Modgull
If Plymouth and Stanley are atrocious why can they get wins and we are still without a win in February and March.
There'll be plenty of theories on that one Modgull, but I think it's got a lot to do with our current difficulty in scoring at home. No one expects atrocious clubs to win away, but the odd win at home over a period of a couple of months can still be possible.
Accrington Stanley won at home on Saturday, but needed to scorethree goals in order to do so.
If we go back to January the 1st (to keep things neat), Argyle have won three games at home since then, and to win all three they've needed to score more than one goal, in fact all three games have been won by the same scoreline: 2-1.
We however, have not managed to score more than one goal during a home match since January 1st. That's a long time to go with only being able to score just one, or sometimes no goals during our home matches. But as I mentioned in the 'Home games' thread two weeks ago (3rd march)
if you look below the play off places there is only one side (Chesterfield) who have scored more goals at home than us.
So to still be among the top home scorers by early March we had to score plenty of goals earlier in the season. For example in our 5 home games during October we scored 4,3,2,2 and 1.
Yet despite plenty of goals the moaners who wanted the style of play changed were growing in number. The demand for '2 up front' had quite a lot of backing, but those opposed to change could still point to the number of goals we were scoring at Plainmoor and a reasonable league position that might see us challenge for at least a play-off place if games in hand were won.
November changed everything. Only two home games, but those results (the F.A Cup loss to Harrogate and the 4-1 defeat to Southend) saw a surge in new recruits onto the side of the moaners. It was enough to tip the balance, and as we entered December I think Ling gave up trying to hold back the popular tide and accepted that some sort of 4-4-2 system would have to be brought in to appease the fans.
Unfortunately for the club and the supporters, sticking an extra man up front did far more to weaken our defensive capabilities than it did to bolster our attack. In fact, as glaring stats such as never getting more than a single goal at home since new years day show, it actually weakened us in goal scoring terms.
'Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it'....and there's more than a grain of truth in the old saying.
Any business obviously needs to attempt to keep it's customers happy , and we can only guess as to whether the Board put pressure on Ling to change the playing system. Lingy had a few run-ins with loudmouth fans, but they got what they wanted and 4-4-2 was introduced. And what a monumental disaster it's been, the goals dried up and the results sent us spiralling down the league.
Saddled with a system that didn't suit the players we had, we've now had the expensive job of spending out on loan players in an attempt to make the damn system work before it relegates us.
You'll get no apologies from those who moaned, ranted and fussed to bring it about. 'Oh, it's only not working because we don't start with Thompson' or 'Nathan Craig has to be one of the central midfielders for 4-4-2 to function properly' are just two of a whole host of excuses they'll give you. Then again, should we blame Ling or the Board for caving in to them and agreeing to this change which turned us into one of the atrocious trio you mention ?
Trojan doesn't like us looking back and examining that, and he's right that the important thing now is to have a United front for the games ahead, but when you see threads asking if all the fault lies with either the players, or the Manager, or with the Board, ask yourself if the choice should really be confined to just those 3 options, and whether some others didn't noisily play their part in leading us down this path to the difficult spot we currently find ourselves in.