Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
From today's Daily Mail..... 08:11 - Apr 16 with 28381 viewsBluebell

I won't put up the link but this is taken from an article by Martin Samuel about Paul Pogba, Joey Barton and Mick McCarthy.....

"Meanwhile, at Ipswich, fans are jubilant having been relegated to League One less than halfway through April. They have to be.

Otherwise they must admit that, in the circumstances and given the budgetary restrictions, Mick McCarthy was doing a superb job keeping the club free of relegation trouble, and if the football was less than expansive, it was necessary to survive.

Instead, they made his life a misery and he quit. The managers that have succeeded him, Paul Hurst and Paul Lambert, have won a grand total of four games in all competitions this season.

McCarthy won more than that between August 5 and August 19, in his final campaign. He won 17 games in total before walking out, prematurely, with a 1-0 win over Barnsley. Yet to display unhappiness at an upcoming fixture list that may include trips to Scunthorpe and Rochdale next season would, in many cases, involve admitting being misguidedly harsh on McCarthy."

Makes you think, doesn't it?
-2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:01 - Apr 16 with 4152 viewsHeathlander

I am more excited about Ipswich Town then I have been for a few years now. Even when we made the play-offs it was still fairly dull. We were never going to go up.

Now we have a chance of winning the league next season. We will play attacking football, the atmosphere has returned to the stadium and everyone is on the same song sheet.

I can't wait for next season. It will be more interesting than anything we would probably have watched in the Championship. We should be very competitive with one of the biggest budgets and biggest fan bases in the league. Uppa Towen.
2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:02 - Apr 16 with 4151 viewsHarryWright

From today's Daily Mail..... on 13:54 - Apr 16 by Mullet

That was largely down to entitlement and a sense that more and more fans were coming to games waiting for something to kick off about by the end, and that grew from a small start. There became this delusion we not only could and should do better but deserved it, that the rest of the league were somehow totally different to us.

Look back at the Chambers interview on Douglas feeling like sh1t because of the abuse, now add that to the whole team and Mick for months on end. It's no wonder we struggled when our fans were p1ssing in for so long, more and more.

Look at Jas' comment, even now people are still trying to dismiss MM etc.


Entitled to wanting more than 1 shot at home and boring, soulless football? I think it's completely fair to feel entitled to more than that personally.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:08 - Apr 16 with 4130 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:02 - Apr 16 by HarryWright

Entitled to wanting more than 1 shot at home and boring, soulless football? I think it's completely fair to feel entitled to more than that personally.


And now we have less. Less than we've had for six decades.

This is a lot like "never played the youngsters" as a mantra despite the evidence countering it. Lambert and Hurst have exceeded the lows of Mick in every sense from a football perspective. If you were honest and consistent you'd be incandescent with them.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

1
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:44 - Apr 16 with 4091 viewsFtnfwest

From today's Daily Mail..... on 13:39 - Apr 16 by Mullet

Pretty much every neutral has asked why we got rid of him, whether that's the media's creation or not is irrelevant.

I think it's spoken about as much because of the club as Mick, because the whole thing has been utterly unusual. Especially any 2-bit journo scrolling through social media will see the evolution of the narrative and vitriol and amplify it.


That's pretty much every neutral who wouldn't want to let him near their club.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:46 - Apr 16 with 4088 viewsbraveblue

Not at all. Nothing he writes makes me think.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:55 - Apr 16 with 4075 viewsZacak

From today's Daily Mail..... on 13:54 - Apr 16 by Mullet

That was largely down to entitlement and a sense that more and more fans were coming to games waiting for something to kick off about by the end, and that grew from a small start. There became this delusion we not only could and should do better but deserved it, that the rest of the league were somehow totally different to us.

Look back at the Chambers interview on Douglas feeling like sh1t because of the abuse, now add that to the whole team and Mick for months on end. It's no wonder we struggled when our fans were p1ssing in for so long, more and more.

Look at Jas' comment, even now people are still trying to dismiss MM etc.


I think your comments relate to the actions/views of the so called 'numbskulls'. Indeed it's hard to disagree with that moniker given some of their disgusting vitriol and sense of entitlement.

However, I think most fans just tired of the football, exacerbated by poor results. Mick did a superb job. It became stale. I would say it's a crying shame he didn't get to field his new midfield that never happened i.e. Huws-Adeyemi-Skuse. Things could have been very different.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:04 - Apr 16 with 4066 viewsHerbivore

From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:02 - Apr 16 by HarryWright

Entitled to wanting more than 1 shot at home and boring, soulless football? I think it's completely fair to feel entitled to more than that personally.


1 shot at home? That's just not accurate at all. We're creating less at home this season than we used to under Mick which is another reason I think there's some sort of collective delusion going on.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:13 - Apr 16 with 4052 viewscaught-in-limbo

From today's Daily Mail..... on 13:44 - Apr 16 by m14_blue

Fair enough, I haven't had the same experience but it's true that lots of people get their knowledge of football through vacuous idiots like Samuel.

I think most true football fans would understand why the change was needed, even if it has backfired spectacularly.

Many of our fans weren't enjoying going to games any more, that's reason enough for them to want change in my eyes.


"Fair enough, I haven't had the same experience but it's true that lots of people get their knowledge of football through vacuous idiots like Samuel. "

That's how the media works in every field, everywhere:

Someone, who usually knows very little about a topic - apart from a polarised viewpoint, "informs" the vast majority, who know next to nothing, from a position of authority called a newspaper, TV channel or "reliable" website.

People only see this when they are the informed minority.

Sadly, the minority view is the one that gets dismissed.

This is not news. It has always been this way.

#toxic
Poll: BREXIT - Hard, soft, phantom ...

1
Login to get fewer ads

From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:41 - Apr 16 with 4022 viewsBrixtonBlue

From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:04 - Apr 16 by Herbivore

1 shot at home? That's just not accurate at all. We're creating less at home this season than we used to under Mick which is another reason I think there's some sort of collective delusion going on.


Either you're deluded or rewriting history Herbs. We used to go several games with only a few shots under Mick. I remember waiting until the 70th minute waiting for a shot on target under Mick. We're having lots more shots under Lambert. Didn't we recently have something like 22 shots in a game? You'd wait a few months for that many under Mick.

I bet Bloots will downarrow this.
Poll: If you work in an office, when are you off over Christmas (not booked holiday)?

-1
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:18 - Apr 16 with 3997 viewsHarryWright

From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:08 - Apr 16 by Mullet

And now we have less. Less than we've had for six decades.

This is a lot like "never played the youngsters" as a mantra despite the evidence countering it. Lambert and Hurst have exceeded the lows of Mick in every sense from a football perspective. If you were honest and consistent you'd be incandescent with them.


But that is you comparing it to this season not me, it's another of example of 'just because this season has been awful doesn't make the last good'. Where is the evidence on the contrary? I was at the games and it was soulless and boring, I feel you are jumping to conclusions with your last line despite my post being only about McCarthy.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:19 - Apr 16 with 3995 viewsHarryWright

From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:04 - Apr 16 by Herbivore

1 shot at home? That's just not accurate at all. We're creating less at home this season than we used to under Mick which is another reason I think there's some sort of collective delusion going on.


Why is it the counter argument for all of you lot is whats happened this season? Has absolutely no bearing on how boring and soulless the last few years were under Mick and I didn't mention this season in my post.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:26 - Apr 16 with 3981 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:18 - Apr 16 by HarryWright

But that is you comparing it to this season not me, it's another of example of 'just because this season has been awful doesn't make the last good'. Where is the evidence on the contrary? I was at the games and it was soulless and boring, I feel you are jumping to conclusions with your last line despite my post being only about McCarthy.


Of course I'm comparing to this season, that was the scope of the thread, my post which you replied to and the comment. To wriggle away from that only proves my point.

"We" incubated a negative and self-fulfilling prophecy that grew into something awful, it's odd that still we finished 12th with Klug's 50/50 record. The "shots on goal" became like the "hoofball" stuff and Lincoln away and other spurious examples taken out of context.

As I said if your objections were rational footballing ones, you and the others would be behaving very differently towards the campaign and managers we've had since. But they're not, and nor was the Mick stuff. It was about getting him out no matter what and that being the victory, which ultimately is utterly foolish given what it's led to.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:29 - Apr 16 with 3973 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 14:55 - Apr 16 by Zacak

I think your comments relate to the actions/views of the so called 'numbskulls'. Indeed it's hard to disagree with that moniker given some of their disgusting vitriol and sense of entitlement.

However, I think most fans just tired of the football, exacerbated by poor results. Mick did a superb job. It became stale. I would say it's a crying shame he didn't get to field his new midfield that never happened i.e. Huws-Adeyemi-Skuse. Things could have been very different.


I agree, but I think that was created because we no longer cared about getting on the backs of the players and Mick. Look at how Knudsen has been perceived and treated since. When our main strength was solidarity and that connection (Chambo's fistpump being the literal demonstration of that) ruining that and then crying because they got some back was never going to be retold favourably by the media.

The reaction this season is to our credit, but I don't think there is a huge overlap between those "numbskulls" (I'm not a fan of using that term) and those of us who have embraced the positivity. In fact I wonder who has both abused MM et al. and sneered and moaned about the singing this season? Would be interesting to know if there's an overlap, but fairly pointless. I hope it's here to stay, next season is the litmus test.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:40 - Apr 16 with 3965 viewsArnieM

This is the fundamental problem with football now. It’s viewed as a “results only industry”. Sod entertainment. Did the paying through the nose got the privilege fan!

The media and this BCWYWF brigade need to get over themselves. Town fans know what they wanted to see. We were relegated because Mick, bloody boring as hell McCarthy left the thud Club. We were relegated because of poor decision making and due diligence on his successor, Paul Hurst , who single handedly failed to address the most pressing problem - replacing the four senior strikers who left the Club, plus bringing in 12 players in 6 weeks who had never played in the Championship.

McVsrthy papered over the cracks by enticing high wage , injury prone journeyman to this Club. THATS were Evans money went - on high wages and zero transfer fees. McCarthy BUILT NOTHING at this Club. He’s a “ firefighter “ and nothing else . He’s currently doing a caretaker role for RI . Big deal!

I’m glad to see the back of him.

Poll: Would this current Town team beat the current narwich team

-2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:43 - Apr 16 with 3956 viewsblueislander

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:26 - Apr 16 by Mullet

Of course I'm comparing to this season, that was the scope of the thread, my post which you replied to and the comment. To wriggle away from that only proves my point.

"We" incubated a negative and self-fulfilling prophecy that grew into something awful, it's odd that still we finished 12th with Klug's 50/50 record. The "shots on goal" became like the "hoofball" stuff and Lincoln away and other spurious examples taken out of context.

As I said if your objections were rational footballing ones, you and the others would be behaving very differently towards the campaign and managers we've had since. But they're not, and nor was the Mick stuff. It was about getting him out no matter what and that being the victory, which ultimately is utterly foolish given what it's led to.


Why are hoofball and Lincoln away “spurious examples”. For those of us who have respect for the traditions of the club, they are core examples of why it was right that McCarthy should no longer manage it.
2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:48 - Apr 16 with 3945 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:43 - Apr 16 by blueislander

Why are hoofball and Lincoln away “spurious examples”. For those of us who have respect for the traditions of the club, they are core examples of why it was right that McCarthy should no longer manage it.


We had the Exeter debacle right after and Accrington, with people explaining away the manager's conduct and comments and blaming Chambers etc.

If you ever actually watch us going back then you'll see that we played "hoofball" as much as anyone else and McCarthy never did. A long ball over the top was present under Sir Bobby (especially pre-Dutchmen) a key feature of Lyall, and Burley used it to - it's not the same as Beck or Boothroyd style football where the term hoofball comes from.

The hypocrisy of fans being selective is exactly the problem much discussed and dismissed by those who aren't actually interested in the footballing aspect.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:56 - Apr 16 with 3932 viewsHarryWright

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:26 - Apr 16 by Mullet

Of course I'm comparing to this season, that was the scope of the thread, my post which you replied to and the comment. To wriggle away from that only proves my point.

"We" incubated a negative and self-fulfilling prophecy that grew into something awful, it's odd that still we finished 12th with Klug's 50/50 record. The "shots on goal" became like the "hoofball" stuff and Lincoln away and other spurious examples taken out of context.

As I said if your objections were rational footballing ones, you and the others would be behaving very differently towards the campaign and managers we've had since. But they're not, and nor was the Mick stuff. It was about getting him out no matter what and that being the victory, which ultimately is utterly foolish given what it's led to.


There was 9 home games last season under McCarthy where we had two shots on target or less and 11 in which we had 3 shots on target or less. That's almost half of the games at home where we would only manage to muster up 3 shots on target and in two of those games we had 0 shots on target.

I'm specifically responding to the part of your message about being 'entitled', I believe we are entitled to see a team attacking more at home in front of our own fans and muster up more than 2 shots on target at home. I feel you are maybe generalising, my reasons for wanting him out are as above coupled with the negative atmosphere he (and certain fans) created. It's not black and white.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:00 - Apr 16 with 3911 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:56 - Apr 16 by HarryWright

There was 9 home games last season under McCarthy where we had two shots on target or less and 11 in which we had 3 shots on target or less. That's almost half of the games at home where we would only manage to muster up 3 shots on target and in two of those games we had 0 shots on target.

I'm specifically responding to the part of your message about being 'entitled', I believe we are entitled to see a team attacking more at home in front of our own fans and muster up more than 2 shots on target at home. I feel you are maybe generalising, my reasons for wanting him out are as above coupled with the negative atmosphere he (and certain fans) created. It's not black and white.


I'm not denying that. I'm suggesting that if we turn up to games ready to get on the manager and the players backs they're going to be inhibited. As demonstrated by the start, middle and end of the season.

The fact that under Hurst it did no good shows entirely what a catastrophe the succession was, and Evan's handling or refusal to handle it was the reason he should have been the target of ire all along.

We're on a bottom six budget and McCarthy continually produced football way beyond that, the fact people didn't make that link is one them. Followed with the revision of his whole tenure here and the dismissal of the job he did in saving us after Lambert's attempt is utterly baffling.

Unfortunately the BCWYWF stuff was entirely accurate and proven right. There's no other way to look at it without outright lying or selective massaging of the Evans era.

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:09 - Apr 16 with 3907 viewsblueislander

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:48 - Apr 16 by Mullet

We had the Exeter debacle right after and Accrington, with people explaining away the manager's conduct and comments and blaming Chambers etc.

If you ever actually watch us going back then you'll see that we played "hoofball" as much as anyone else and McCarthy never did. A long ball over the top was present under Sir Bobby (especially pre-Dutchmen) a key feature of Lyall, and Burley used it to - it's not the same as Beck or Boothroyd style football where the term hoofball comes from.

The hypocrisy of fans being selective is exactly the problem much discussed and dismissed by those who aren't actually interested in the footballing aspect.


You are wrong in saying that the long ball game that Robson employed was to play the ball over the top. It depended on very accurate passes from the back four to the target man who had the ability to hold the ball up, and vitally , the midfield ran on to receive the ball in advanced positions. You cannot compare this to pumping it forward into the channels, and hope to get a second ball. Did you watch Town in the 70s.?
1
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:12 - Apr 16 with 3893 viewsMullet

From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:09 - Apr 16 by blueislander

You are wrong in saying that the long ball game that Robson employed was to play the ball over the top. It depended on very accurate passes from the back four to the target man who had the ability to hold the ball up, and vitally , the midfield ran on to receive the ball in advanced positions. You cannot compare this to pumping it forward into the channels, and hope to get a second ball. Did you watch Town in the 70s.?


I'm not wrong in the slightest. For a start "pumping the balls into the channels" isn't hoofball, especially when employed in the way it was done here.

Whymark, Mariner, right back to Crawford and Phillips. I wasn't born, but luckily I grew up watching that stuff on video. To delineate any difference from a football perspective is merely complaining Mick didn't produce one of the greatest sides of his generation, tell me how many games did you go to under Mick?

I assume that's relevant to tell me I'm wrong here?

Poll: If Cook had the full season where would we have finished?
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:19 - Apr 16 with 3882 viewsPJH

From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:09 - Apr 16 by blueislander

You are wrong in saying that the long ball game that Robson employed was to play the ball over the top. It depended on very accurate passes from the back four to the target man who had the ability to hold the ball up, and vitally , the midfield ran on to receive the ball in advanced positions. You cannot compare this to pumping it forward into the channels, and hope to get a second ball. Did you watch Town in the 70s.?


That is a very accurate summary of how we played in the middle phase of SBR's reign from about the time that he established us as a top division side until the Dutchmen arrived.
We did have the best target man that we ever had for the start of that time and once Trevor Whymark was no longer here Paul Mariner was excellent at it.


You mentioned in your earlier post about the "traditions" of the club, I am always intrigued when that gets mentioned because I am not sure exactly what they are.

The only time that I think ITFC were a true pure footballing side was when we had the two wonderful Dutchmen along with a hell of a lot of other talent and we played through midfield rather than over it.
1
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:38 - Apr 16 with 3856 viewsHarryWright

From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:00 - Apr 16 by Mullet

I'm not denying that. I'm suggesting that if we turn up to games ready to get on the manager and the players backs they're going to be inhibited. As demonstrated by the start, middle and end of the season.

The fact that under Hurst it did no good shows entirely what a catastrophe the succession was, and Evan's handling or refusal to handle it was the reason he should have been the target of ire all along.

We're on a bottom six budget and McCarthy continually produced football way beyond that, the fact people didn't make that link is one them. Followed with the revision of his whole tenure here and the dismissal of the job he did in saving us after Lambert's attempt is utterly baffling.

Unfortunately the BCWYWF stuff was entirely accurate and proven right. There's no other way to look at it without outright lying or selective massaging of the Evans era.


I agree McCarthy did a good job on the budget constraints and to deny that would be silly. I would agree results wise it was beyond our budget however not football wise, whether they go hand in hand is subjective imo.

I think yes the BCWYWF crew were right to an extent but the part they’re wrong about is regret because I wouldn’t go back to that style of football and negative atmosphere (which was both the fault of Mick and the fans). This isn’t me saying this year is better, but I wouldn’t want to go from terrible football back to terrible football, instead I hope for better in the future. The only positive of this season is the atmosphere the rest has been a complete disaster.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:39 - Apr 16 with 3855 viewsblueislander

From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:12 - Apr 16 by Mullet

I'm not wrong in the slightest. For a start "pumping the balls into the channels" isn't hoofball, especially when employed in the way it was done here.

Whymark, Mariner, right back to Crawford and Phillips. I wasn't born, but luckily I grew up watching that stuff on video. To delineate any difference from a football perspective is merely complaining Mick didn't produce one of the greatest sides of his generation, tell me how many games did you go to under Mick?

I assume that's relevant to tell me I'm wrong here?


If you can’t see the difference between pumping balls into channels, and playing accurate passes to a target man, then there is no point continuing this discussion. See PJH’s post below. He and I did watch Town in the 70s so I think some credence can be given to our opinions.
0
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:51 - Apr 16 with 3829 viewsHerbivore

From today's Daily Mail..... on 16:19 - Apr 16 by HarryWright

Why is it the counter argument for all of you lot is whats happened this season? Has absolutely no bearing on how boring and soulless the last few years were under Mick and I didn't mention this season in my post.


Because this season without him provides a meaningful comparison maybe? Plus you're quite happy to just make stuff up, like only having one shot in home games, so I'm not sure you get to referee the debate.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

-2
From today's Daily Mail..... on 17:52 - Apr 16 with 3823 viewsHerbivore

From today's Daily Mail..... on 15:41 - Apr 16 by BrixtonBlue

Either you're deluded or rewriting history Herbs. We used to go several games with only a few shots under Mick. I remember waiting until the 70th minute waiting for a shot on target under Mick. We're having lots more shots under Lambert. Didn't we recently have something like 22 shots in a game? You'd wait a few months for that many under Mick.


Yeah, that's mostly not true though. Collective delusion is rife currently.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

-1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024