the good results that leads to a settled side.

I did jump ahead a bit and my suggestion is if you want a settled side that are getting good results then the best way to achieve this is to give a manager the opportunity to build his own squad. JFH, JE and RP all had to accommodate players they did not bring to the club and were forced to fit them into their way of working. It's telling that Wilder's success was in his third season and I suspect the majority of players were those he either brought in or gave extended contracts. If we give a manager the three years we always offer at the start not only will we stop wasting valuable money on paying up contracts but I reckon we will get the results we are craving.