Berwick Rangers 2016/17

[mid-table]

3 minutes ago, berwick-the-unbeatable said:

 

we are extremely fortunate we didnt further risk our league status thanks to his nativity.

 

Yeah, we lost four in a row in December.

[OZMO]

5 minutes ago, berwick-the-unbeatable said:

 

 

f**k off. The objective was to stay up but we did so with no thanks to our manager. Coughlin was an absolute embarassment and his tactical decisions were nothing short of a disgrace - we are extremely fortunate we didnt further risk our league status thanks to his nativity.

Credit to the players who fought today, but if we dont change manager in the summer we are fucking pathetic.

 

what's it got to do with Christmas?..... should be naivety... just saying. Still congrats on you final day survival. Cheers BTU

 

[Blue Oktober]

Well done Berwick great result for you today guaranteeing your league status, I was fairly sure Edinburgh would ease you out here so fair play & all the best next season.

[Grumpy Panner]

Associate i believe, though i see he's taking Linlithgow on.

My point exactly. Is it not strange that on the day Berwicks League status was on the line ( dependant on elsewhere) that a directors interests are with a Junior team?

[OnTheDucketFence]

Objective was to win. Success or failure today? Black and white. Yes or no?

If you want to paint it as a success, fair enough, we won - but Coughlin was well and truly bailed out. Nobody in their right mind can deny that. I left yesterday's match fuming (more so than relief) after that second half because his backs to the wall negativity almost cost us.

So Rutherford went off injured - that can't be helped. But after that we totally lost it. The same long balls were pumped up to Murrell who doesn't have those same attributes to lead the line himself and the ball was being humped straight back at us over and over again. There didn't seem to be any kind of back-up plans in place.

Credit to CM pair, particularly Notman, who I thought were excellent yesterday.

As for Coff, I don't think 90% of fans would complain if he left now. His interview in the recent 'Tiser smacked of desperation and my opinion was finally turned after the first half at Clyde where with everything at stake we were nothing short of abysmal. But unless Coff resigns, I can't see there being a change.

[Yellow Feet]

Credit to CM pair, particularly Notman, who I thought were excellent yesterday.

Notman ought to retire. Well past it. Lavery was outstanding yesterday.

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

Notman ought to retire. Well past it. Lavery was outstanding yesterday.

He was good yesterday and I'm one of his biggest critics.

Id like to credit the players again. For months Coughlin has took zero responsibility and constantly blamed the attitude and mentality of his players. Yesterday it was clear that only one person had a mentality that put us at risk, and it wasn't a player.

[Yellow Feet]

Have to say I was particularly impressed with McKenna yesterday too

[Hallowed Turf]

 

[Redcar]

Don't agree with much of this really! Notman was excellent yesterday. McKenna had a decent game, but it was he who mostly turned backwards when he got the ball after Rutherford went off.

Rutherford is a great attack leader, but after his injury is it really Coughlin's fault that Murrell isn't as good, and the midfielders end up with nobody available to pass to?  Blame Cough for not signing someone better perhaps, but I don't think he deliberately went negative (well, maybe a bit). Just that his best attacking option got injured and he has nobody on the bench anywhere near as good. Their 2 goals both also came from left set pieces that we should be able to cope with, including another keeper cock-up.

Bottom line is that we don't have enough good and reliable options. Again, you can blame Coughlin for that (or the Board), but on the other hand 2 of our better players have sung his praises to me in recent weeks.

Criticism of the boss yesterday is a bit unfair. We won a really difficult nervy game after all. Where he does need challenging is his signings. He feebly failed to replace Crane, McGregor, Graham and Henderson. His signings of Mckinlay, Martin, Dunlop, Allan Walker, Sheerin, Donkor and Kessells were hopelessly inadequate. 

I can see an argument to only sign Spark and Rutherford if he can. But personally, I'd also want Brennan (not as first choice) Lavery and Notman. The rest I'd be happy to let go, though maybe there are squad places for Scullion, Tommo and Hamilton.

And that doesn't even begin to address the problems of a divided  and plan-free Boardroom, an arrogant supporters club and an increasingly impotent Trust.

[Yellow Feet]

Regarding your shouts for signings, i'd take Verlaque, but as an attacking option rather than a full back. He's had 3 starts and 6 sub appearances and got a goal and at least four assists. Changed the game at Forfar away. Be a decent impact sub at least and he's only 21.

[Redcar]

11 minutes ago, Yellow Feet said:

Regarding your shouts for signings, i'd take Verlaque, but as an attacking option rather than a full back. He's had 3 starts and 6 sub appearances and got a goal and at least four assists. Changed the game at Forfar away. Be a decent impact sub at least and he's only 21.

Agree. Forgot about Verlaque, despite him rescuing everyone's shredded nerves yesterday.

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

2 hours ago, Redcar said:

Don't agree with much of this really! Notman was excellent yesterday. McKenna had a decent game, but it was he who mostly turned backwards when he got the ball after Rutherford went off.

Rutherford is a great attack leader, but after his injury is it really Coughlin's fault that Murrell isn't as good, and the midfielders end up with nobody available to pass to?  Blame Cough for not signing someone better perhaps, but I don't think he deliberately went negative (well, maybe a bit). Just that his best attacking option got injured and he has nobody on the bench anywhere near as good. Their 2 goals both also came from left set pieces that we should be able to cope with, including another keeper cock-up.

Bottom line is that we don't have enough good and reliable options. Again, you can blame Coughlin for that (or the Board), but on the other hand 2 of our better players have sung his praises to me in recent weeks.

Criticism of the boss yesterday is a bit unfair. We won a really difficult nervy game after all. Where he does need challenging is his signings. He feebly failed to replace Crane, McGregor, Graham and Henderson. His signings of Mckinlay, Martin, Dunlop, Allan Walker, Sheerin, Donkor and Kessells were hopelessly inadequate. 

I can see an argument to only sign Spark and Rutherford if he can. But personally, I'd also want Brennan (not as first choice) Lavery and Notman. The rest I'd be happy to let go, though maybe there are squad places for Scullion, Tommo and Hamilton.

And that doesn't even begin to address the problems of a divided  and plan-free Boardroom, an arrogant supporters club and an increasingly impotent Trust.

I'd say there's contradiction in here regardng McKenna's performance - he was forced into going backwards because we had nothing up top, and I mean that very much literally in relation to after Murrell was taken off. Personally I thought he played alright. His ball in for Rutherford's was superb.

We can agree that Murrell and Rutherford are totally different players i'm sure, and if I had to pick one to be the isolated striker I'd pick Greg every time, but alter things to remove any striker was absolutely pathetic. It removed any out ball and ensured we entirely invited sustained pressure on ourselves. It was such a naive (not on my phone so I'll get it right this time) move it was unbelievable - and one made by a manager who openly admits we can't defend. Why on earth would you put yourself in a situation where you have to defend, then?!

For the first 55 minutes, we were comfortable and well in control. Rutherford's injury took it out of our hands a little but we should have continued to stay on top of things - for me Coughlin put our league status at risk by quite ridiculously opting to get deeper and deeper. At the time of conceeding our second we were playing 6-4-0. I've never seen that in my life (example attached for doubters). The team deserve credit for winning the game, but the boss should be crucified for making it as you said, a nervy one, through his ridiculous invitation to Edinburgh to come have a go at us.

On another note I'd say it#s quite harsh on Brennan to call one of those goals a cock-up too, the lad gets his foot in I think which prevents him from keeping hold. 

We can agree signings have been poor. I'll be looking on with intruige at his retained list. There are some I like but we have nowhere near enough genuine quality. We need to strengthen in key positions. Of those currently at the club Spark and Rutherford would be the only two I'd be really disappointed about seeing go elsewhere.

[bandits]

21 hours ago, DutchBorderer said:

Just glad the season is over, league status safe, and Coughlin still in a job. The backroom staff need to figure out what the fook happened this season, and take steps to prevent another campaign like this. Get rid of the weaker boys in the squad, and bring in two or three new faces that are immediate improvements to the team; quality over quantity, as there's plenty of lads in the developmental squad who can step up if needed.

Next season will have either a refurbished Cowden or EK, plus perhaps a Clyde side that doesn't look to sabotage themselves at every turn, so we probably won't get a reprieve by virtue of other clubs shitting their bed harder.

Yip, glad the season is over and our league status is safe but glad that Coughlin is still on the job, can't agree with you there.

I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his previous stint at the club but lets be honest, the football has been brutal to watch, signings incredibly poor and tactics at times been baffling. 

Body language and instruction at the side of the pitch is always negative, substitutions made too slow and it always looks at shambles at the side of the park when they are going to be made.

I questioned the benefit of having a full time manager in the summer and even more so now. Nothing has improved on the pitch which at the end of the day is the most important aspect and Coughlin is still living off a previous success which is wrong. 

The problem is the current board have balls the size of marbles and unless Coughlin resigns(again!) we are stuck with the same crap again. Th two year full time contract has bit them on the back door and we probably don't have the money to pay off Coughlin's final year.

The current situation in the boardroom is also an issue and I genuinely can't see where the club is going. 

 

 

 

 

[A Believer]

f**k off. The objective was to stay up but we did so with no thanks to our manager. Coughlin was an absolute embarassment and his tactical decisions were nothing short of a disgrace - we are extremely fortunate we didnt further risk our league status thanks to his nativity.

Credit to the players who fought today, but if we dont change manager in the summer we are fucking pathetic.

How erudite.

The only thing I think he could perhaps have done better was fresh legs earlier on in midfield.

You're clearly entrenched view that it's all the managers fault is ridiculous; if you could be arsed to even consider an opinion other than your own myopic one; listen to the interview.

He was desperate for the defence to push out and compress the game as EC had too much time on the ball; I don't see that as a) negative; or b) his fault if Scullion wouldn't listen.

At least we agree that the players worked their socks off; great to see. One might feel that they are behind the manager. Let's not lose sight of that either eh?

Look, I'm not exactly thrilled that my club were in a relegation dog-fight, and I'm as pi$$ed off as anyone about underperformance over the season. I think you know as well as anyone that a few other things need to come together at the club that sacking the manager won't solve.

[bandits]

13 minutes ago, A Believer said:

How erudite.

The only thing I think he could perhaps have done better was fresh legs earlier on in midfield.

You're clearly entrenched view that it's all the managers fault is ridiculous; if you could be arsed to even consider an opinion other than your own myopic one; listen to the interview.

He was desperate for the defence to push out and compress the game as EC had too much time on the ball; I don't see that as a) negative; or b) his fault if Scullion wouldn't listen.

At least we agree that the players worked their socks off; great to see. One might feel that they are behind the manager. Let's not lose sight of that either eh?

Look, I'm not exactly thrilled that my club were in a relegation dog-fight, and I'm as pi$$ed off as anyone about underperformance over the season. I think you know as well as anyone that a few other things need to come together at the club that sacking the manager won't solve.
 

The buck stops with the manager, signings have not been good enough, simple as that. 

Money wasted on players not good enough, Walker and Sheerin spring to mind. It's his team so there is no excuses. The fact he continuously blamed the players was a complete cop out from his responsibility.

The issues in the boardroom has no impact on what happens on the pitch and our full time manager should has had plenty time to put together, good recruitment of players, decent tactics and identifying weaknesses in other teams. We've been more worried about other teams rather than what we can do as a team.

The board will be slapping each other on the back yesterday congratulating either other but what is plain to see to the supporters is this club is going nowhere under the current regime on and off the park.

 

 

 

[A Believer]

The buck stops with the manager, signings have not been good enough, simple as that. 
Money wasted on players not good enough, Walker and Sheerin spring to mind. It's his team so there is no excuses. The fact he continuously blamed the players was a complete cop out from his responsibility.
The issues in the boardroom has no impact on what happens on the pitch and our full time manager should has had plenty time to put together, good recruitment of players, decent tactics and identifying weaknesses in other teams. We've been more worried about other teams rather than what we can do as a team.
The board will be slapping each other on the back yesterday congratulating either other but what is plain to see to the supporters is this club is going nowhere under the current regime on and off the park.
 
 
 

One thing Coff has never shied away from is that the buck stops with him. I'm ok with the honesty of sharing what they work on in training (i.e. work hard, press the ball, keep the ball moving etc) along with the honesty when the players lose the track on a Saturday. Man; how frustrating must that must be. I just don't see that as copping out or blaming players.

I saw Sheerin on trial for us v Spartans 3 seasons ago; he looked worth a punt then (looked strong, scored a screamer and laid on another) but we didn't and he went on to score a barrow-load for Musselburgh and was signed by Livingston. He looked a great capture based on that; his drop from full-time to part time impacted big time, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Who'd be a manager.

I saw Wilson and Dunlop when they were fit, and both were good players. We've missed these boys; and Martin was a revelation when he first came in.

Again, who'd be a manager.

I was at the player presentation yesterday, and I had no sense whatsoever of back-slapping from anyone on the board. It was a time for celebration, but I honestly saw contrite resolution to work harder and do better for the fans and the club.

I like the strong development structure we have now; best we've had for as long as I can remember. But yes, it's about the first team; all I'm saying is history is littered with examples of clubs changing managers with alacrity, ending in tears.

Let's go long term.

[leb8t]

3 hours ago, berwick-the-unbeatable said:

I'd say there's contradiction in here regardng McKenna's performance - he was forced into going backwards because we had nothing up top, and I mean that very much literally in relation to after Murrell was taken off. Personally I thought he played alright. His ball in for Rutherford's was superb.

We can agree that Murrell and Rutherford are totally different players i'm sure, and if I had to pick one to be the isolated striker I'd pick Greg every time, but alter things to remove any striker was absolutely pathetic. It removed any out ball and ensured we entirely invited sustained pressure on ourselves. It was such a naive (not on my phone so I'll get it right this time) move it was unbelievable - and one made by a manager who openly admits we can't defend. Why on earth would you put yourself in a situation where you have to defend, then?!

For the first 55 minutes, we were comfortable and well in control. Rutherford's injury took it out of our hands a little but we should have continued to stay on top of things - for me Coughlin put our league status at risk by quite ridiculously opting to get deeper and deeper. At the time of conceeding our second we were playing 6-4-0. I've never seen that in my life (example attached for doubters). The team deserve credit for winning the game, but the boss should be crucified for making it as you said, a nervy one, through his ridiculous invitation to Edinburgh to come have a go at us.

On another note I'd say it#s quite harsh on Brennan to call one of those goals a cock-up too, the lad gets his foot in I think which prevents him from keeping hold. 

We can agree signings have been poor. I'll be looking on with intruige at his retained list. There are some I like but we have nowhere near enough genuine quality. We need to strengthen in key positions. Of those currently at the club Spark and Rutherford would be the only two I'd be really disappointed about seeing go elsewhere.

I am not sure what your example is meant to showing, without any context. where are the other two? Is it a back 5? Is it a back 3 with deep lying wing backs? Is it defending after a set piece? Was a goal conceded at this point? Did the Manager opt to go deeper or did the players go deeper? Were the goals conceded from set pieces, therefore not directly down to the shape? Was it the same defensive shape as Man Utd used today? 6-3-1 . If you have never seen defensive set ups like this then perhaps you are not watching the correct games, or not really watching the games you see.

 

[Ivo den Bieman]

JOHN

 

 

 

[Hallowed Turf]

17 minutes ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

JOHN

Don't diss The Legend!