Was it not really Maynard's fault?

[kill_the_drum]

We missed auto promotion by two wins.

Don't sell Crowley? Promoted.

Sell Crowley but don't get the last Jones injury? Promoted.

Sell Crowley, Jones still injured but have a little bit of luck somewhere else? (like a penalty or two at the right time) Promoted.

Instead we sold Crowley, Jones got injured yet again and we missed out by six points. Sacking the head coach is not how I'd respond to that but thankfully it isn't my decision or my 2-3 million pounds per year getting flushed over it.

Presumably the brothers have data that says for certain that SM underperformed on top of all of the above and we should've hit an auto spot anyway. Presumably they have a better man lined up and haven't announced yet for... reasons. I doubt they've lost the plot. They've been so cool, calm and collected throughout their tenure so far.

But, for the first time in their tenure I've got a creeping doubt (like 5%) that they've lost the plot.

Completely agree, although I don?t think they?ve lost the plot. They will know his position is untenable or they just want someone much better. Either way it?s the correct choice.
The Bros have been a breath of fresh air over the last few years, but I think January was a huge fail and SM has paid the ultimate price.
It would be interesting to see what our PPG was with any 2 of Crowley/Didsy/Jones playing.
I?d guess it?s easily top 3 if not champions!

[durhampie]

I do not see many people saying we were consistently brilliant under Maynard. I think most people would say we underperformed too often.

The argument is just more nuanced than Maynard was terrible. Obviously.

Anyone of us on this board could have stood in his place on the touchline and got the same results, in some case better. Regardless of the player situation, he was absolutely clueless and thats being kind.. he was totally out of his depth, and never looked like getting any better..

[LeftPeg_Pie]

Anyone of us on this board could have stood in his place on the touchline and got the same results, in some case better. Regardless of the player situation, he was absolutely clueless and thats being kind.. he was totally out of his depth, and never looked like getting any better..

Regardless of the player situation. Wow. That throw away comment is actually pretty ***** to proceedings. Again, no one is really suggesting Maynard was a wonderful Head Coach, but to pin it exclusively on him is simply odd because of the nature of his role and football in general.

[durhampie]

Regardless of the player situation. Wow. That throw away comment is actually pretty ***** to proceedings. Again, no one is really suggesting Maynard was a wonderful Head Coach, but to pin it exclusively on him is simply odd because of the nature of his role and football in general.

Being his No1 fan, why dont you start a petition to get him re-instated.. Its a good job you weren't around when we sacked Fullerton..

[LeftPeg_Pie]

Being his No1 fan, why dont you start a petition to get him re-instated.. Its a good job you weren't around when we sacked Fullerton..

Sorry Durham, I am too busy with my Bring Back Gary Mills crusade to start the Stuart Maynard one.

[kill_the_drum]

Anyone of us on this board could have stood in his place on the touchline and got the same results, in some case better. Regardless of the player situation, he was absolutely clueless and thats being kind.. he was totally out of his depth, and never looked like getting any better..

So in summary, he was out of his depth but you could have done a better job!
Whenever I think you?ve reached your summit for idiotic posts, you manage to climb just a little bit higher!

[durhampie]

So in summary, he was out of his depth but you could have done a better job!
Whenever I think you?ve reached your summit for idiotic posts, you manage to climb just a little bit higher!

I didnt say me, I said in some cases. Thats a different perspective. I seem to recollect you saying at one point he had to go..

[the_anticlough]

Fair comment, that.

The first priority when Maynard took over was to address the defensive weaknesses that were increasingly evident in the final part of Luke Williams' reign, and make no mistake they needed addressing, because you can't keep conceding four of five goals in games and taking ridiculously unnecessary risks at the back with defenders and a goalkeeper (at the time) who weren't technically capable of handling such pressure.

To a degree, Maynard did address those problems, and then he benefitted further from a personnel overhaul at the back, with Bedeau and Platt simply being better defenders more equipped for League Two than Cameron, Rawlinson and Baldwin. The problem, however, was that Maynard didn't seem to be able to maintain the best aspects of Luke Williams' style, with the crispness of the passing, the pace of play and the creative flair. Going forward we appeared to be ever more stifled, particularly (I felt) after his assistant Saunders departed.

As you say, it began to feel like an obsessive technical experiment where all the joy and spontaneity (and pace) was squeezed out of our play and we just became horribly dull to watch. Even after the significant departures of recent months, I feel that in players like Traore and Jarvis we've only scratched the surface of what they have to offer, and that Jodi Jones can be restored to his best form if we can appoint a coach able to combine the most attractive aspects of Luke Williams' "art" with the degree of defensive pragmatism that all teams need as they seek to climb the pyramid and encounter stiffer competition.

The National League had become a bit of a flat track for us, and we probably got a bit too cavalier about what we could get away with defensively, but surely with the right head coach a stylistic and emotional middle ground can be found between gung-ho and unremitting boredom.

So much good stuff there, but searching for something to disagree with I'll settle on Maynard and the defence....

We were always cavalier under Williams, but the defensive problem only hit us massively once Palmer and Bostock went out at the same time and we could no longer control the game.
You could say SM had to plug the gaps immediately, but we ended up going on a terrible losing run anyway!

As a permanent adjustment, you could only say it was worthwhile changing our approach if we get x units of defensive benefit, which is more than the y units of attacking potency we lose. But that wasn't the case. If we're charitable, the balance sheet is even at best and the test is not only in the scorelines, but in the results and ppg.

What it did do is appease all those fans who are traumatised by any goal conceded, the ones who say they prefer to watch 0-0 or 1-1 rather than 5-5.
The way SM plugged the gaps (mainly strict instructions for CMs and WBs to hold), and his overall approach didn't take us forward, it only took away the negative attention we were getting from high scorelines and placated those who like their football anodyne and uneventful.

[caj85]

Anyone of us on this board could have stood in his place on the touchline and got the same results, in some case better. Regardless of the player situation, he was absolutely clueless and thats being kind.. he was totally out of his depth, and never looked like getting any better..

I agree he wasn't great and didn't get the best out of the squad he had, but no chance "anyone of us here" could have done better or even the same.

[matt_magpie]

So much good stuff there, but searching for something to disagree with I'll settle on Maynard and the defence....

We were always cavalier under Williams, but the defensive problem only hit us massively once Palmer and Bostock went out at the same time and we could no longer control the game.
You could say SM had to plug the gaps immediately, but we ended up going on a terrible losing run anyway!

As a permanent adjustment, you could only say it was worthwhile changing our approach if we get x units of defensive benefit, which is more than the y units of attacking potency we lose. But that wasn't the case. If we're charitable, the balance sheet is even at best and the test is not only in the scorelines, but in the results and ppg.

What it did do is appease all those fans who are traumatised by any goal conceded, the ones who say they prefer to watch 0-0 or 1-1 rather than 5-5.
The way SM plugged the gaps (mainly strict instructions for CMs and WBs to hold), and his overall approach didn't take us forward, it only took away the negative attention we were getting from high scorelines and placated those who like their football anodyne and uneventful.

Tbf we had leaked a fair few goals before Palmer got injured, 5 at Sutton and Colchester didn?t help.
I agree in retrospect possibly the best initial approach would have been to have gone gung ho with who was available defensively and midfield but I guess hindsight?s a wonderful thing.
SM start of tho season with injuries and departures seemed to have the opposite issue as LW, no attacking threats down the wings or creativity which LW had, inverted or not JJ and nemane offered a real threat. That said our goals scored and goal difference wasn?t too shabby, fine margins in some games and ultimately ones at home. He wasn?t terrible, he did ok and that could be said for the squad too, but ok doesn?t get you promoted.