Trojan 67 I strongly disagree that all aspects of it need to be forensically examined. It has been far from a normal season by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe the situation we find ourselves in is a fair reflection of the state of the club or the team.
One problem we had early on was the amount of 85mins+ goals we were conceding, it would be interesting to know how many points we lost because of this. However, this was still post February and still post Lingy's absence, still within touching distance of playoffs. Then came Lingy's absence.
Did Taylor make the right decisions and utilise the squad during those ten traumatic games?... no. Did the club make the right choice by appointing Knill?... yes.
If you take a look across the whole season, the team and squad has generally stayed the same. Some may argue Lingy was restricted with regards to bringing players in, however, the performance I watched at Morecambe on Saturday (despite the win) was a far cry from the confident displays away at Barnet (despite the loss) and Wimbledon earlier on in the season.
I doubt, though welcomed, the impact of Labadie or Chapel would have been required had Ling had guided us through February and into March. Perhaps the art of leaking late goals would have been tweaked by then.
We know the team we have can compete, we know the club appointed a good manger in Knill. I believe it's been an accumulation of small remediable issues, which has led us to where we are this season, therefore by no means can it justify a forensic examination of all aspects.
Made oi larf! 
