Have had this argument with Topfarrier (and others) on numerous occasions in the past, I genuinely can’t understand how anyone could have watched us under JT and still hold the opinion that he was anywhere near up to the job. I ask this question out of genuine intrigue to discover whether I am in the minority on this. Did JT do a good job given the circumstances/resources at his disposal? It could also be worded as, ‘was JT up to the job he was tasked with?’
For me it is a resounding no and I will list a few of the reasons-
-tactical ineptitude- he set out very early on that he wanted to play three at the back and almost religiously pass out from the back. The two midfielders would drop deep to pick up the ball which would result in the front three becoming very isolated at the top end of the pitch and we would struggle to work the ball through the lines to them. It felt very disjointed and relied heavily on individual quality rather than a well functioning team when we did pick up results.
-consistently playing Adam Smith at left wing back. Negating the width entirely down that side and meaning we posed next to no threat down that side of the pitch, yet he continued to do it.
-his entire plan seemed to be to keep things tight at the back and hope that our talented forwards would create something, he pretty much said words to this effect. With the squad we had there was no reason not to attack the league head on, yet he chose to be conservative which resulted in some very turgid football.
-I can count on one hand the number of good performances we put in under him, there were a few but they were few and far between.
Genuinely interested to hear the opinions of others and their justifications for them on this.
For me it is a resounding no and I will list a few of the reasons-
-tactical ineptitude- he set out very early on that he wanted to play three at the back and almost religiously pass out from the back. The two midfielders would drop deep to pick up the ball which would result in the front three becoming very isolated at the top end of the pitch and we would struggle to work the ball through the lines to them. It felt very disjointed and relied heavily on individual quality rather than a well functioning team when we did pick up results.
-consistently playing Adam Smith at left wing back. Negating the width entirely down that side and meaning we posed next to no threat down that side of the pitch, yet he continued to do it.
-his entire plan seemed to be to keep things tight at the back and hope that our talented forwards would create something, he pretty much said words to this effect. With the squad we had there was no reason not to attack the league head on, yet he chose to be conservative which resulted in some very turgid football.
-I can count on one hand the number of good performances we put in under him, there were a few but they were few and far between.
Genuinely interested to hear the opinions of others and their justifications for them on this.