That's exactly right yet you expect us to stay in the top tier of English football with such players.
From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 9:53 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Ince You can't exepct everything for 175,000 pounds. On 4 April 2011 09:44, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: You almost had me convinced there Steve, but then there is one major flaw, a huge flaw, an insurmountable flaw in your strategy; The strategy that was so well described relies on the ball winning midfielder to pass it to the creative midfielder and this is where the flaw is for Wolves. Unless said attacking midfielder (O'Hara, Milijas, Gascoigne, Cantona, Scholes) is stood somewhere just in front of Hennessey, he is never ever going to receive the ball from Henry. Henry simply refuses to pass the ball in any direction other than backwards so we may as well play with just him in midfield and 5 Peter Crouch's up front to try and win the headers from Hennessey's long punts that are constantly necessitated by Henry making the backpass in the first place. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 9:33 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Ince You'll have to take this up with Rog. He's the biggest fan of 442. You know that I prefer 451. Marcus's Management Education Tip #1 Overview In terms of who you have on the pitch in central midfield in 442, the choice needs to support the following flow: 1. Win the ball 2. Give it to a flair player 3. Create a scoring opportunity. 4. Score You're on the right lines with your thinking but you overlooked point 1. Real world example This is very much in the Ince/Gascoigne mold from England at the 1990 World Cup finals in Italy. I'd like to quote Matt Leese's opinion of Bobby Robson's England team briefing: "You (Ince) get the ball and give it to him (Gascoigne)." You can see the problems that recent England managers have had trying to shoehorn our best flair players into a midfield two. In the end, they conclude that someone like Barry is required to play the holding/ball-winning role. Application to Wolves It seems sensible to have a ball winning midfielder in Henry and a flair player in O'Hara. Having two flair players, as well as two attacking midfielders, means that we don't get hold of the ball, don't create chances and don't score. On 4 April 2011 09:06, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: As the owner of the club and the board have clearly stated that they will not be relieving Mick of his duties under any circumstances, it would be a pointless exercise to discuss who I would rather have in place of Thick Mick. Aside from the complete lack of any organisation in the defence, the main tactic that I have an issue with is this - he decided to switch to a 4-4-2 formation, which was a nice, bold attacking move to try and get something from the game. However, if you're going to play two attackers then you need to make sure that they receive decent service from midfield, so one would safely assume that you keep your attacking/flair midfielders on the pitch to provide the ammunition for the strikers. Unless you're Thick Mick. His attacking change of tactics involved removing Milijas, perhaps our best passer of the ball, choosing instead to keep his incompetent buddy Karl Henry on the field. I can only assume this decision was made to ensure we met our quota of back-passes for the match. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 8:58 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Ince Thank-you. Now can you suggest a couple of other managers that you would have in to replace Mick please? I feel unfair in asking you as it will surely be the kiss-of-death for them but we should see anyway. Perhaps Mick got the tactics wrong for this game. I don't feel the need to defend him for a single game, nor would I use the wins against Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd etc to claim that he is a master tactician. If I could explain it at all it's the experiement of trying to work our how to play with Doyle out of the side. Which specific tactics did you most take umbrage with? On 4 April 2011 08:39, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: I am willing to admit that both Ince and Mooney have failed to deliver at their respective clubs, however, I am not aware of their individual circumstances with regards to playing personnel, funds available to them, the level of control they may been given to influence the directions of their clubs. How will we ever know how either of them would have performed with better quality players and money available to re-build. It is a hypothetical discussion that should be had during the off-season. As for now I want to discuss something that is very real (although quite unbelievable) and that is the fate of Wolves under the guidance of one Magic Mick/Thick Mick depending on which way you view him. Again, assuming you watched the match Steve, how can you explain & support his tactics on the weekend? I don't know as much as you might think I do about football management but receiving an explanation on Saturday's match will very much help with my education, as clearly I must have missed some vital concept or tactic. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 8:29 AM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Ince I raise Paul Ince because in spite of my repeated requests for you to suggest an alternative to Mick, Ince and Richard Money are the only two that you've ever suggested. (Money is currently unemployed, by the way, after leaving conference side Luton Town last year). If you know so much about what makes a good football manager, how come you got it so wrong about those two? Why don't you put another couple of suggestions forward now, and we'll track their careers into oblivion too. My detailed analysis of away performance is that it's not the away fixture iteself but actual distance that's important. We got good results at Villa, Stoke and West Brom but clearly Newcastle is a long way away so we got the worst possible result there. It was a mathematical certainty. On 4 April 2011 08:12, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: Forget Paul Ince, he's not our manager and never will be. This is simply a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing Thick Mick's own inadequacies. As Roger & I are the only ones who don't support Thick Mick, there should be plenty of people on this list who can explain to me his tactics in Saturday's game? It's strange how there's been no discussion on this at all. Does silence indicate that he is indefensible? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 5:31 AM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Ince http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/12951734.stm Is this now sufficient proof that he would have been rubbish as Wolves manager? -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked.
