bluebruce

I think the truth lies somewhere between both your posts tbh. The points total was high, and for the most part he massively rejuvenated the form of a highly demoralised and failing team. He's not really responsible for the form of other sides. That said, he was alarmingly defensive in games we should have been able to take by the throat, and that conservatism cost us some points, any one of which would have kept us up. He made a decent fist of keeping us up in difficult circumstances, but also made some costly mistakes. For me, he is only about 10-20% responsible for our relegation. And he did get us straight back up to repair the damage. It's more what followed after that first season back up that bothers me.

Marcus Antonsson. Was only a loan but actually played twice as many games for us as for them. Currently plying his trade for Western Sydney Wanderers btw.

I think they'll do no such thing unless they appoint a terrible manager. They've been in and around the playoffs with an average one. Mowbray's departure certainly didn't do us any harm, and we're terribly ran. Sunderland used to be terribly ran but seem to have got it together.

Has Brittain done anything of note since he started playing wide? Genuine question, I've not been able to watch games lately just highlights.

No surprise to see another club wasn't willing to entertain his death spirals. Although, it's really not all that bad compared to the ones he had here. That check list above though, he did pretty much all of that here too (although playing Dack wasn't a bad thing here).

Funny, I took the opposite view. Very little chance with the first one, extremely unfair to blame him for that one, and badly sighted for the second (lots of bodies), but thought he went down too easily for the third. If he'd pretty much stood his ground he'd have likely stopped it. However the real culprit for that one is whoever it was that was supposed to be the last defender but was too far up the pitch when that lucky bounce fell Sheff W's way. Utterly exposed us, that's why Szmodics was going nuts at him after the goal. Once a player goes one on one, anything can happen. I don't know if it's unrealistic standards or people having it in for Wahlstedt (generally seems to be people who effusively defended Pears in his shit patches) but he's getting far too much stick IMO. He's not shown to be good enough yet, but I'm definitely more confident than with Pears in goal. Plus he's still new to English football, the club and the country. He may improve once he's more settled. We miss Kaminski though, for me, far better than either of our current keepers have shown.

The LT gave him a 6 😆

Scouts may see something that stats don't show, but I don't see any reason to attempt to sign a lad (Al-Hamadi) who has 8 goals in League Two (half the total of the first player you suggest) and sits joint 11th in the League Two top scorers list. Hard to see why us and Leeds would have any particular interest based on that. Frankly I'd have trepidation about signing any League Two striker for any sort of fee, I'd want to know they can hack it in the league between here and there first. Young only scored 2 goals in League Two last season, every chance he's flash in the pan. I wouldn't be asking him to make a 2 league jump unless it was for peanuts.

Don't think he's gonna make it here. But the better he does in League One, the more chance someone throws us a small amount of money for him (probably no more than 100k given the financial clout of League One). Under contract until summer 2025, so this summer would be a good time to sell. He'll by 23 by then. In the league, he has 1 goal and 2 assists in 295 minutes. So slightly better than a goal contribution every 100 minutes. In the cups he's played 93 mins total, and scored against League Two Notts County (whilst playing RW apparently). Reasonable figures if he can maintain or improve them, but the most he has played a match is 70 minutes, and apart from his three 60-70 minute appearances in the league he hasn't played more than 26 mins in the rest, so he's hardly broken into a 9th placed League One side. All but three other teams in the league have played 1 or in many cases 2 less games than Lincoln. Incidentally, at this time last season he had played 303 minutes in the league for us, and 254 in the cup, so it's not like he's earned more game time a league below. Didn't score or assist for us all season in the league (542 minutes). Couple of cup goals (Norwich, West Ham) and a cup assist (Bradford). Personally it was his lack of apparent effort most of the time which bothered me.

He's got a squad more threadbare than Mowbray's ever was. Positional changes are sometimes necessitated by not having many options.

This thread is only 5 posts in and it's all been said really. But I agree, the change in tactics and keeper priorities has been responsible for a serious downgrade on keepers' ability to keep the ball out the net. Both developmentally and in terms of who gets bought and picked. Pears staying ahead of Kaminski in last season's pecking order was a prime example of these distorted priorities. I don't know the stats, but I bet there are more goals per shot on target now than there were 10 years ago. I see the logic of these modern keepers in playing a bit further up the field, having another player capable with their feet to relieve the defence when under pressure, inviting the opposition on more to create space for counters, etc., but it just can't be worth the loss of so many goals on account of a keeper not being good enough at their main job (not to mention being wildly out of position if the passing goes wrong). I'm all for modern methods when they work, but if you don't have a keeper capable of both sides of the game at a high level, the one you should pick is actual goalkeeping. It's not far off where you might as well put an actual midfielder as your keeper. I agree defenders don't defend as well these days as a result too. You normally only get to see an old school style at CB now when you play 3 of them, then you can play the tippy tappy and have someone like JPVH burst through the line to crunch someone. Catching vs punching, I've never understood that one. It's almost never the best choice to punch it. I can't imagine the data shows it is. It always used to go wrong back in the day (my god, David fucking James) and it still routinely goes wrong now. I don't get it. It makes sense if you've over committed and you're stretching to reach the ball at all, or if you have a very clear sight of an unmarked player you know you can accurately punch it to for an immediate counter. It can potentially make sense if you think you're going to end up on the floor and aren't confident you'll keep hold of the ball. I can't think of any other scenario it makes sense. And yet it's the choice most modern keepers seem to make most of the time if there's a player anywhere near them. Why? I don't remember someone like big Brad ever catching the ball then dropping it without being fouled. I've certainly seen many punches into danger zones though, plenty resulting in goals. It's a trend that should have gone away by now, not become the norm. Much like short corners.

He's 20. Just for the sake of accuracy, not saying he should be the finished article at 20 either.

True, but I'd have thought Garrett was somebody who would have been brought on to shore it up.

LT said it seemed to take a deflection.

I wouldn't be anything else. And certainly not a Brum fan.

Annnnnnd breathe

It's insane that I follow a club where, at 3-0 up, I still didn't feel entirely comfortable the points were secured. And that I'm now predictably biting my nails with 5 mins of normal time remaining.

I'm unable to watch, but the stats imply we haven't learnt our lessons (winning away when we counter attack, losing at home when we try to control possession). 72% possession for us, yielding one shot on and one shot off target, to Brum's 2 on target, 3 off.

The average age of that bench must be crazily low.

Let's hope we're saying that at the end of the evening too.

Still not seen it described as a concussion yet.

Bad enough they took Phillips. They'd better be made to pay top dollar this time if they want him. But that's not their M.O.

(Moving this from the match thread where it would probably have sidetracked the discussion too much...I'm sure people are going to have a go at me, but here goes anyway) Wow, wasn't expecting that just yet. Still had a year and a half left, with a one year extension in our favour I think? I see it's basically 1 year longer now. Honestly, not entirely sure we needed to do that. With the existing deal, we could have kept him til age 30 (almost 31) before risking losing him on a free. Now we definitely will have him at that age if we don't sell, with an option for one year longer. With his age, and the physical intensity of his play (and the importance of it to his game), there's every danger he's nothing like the same player at that point. I love the player he is right now, and have no issue with having him contracted that long in principle. But my concern is it's probably come with a big pay rise too given he's now the league's top scorer. Not that his excellent performances haven't kinda deserved it (within the weird financial world that is football, where everyone earns more than they should already), more that we are really struggling to cut our own cloth these days, and it could be the difference between getting another player (or getting a good one rather than a crap/average one). I wonder if we might end up in a Bradley Dack kind of situation when deciding whether to use the one year option, where the player is no longer as good as he was when the terms were agreed, and is ageing, on wages we can no longer afford relative to what we're getting for them. Dack incidentally is only a year older, although the two serious ligament injuries make him equivalent to another 2-3 years physically perhaps. I know somebody is going to drag me for being negative or whatever, but I'm just thinking practically. Fantastic that he's willing to commit for longer though and I hope he keeps playing to these standards for the whole contract and proves my worry unfounded. It also might prove academic if we end up selling him in the summer say, in which case it would have only strengthened our bargaining position. So I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea. After all, so far he is our player of the season, and we've certainly come unstuck by not safeguarding contracts enough before. And maybe the pay rise isn't as big as I'm thinking.

Edit - I've put it in the Sammie Szmodics thread instead, to avoid derailing this one.

Scott Wharton ruled out. Shame, I was hoping that goal would renew his confidence and performances, was a belting header. Hopefully he still kicks on when he's back. Szmodics and Travis will get a one match suspension if they pick up a yellow. Could do without that, especially for Sammie.