We haven't improved under Fairclough

Anything and everything related to Barnet FC

We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby PBBee » 13 Feb 2011, 12:59

I'm sorry but we haven't. We are a bit better away, but not enough to counter balance how truly awful we have been at home. I am starting to remember why I wanted PF out so much a few seasons ago, the football we play is so boring and we rarely create chances. Still have the greatest respect for the man who got us promoted and he was given an impossible task anyway. Just so hard to watch. :grrr:
User avatar
Posts: 3905
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 01:04

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Jon83 » 13 Feb 2011, 13:20

Fairclough performed the 'caretaker' role perfectly after Stimson's dismissal - he stopped us losing, got some good results away from home and picked up a win at Bradford.

Unfortunately, we havent really built on the start he made and perhaps we've got slightly worse...yesterday, we were 1 nil down (admittedly with 10 men) and Fairclough was preparing to bring on Mark Hughes. When we went 2 nil down, Fairclough brought on Mark Hughes, the renowned goal scoring midfielder...

Clovis is a centre back playing at right back. Defensively he has played well on the whole however going forward and in particular his crossing was abysmal.... why have we signed Dunleavy and not played him?

We need a miracle to stay up... part of that miracle needs to be a new manager, someone who can galvanise the club because yesterday it looked to me as though the players and fans gave up the fight of staying in this division...
Posts: 2098
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 19:35

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby kingpinfid » 13 Feb 2011, 13:25

I have to agree.

Fairclough doesn't seem to have learnt from his mistakes first time round - i.e. placing too much faith in inexperienced hopefuls and believing that a positive outlook will solve everything.

I have some questions for Fairclough:

If funds have been available, why have we not brought in some decent players? The excuse that they don't want to sign for a struggling side does not wash - most of the other struggling sides in this league have made decent signings (see Lincoln in particular).

Where is the replacement for Mark Bryne? He left months ago, where is the attacking centre mid replacement vital for any team that uses a 4-5-1 formation?

Why sign Dunleavy and then not play him? Do you seriously believe that Wolves will ever loan us a player again after this debacle?

As nice a guy as Fairclough is, it looks increasingly unlikely that he will be able to keep us up. So I feel that the time is right to gamble and appoint someone new. What's the worst that could happen? Relegation - which is probably where we are heading with Fairclough anyway.
Posts: 3152
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 15:16

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby jerroll » 13 Feb 2011, 14:04

Sadly it looks as if PF will finiosh the job he started 2 years ago when we always in a false higher position due to the 3 teams with points deductions. The main problem is he does not have a talisman who can produce a little magic from nowhere like he always had with the likes of Graham in the conference, Bailey , Puncheon and Albert A. He only won 1 out of 11 home games then so sadly he seems to be able to grind out draws away but cannot win at home. Looks like relegation to League 3 is inevitable i'm afraid.
Posts: 9684
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Paul Pasqualoni » 13 Feb 2011, 14:43

jerroll wrote:He only won 1 out of 11 home games then so sadly he seems to be able to grind out draws away but cannot win at home. Looks like relegation to League 3 is inevitable i'm afraid.

I'm still at a loss to see why PF now appears to be in charge until the end of the season rather than putting someone in charge who could try and address the issues.

We seem to have replaced Stimson who managed 19 points in half a season with someone who was removed from the job as team manager 2 years ago for putting the club in exactly the same position with 19 points from 23 at the start of the 08/09 season.

I'm in no way saying we should have kept Stimson who should have gone after the Stevenage home game but I can't see what restoring PF to first team manager has acheived

In 08/09 Hendon brought in Cole, Lockwood, Bolasie, Furlong all of which were better than the squad he inherited (eg Carew, Leary, Kadoch, Akurang and other Fairclough signings). They were clearly better than what we had and our form improved considerably.

This time we have brought in O Brien and Dunleavy to sit on the bench, Pulis who is an identical player to Hughes and will now miss 3 games and Deering who it's too early to make judgement on. The only one signing which may have improved us as a team so far is Fraser who he has taken off in the last two home games!
User avatar
Paul Pasqualoni
Posts: 795
Joined: 31 Jan 2011, 19:53

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby johnp » 13 Feb 2011, 15:01

I too haven't seen any real improvement since Fairclough has come in and already am thinking of non-league football next year.
Barnfields Plumbing & Property
User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 19:42
Location: Barnet

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Bee_Forever » 13 Feb 2011, 15:20

If we do go down, it will not be a legacy of Paul Fairclough, but of the players he has had to work with.

There is only so much squad reshaping you can do midway through the season, and unless we somehow manage to offload Taylor, Stimson, Cox, Jarvis and Kelly, PF will simply not have the squad budget needed to strengthen much more.

It has been clear for some time now that we do not have the players to keep us in this league (particularly up front) and we seem either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. I am happy to take PF word that it is the latter, but after yesterdays performance, the only way this squad is going is back to the conference

He tried to change things yesterday with two new midfielders, but it was the same lazy (McLeod) and ineffective (Kabba) strikerforce which they were working with, with no real alternatives on the benxch. Pulis sending off was the final nail in the coffin. As an attacking force, facing barnet is the same as being savaged by a toothless poodle.

I am just so gutted that Holmes got injured when he did. As well as having one of the worst squads in the football league, we have had truly awful luck with Injuries at the worst possible times.
Posts: 3189
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:25

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby letchbee94 » 13 Feb 2011, 15:23

Kleanthous is to blame.
Posts: 6102
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:59

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby jamiefrbees » 13 Feb 2011, 17:51

Suspect he's taken Fraser off last two games because he's been on a yellow and is susceptible to losing his head and is more important in the long-run in games we still have a chance of winning..

Agree that to be fair everything that can go wrong this season has, particularly injury wise.
Dennehy was hotly tiped - got crocked.
Byrne showed form - got crocked.
Kabba showed form - got crocked.
Holmes showed form - got crocked.
McLeod was crocked - showed he's also suffering from a balance disorder
Barnet, Barnet, Barnet, because...we're staying up, and it's the bondz the bondz the bondz the bondz the bondz the bondz the bondz that will keep us together...

Why does it always fall to Togwell?
Posts: 3496
Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 11:46

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Kidology » 13 Feb 2011, 18:25

Bee_Forever wrote:If we do go down, it will not be a legacy of Paul Fairclough, but of the players he has had to work with.

That's somewhat harsh on the players, I feel. It's hardly their fault that they're not good enough - it is more of a question of lack of ability than a lack of effort. The players were mostly signed by Stimson, but who knows what his budget was for signing on fees, who knows what he was allowed to spend on wages? Were these the best players available for the money that was available, or did Stimson make a number of poor recruitment decisions? The players have been inherited by Fairclough, whose 8 games in charge have arguably produced worse football, and have definitely produced worse results than Stimson's last 8 matches. All the evidence we have suggests these players are not competent League 2 footballers.

I have had the feeling for several years that Kleanthous knows next to nothing about football. It seems he thinks he can run a football club like a business. What he has failed to appreciate is the link between on the field success and off the field prosperity. It doesn't seem to me that he places any value on players as assets, and consequently managers have always been scraping the bottom of the barrel in their quest to attract players. And while he has spent millions in building the Hive, it appears he expected a financial return from that facility, that he has a tangible asset to cling onto. All the while he has ignored the front line of the business that occurs on the pitch. Players do not seem to be assets to him, rather they are employees who can be recruited for the minimum possible outlay.

For years he has appeared untouchable. A majority of fans have seen him as some sort of deity, impossible to criticise, incapable of doing anything wrong, and yet we have not progressed on the pitch since we re-entered the Football League, and knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes has been limited to a select and precious few. What on earth happened to the two weeks of serious thinking that he was doing following Stimson's dismissal and the promised decisions he was going to make? It is not Fairclough's fault that we are in this position, but the fact that he has not brought in a new manager is a farce. How short is his memory if he felt that Fairclough was the man to get us out of this mess? Did he not remember his shortcomings from his last spell in charge? And what were his conclusions following this period of contemplation? Has he, like most of us, given up?

The fanbase has stagnated for years, and that stems from consistently poor performances on the pitch which have failed to attract new people to Underhill. Kleanthous appears to have completely missed the connection between a growing, successful football club, and the increase in publicity, sponsorship and attendances that would bring.

It looks like it's too late now. The legacy belongs to Kleanthous, no-one else. Just like this football club.
User avatar
Posts: 87
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 19:25

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby BeeBoi1980 » 13 Feb 2011, 18:29

AFC Barnet anyone????
Can somebody please provide some optimism....
Posts: 1301
Joined: 13 Feb 2011, 10:32

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Bee_Forever » 13 Feb 2011, 19:38

Ok, can I point out something that has improved during Fairclough's time. - food in the pavilion. Had a marvellous fry up in the Pav before the Manc Derby.

Granted not something related to the football, but if the football can improve as much as the food has, we may be on to something!
Posts: 3189
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 20:25

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby Jon83 » 13 Feb 2011, 20:05

We have never replaced Mark Byrne, who whilst he wasnt setting the world alight, was a competent footballer at this level who importantly could score goals from midfield.

More recently, we havent replaced Ricky Holmes. Why have we signed Fraser & Pulis when we already have Hughes. Southam, Cox & Jarvis. There is no variety in the midfield whatsoever and none of them compliment each other in anyway. Dearing looked ok for the 45 mins he was on, played some nice little passes and looked the part - why did we wait until the start of February to sign someone like him rather than the moment we knew that Holmes was out for the season.
Posts: 2098
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 19:35

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby dangerous » 13 Feb 2011, 20:29

we could do a lincoln and win the next 5...its a funny old game
Posts: 292
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 18:44

Re: We haven't improved under Fairclough

Postby beeamazed » 13 Feb 2011, 21:40

Not that funny..... :wacko:
Posts: 243
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 13:24


Return to General Barnet Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests