Excellent article

We Are Going Down

Coder
Staff member
"It’s not just the results. It’s the tone of the performances. A side that looks cautious when it should be confident. Passive when it should be proactive. There’s a flatness to the football that feels at odds with the ambition that defined the off-season. And while it’s true that the Championship is a brutal, unpredictable league, it’s also true that clubs with serious aspirations don’t settle for beating only the bottom three.

Supporters aren’t asking for miracles. They’re asking for signs. Signs that this team is capable of more than just surviving. Signs that the manager has a plan that goes beyond containment and damage limitation. Right now, those signs are hard to find.

But different is not what we’ve seen. The team has beaten only the bottom three. The football has been flat. The goal difference is neutral. And the mood, both in the stands and behind the scenes, is starting to shift. The owners didn’t greenlight a strong transfer window to watch the club tread water. They didn’t appoint Alan Sheehan on a permanent basis to see the same patterns repeat.

Right now, Sheehan looks like a continuation of the last three managers. Cautious. Reactive. Uninspired. The football lacks identity. The performances lack conviction. And the ambition, at least on the pitch, feels muted. There’s a growing sense that Sheehan fits the mould too well. That he’s another safe pair of hands who won’t rock the boat but also won’t steer it anywhere new.

That might have been acceptable in years gone by. It’s not acceptable now. Not with the investment. Not with the exposure. Not with the expectations. This isn’t about demanding promotion in October. It’s about demanding progress. Demanding identity. Demanding performances that reflect the ambition shown off the pitch.

Because right now, there’s a disconnect. The club is talking like a top-six contender but playing like a mid-table placeholder. And that’s not what the owners ordered. If the football doesn’t start matching the ambition, the manager might find himself the next thing they decide to change.

It’s a familiar pattern. Russell Martin. Luke Williams. Now Sheehan. Three managers, three iterations of the same problem. Possession without penetration. Structure without spark. A tactical approach that prioritises control but forgets ambition. While Sheehan was supposed to be different, he’s starting to look like a continuation."


Read the article here:

 
I agree with almost everything in the article, except for one point. The author seems to believe our squad is much stronger than it actually is. Personally, I feel we had a poor transfer window last summer. The players we brought in haven't lived up to expectations, and we now have too many players in the squad. Instead of focusing on developing young talents like Bobby Wales, we've brought in players like Adam Idah, who has been... uninspiring and, frankly, lazy. And honestly, why did we sign Wales and Widell if they're not even making the matchday squad and are just sitting in the stands?
 
Idah was unnecessary, and also the most expensive signing of the entire window. Like having a £100 budget for a birthday present and spending £65 on the wrapping paper.

Totally agree Wales should be put in there instead, and although I like Yalcouye, I'd rather Widell was getting those minutes.

Good article. I have my own theory about Sheehan:

When Williams was there, it was a case of tough cop / soft cop, with Sheehan the soft cop. When Williams goes, the entire team experiences the usual "old manager's finally out the building" bounce, with Sheehan the soft cop on the spot and ready to step up.

The players take to Sheehan because he was always on their side, he's a good talker (hence my littlefinger comparisons), and after the Williams malaise any change would have motivated that dressing room. Little wonder then that the team start performing.

Roll on this season, and suddenly Swansea have half a squad's worth of new players who weren't there during the struggles with Williams and so have none of the automatic goodwill for Sheehan which the Williams survivors held. Sheehan has to inspire these guys from a cold start, and I'm not sure he can. He doesn't have much of an existing body of work or reputation, and there's no obvious exciting tactical system for them to align to either.
 
Love the Little finger analogy , I've read all the ice and fire books , and watched all the game of thrones videos .
I think Sheehans time is up , he has proved himself barely adequate , but lacking tactically, his subs are always like for like and he seems to be risk adverse, our shot ratio is appalling as is our chance creation when compared with other teams who have far less possession. I think we have the necessary armament in our squad but they are not being used to their potential in the systems and manner of play he is instigating.
The players must take some of the blame but I can only assume they are playing to instructions and are averse to any individuality but its clear that his tactics are not working . We are poor in attack offering little threat , and we remain a defensive liability relying too much on Vigaroux heroics.
 
When Williams was there, it was a case of tough cop / soft cop, with Sheehan the soft cop
I dunno. Seems to me it was soft cop/even softer cop! That lot posing as our football team need a rocket up their collective arses. But neither is it all their fault as imo they receive precious little guidance about our style of play and game plan, mainly because we don't appear to have one!
 
What is all this crap about no recognisable style of play. We have one with three clear elements:
1. Keep the ball until you are around the 18-yard box then give it away with the flourish of an intricate (failed) pass
2. Attack down the wings but pass it backwards rather than take anybody on or cross the ball as you near the opposition end, and
3. Give Galbraith the freedom to shoot from anywhere on the field on the grounds that once in a while he might actually score.
 
Back
Top Bottom