Boro v Birmingham 2-0 (Assombalonga (2) )

[Jimmy 140]

Yeah agreed, I think to make top two is going to be a very tall order unless we suddenly go on some sort of unreal run.

I'm hoping for now a gradual improvement in performances, results and confidence resulting in a comfortable playoff position where we go on to batter Leeds 3-0 at Wembley. Scenes.

[Borodane 6,299]

Must win too for me tonight if we have hopes of a top-2 finish. I'd start Clayton for Leabitter as his running should give more space to Howson. We saw what Howson could do when he won the ball on the edge of the box and weighed in a perfect cross for Britt (think it was against Brentford). Downing central with Traore and Braithwaite in the wide areas to inject some pace and trickery. Right now I'd rather start Traore and see if we can get that first goal instead of starting cautiously and chasing a goal later on.

[Rioch's Braves 711]

We've got to be beating a Birmingham side that is winless away and have only scored 3 goals on the road. Would definitely start with Traore, we should have started with him against Leeds.

 

With regards to Johnny Howson he should be on all the set pieces, and a lot further forward when we are on the attack. Was advised by a Norwich fan to watch Howson's goals on YOU TUBE, 20/25 yarders,, goals just inside the box goals inside the 6 yard box, worth a watch, don't know why Monk has Howson playing so deep, and standing virtually on the half way line when we have a corner wasting him in that position because Howson hasn't become a bad player overnight. So BD probably makes a good point Clayton in, and Howson in a more forward position.

[Boro Badger 87]

We're not a great footballing side, so why not just try starting with big Rudy and create havoc.

 

------------------ Randolph ------------------

-- Christie -- Ayala --- Gibson -- Friend ---

--------- Clayton ------ Howson --------- 

-- Downing ------------------ Braithwaite --

------- Assombalonga -- Gestede -------

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

Lots on here questioned Agnew's ability regularly

 

As an assistant?

 

thomas, I don't think Agnew got such a good reputation, especially at this level, by just being a yes man. He doesn't have the overall authority of the team by any means but that doesn't mean he didn't give valuable feedback to AK or Steve Bruce before him. It's also about helping get the manager's message across to the players.

 

The other point worth noting is that out of the main 4 coaches at the club (Monk, Beattie, Adams and Flahavan), they're ALL under 40. It's a very young coaching setup at the club. Having an experienced head like Agnew around could make a huge difference.

 

Tell that to Craig Hignett, i have no doubt hes a good coach and gets the managers message across to the players, but under karanka it was a dictatorship and I guarantee if he disagreed with karanka in front of the players or press hed of gone before he got the chance to take over from him.

 

I mean, Karanka was the manager, what would you expect? If it was the complete opposite way around, people would question the manager's integrity. At the end of the day, most managers are dictators. That's kind of why they're there. They dictate team selection, tactics, training, etc. Even if it's indirectly dictating those things, they put their reputation on the line because the buck stops with them.

 

I think you'll find it very difficult to find a manager who isn't essentially a dictator of their club. When they're not allowed to dictate, they're often seen as undermined.

 

The way Hignett spoke was that he just didn't agree with the way Karanka did things and couldn't work that way. Just because Agnew stuck around it doesn't mean he always agreed with what Karanka did or was unable to speak about it when he didn't. Perhaps Karanka just didn't respect Hignett's lack of experience? Who knows.

 

I think you are missing my point of course he did not agree with Karanka all the time, he actually proved that when he took over by playing more on the attacking football. However when Karanka was in charge he either just did not listen to Agnew or Agnew in fear of his job probably never spoke up which would make him a yes man despite what he did after. 

 

In short I expect a manager to at least listen to other ideas and occasionally try them when things are going badly in the league. Do you reckon Conte would have been Chelsea manager if stuck with the same formation he started with at chelsea? because he changed it when it was going wrong and they won the league with the changed formation.

 

What does the formation change at Chelsea have to do with anything? The 3-4-3 was a Conte formation, one he'd used previously at Juventus and Italy if memory serves me right. I'm not saying he solely defined the idea of using it at Chelsea but it wasn't some foreign concept to him defined by his coaching staff.

 

I'm not missing the point at all mate, I think you are. Assistant manager's jobs are to assist the manager. Just because Karanka's tactical process didn't change much throughout his time here doesn't mean that the assistant manager was just a yes man. You're determining that based on things not changing. Agnew could just as easily have questioned the way we played at times, could have made suggestions here and there, but ultimately the decision is left with the manager and it's not Agnew's place to undermine that. If AK decides on a way of playing, Agnew has to assist by helping get that across to the players. That's no fault of Agnew's.

[richmfc 41]

Hignett did say Karanka would ask him what he thought and if that wasn’t what Karanka thought you had problems so I think karankas assistant was just that and had no great input. If people are calling for monk to have an assistant do they want someone to disagree with him or not

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

Hignett did say Karanka would ask him what he thought and if that wasn’t what Karanka thought you had problems so I think karankas assistant was just that and had no great input.    If people are calling for monk to have an assistant do they want someone to disagree with him or not

 

I don't particularly care if they agree or not as long as they can look past that to do their job, something Hignett didn't feel he could do. It's more about helping to get that message across. Apart from perhaps Dave Adams, the other coaches all seem to have particular roles in the coaching department. We know James Beattie works with the strikers more often than not, helped to bring Chris Wood back to his best. Flahavan is a goalkeeping coach. One thing I have read about Dave Adams is that he's a bit of an academic. There's nothing wrong with that of course but he's still pretty young for a coach.

 

It just seems to me that there's a lot on Monk's shoulders and the whole 'treat people like adults' message he sends across sounds like he might put a lot on the players' shoulders too. Sometimes you could do with a bit more help and certainly a bit more experience in helping get that message across to the players.

[Borodane 6,299]

------------Randolph-------------

Christie-Gibbo-Ayala-Fabio

--------Clayton--Howson-------

Traore-Downing-Braithwate

----------------Britt-----------------

 

Starting Traore in a desperate attempt to start the game as the team on the front foot and get the first goal. Also bringing Clayton back to push Howson a bit further upfield.

[Boro Badger 87]

------------Randolph-------------

Christie-Gibbo-Ayala-Fabio

--------Clayton--Howson-------

Traore-Downing-Braithwate

----------------Britt-----------------

 

Starting Traore in a desperate attempt to start the game as the team on the front foot and get the first goal. Also bringing Clayton back to push Howson a bit further upfield.

 

I'd like to see that team BD

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

Given how often Downing has been dictating our play from the right hand side, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually put him in the position that does that very job. I think I'd also like to see that team BD, if we're going to stick with this formation.

[sanddancer 1,967]

Well if Leeds wasn’t a must win this one is. Don’t care too much about opposition form because BORO normally make a mockery of statistics. The normal approach is to prove our capability in losing to teams that have never won. Today the weather is pretty grim but I won’t hold out to much hope of being warmed by proceedings at the Riverside. We have to win this one, have too..

[ManBearPig 1,853]

It will be interesting to see tonight how we react.

 

Firstly, Monk is under pressure after losing to Leeds. He can't afford to lose against Birmingham, else the pitch forks really will be out.

 

Secondly, performances have to be better. And it's as simple as that. If we want to be getting automatic promotion we now need to kick on to Christmas and show what we're about.

 

Thirdly, I think we massively missed Christie against Leeds but he should be fresh and pumped for tonight.

 

I'd personally like to see a more attacking line up this evening. Do we really need two cdms against Birmingham? The problem is we look more balanced with them there but struggle to go from defence to attack without a long ball or down the flanks.

 

I'd love to see a 4 3 3 tonight.

 

Randolph

Christie Gibson Ayala Fabio

Leadbitter Clayton Howson

Traore Britt Braithwaite

 

If Bamford has any future at the club he will make an appearance tonight at some stage. I think he will go in January back to Forest on loan as it's clear Monk doesn't fancy him (Johnson and Fletcher all ahead of him, then Rudy when he's back).

 

It really is a must win game. I think we will win, but I just hope we have a performance where we click into life and give us something to get excited about.

 

2-0 Boro. Braithwaite and Britt

[thomas 501]

 

As an assistant?

 

thomas, I don't think Agnew got such a good reputation, especially at this level, by just being a yes man. He doesn't have the overall authority of the team by any means but that doesn't mean he didn't give valuable feedback to AK or Steve Bruce before him. It's also about helping get the manager's message across to the players.

 

The other point worth noting is that out of the main 4 coaches at the club (Monk, Beattie, Adams and Flahavan), they're ALL under 40. It's a very young coaching setup at the club. Having an experienced head like Agnew around could make a huge difference.

 

Tell that to Craig Hignett, i have no doubt hes a good coach and gets the managers message across to the players, but under karanka it was a dictatorship and I guarantee if he disagreed with karanka in front of the players or press hed of gone before he got the chance to take over from him.

 

I mean, Karanka was the manager, what would you expect? If it was the complete opposite way around, people would question the manager's integrity. At the end of the day, most managers are dictators. That's kind of why they're there. They dictate team selection, tactics, training, etc. Even if it's indirectly dictating those things, they put their reputation on the line because the buck stops with them.

 

I think you'll find it very difficult to find a manager who isn't essentially a dictator of their club. When they're not allowed to dictate, they're often seen as undermined.

 

The way Hignett spoke was that he just didn't agree with the way Karanka did things and couldn't work that way. Just because Agnew stuck around it doesn't mean he always agreed with what Karanka did or was unable to speak about it when he didn't. Perhaps Karanka just didn't respect Hignett's lack of experience? Who knows.

 

I think you are missing my point of course he did not agree with Karanka all the time, he actually proved that when he took over by playing more on the attacking football. However when Karanka was in charge he either just did not listen to Agnew or Agnew in fear of his job probably never spoke up which would make him a yes man despite what he did after. 

 

In short I expect a manager to at least listen to other ideas and occasionally try them when things are going badly in the league. Do you reckon Conte would have been Chelsea manager if stuck with the same formation he started with at chelsea? because he changed it when it was going wrong and they won the league with the changed formation.

 

What does the formation change at Chelsea have to do with anything? The 3-4-3 was a Conte formation, one he'd used previously at Juventus and Italy if memory serves me right. I'm not saying he solely defined the idea of using it at Chelsea but it wasn't some foreign concept to him defined by his coaching staff.

 

I'm not missing the point at all mate, I think you are. Assistant manager's jobs are to assist the manager. Just because Karanka's tactical process didn't change much throughout his time here doesn't mean that the assistant manager was just a yes man. You're determining that based on things not changing. Agnew could just as easily have questioned the way we played at times, could have made suggestions here and there, but ultimately the decision is left with the manager and it's not Agnew's place to undermine that. If AK decides on a way of playing, Agnew has to assist by helping get that across to the players. That's no fault of Agnew's.

This debate could rumble on all night because i think although you make some decent points mate, i disagree on some things you have said so id be up for agreeing to disagree and just get back to talking about the game tonight.

[wilsoncgp 9,280]

Fair enough, fella. :D

[Duvel 2,446]

 

Tell that to Craig Hignett, i have no doubt hes a good coach and gets the managers message across to the players, but under karanka it was a dictatorship and I guarantee if he disagreed with karanka in front of the players or press hed of gone before he got the chance to take over from him.

 

I mean, Karanka was the manager, what would you expect? If it was the complete opposite way around, people would question the manager's integrity. At the end of the day, most managers are dictators. That's kind of why they're there. They dictate team selection, tactics, training, etc. Even if it's indirectly dictating those things, they put their reputation on the line because the buck stops with them.

 

I think you'll find it very difficult to find a manager who isn't essentially a dictator of their club. When they're not allowed to dictate, they're often seen as undermined.

 

The way Hignett spoke was that he just didn't agree with the way Karanka did things and couldn't work that way. Just because Agnew stuck around it doesn't mean he always agreed with what Karanka did or was unable to speak about it when he didn't. Perhaps Karanka just didn't respect Hignett's lack of experience? Who knows.

 

I think you are missing my point of course he did not agree with Karanka all the time, he actually proved that when he took over by playing more on the attacking football. However when Karanka was in charge he either just did not listen to Agnew or Agnew in fear of his job probably never spoke up which would make him a yes man despite what he did after. 

 

In short I expect a manager to at least listen to other ideas and occasionally try them when things are going badly in the league. Do you reckon Conte would have been Chelsea manager if stuck with the same formation he started with at chelsea? because he changed it when it was going wrong and they won the league with the changed formation.

 

What does the formation change at Chelsea have to do with anything? The 3-4-3 was a Conte formation, one he'd used previously at Juventus and Italy if memory serves me right. I'm not saying he solely defined the idea of using it at Chelsea but it wasn't some foreign concept to him defined by his coaching staff.

 

I'm not missing the point at all mate, I think you are. Assistant manager's jobs are to assist the manager. Just because Karanka's tactical process didn't change much throughout his time here doesn't mean that the assistant manager was just a yes man. You're determining that based on things not changing. Agnew could just as easily have questioned the way we played at times, could have made suggestions here and there, but ultimately the decision is left with the manager and it's not Agnew's place to undermine that. If AK decides on a way of playing, Agnew has to assist by helping get that across to the players. That's no fault of Agnew's.

This debate could rumble on all night because i think although you make some decent points mate, i disagree on some things you have said so id be up for agreeing to disagree and just get back to talking about the game tonight.

 

We should all copy and paste this onto the end of every post on here :)