Author Topic: Clarke (balance)  (Read 946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LUFC1992KLFC

  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Clarke (balance)
« on: January 02, 2019, 09:17:14 AM »
Without any doubt I believe we are in better hands with Ian Culverhouse than we where with Clarke.
However maybe there should be some balance regards Clarkes results and our relative poor start.
Lowestoft result aside, we lost at home to Biggleswade, Stourbridge and away at Kettering.
These are all teams who have proved to be pace setters in the league. Was unfortunate those "big" games so early. At a time when rebuilding.
As I started, glad to have Culverhouse back but on reflection remember we had a tough start to the season.
Now onwards and upwards.

Mallard

  • Posts: 2642
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2019, 09:25:44 AM »
Fair comment that LU.  However defeats are one thing, the manner of those defeats is something else.   In particular Biggleswade and Lowestoft.  The team looked confused and lacking in confidence.  There was almost an automatic uplift when Backie took charge.

Is Clark now employed elsewhere in Football?

Loughborough Linnet

  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2019, 10:27:54 AM »
Fair comment that LU.  However defeats are one thing, the manner of those defeats is something else.   In particular Biggleswade and Lowestoft.  The team looked confused and lacking in confidence.  There was almost an automatic uplift when Backie took charge.

Is Clark now employed elsewhere in Football?

I'd agree with Mallard. It was the performance of the team under Clarke that was the real issue; they didn't look like a team at all. That when Backie took charge, they instantly looked more cohesive and played better, suggests that Clarke was a negative influence on performance.

poshlinnet

  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2019, 12:20:41 PM »
..... the manner of those defeats is something else.   In particular Biggleswade and Lowestoft.  The team looked confused and lacking in confidence. 

Agree with that 100%. The team under Clarke seemed to have no attacking flow, little to no confidence and seemed to me to be too rigid. No-one looked like they wanted to back each other up. When Clarke had gone the first game Vs Histon was amazing. Free flowing and everybody helping each other out. It was a team of 11 players rather than 11 individuals. In general I don't care if we lose as long as the players are playing for the badge on their shirt.

Mick

  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2019, 02:56:59 PM »
The team would have done better if Simon Clarke had told the players to play how they did last season under Ian Culverhouse and then disappeared to the bar for a pint of bitter and a packet of pork scratchings. The change of form under Rob and Neil and then the return of IC has been immense.

The only regret Stephen Cleeve should have is that he should have been ruthless sooner. 16:55 on the 25th August would have been about right. Sounds harsh and spiteful I know, but it's true.

LUFC1992KLFC

  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2019, 03:44:45 PM »
Hard to disagree with any of you on the face of it.
However had those ugly defeats been ugly wins, we would of taken it as going in the right direction.


Mallard

  • Posts: 2642
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2019, 03:48:39 PM »
To balance things Clark was really in a no win situation.   To follow on from the success, or rather near success of Culver was going to be near impossible.  Then when you factor in the massive list of Norman and King the guy was really up against it, in terms of recruitment.  All the signings he made werenít poor, just not up to the standard of what had been lost.

Then he had to stamp his own mark onto the team. It would seem that the players just didnít buy into philosophy on the game, which after Culverhouse is hardly surprising.

All round it was a poor appointment by the Club.  Says a lot if Stephen Cleeve saw him as the best applicant from all that supposedly applied.

One thing that canít be denied though is that Clark had a greater depth to his squad than Culverhouse is now enjoying.   Why ?

LUFC1992KLFC

  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2019, 03:54:23 PM »
Between full time managers, we released a few fringe players who made up numbers such as McQuade and Hilliard

Linnet1993

  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2019, 04:08:01 PM »
To balance things Clark was really in a no win situation.   To follow on from the success, or rather near success of Culver was going to be near impossible.  Then when you factor in the massive list of Norman and King the guy was really up against it, in terms of recruitment.  All the signings he made werenít poor, just not up to the standard of what had been lost.

Then he had to stamp his own mark onto the team. It would seem that the players just didnít buy into philosophy on the game, which after Culverhouse is hardly surprising.

All round it was a poor appointment by the Club.  Says a lot if Stephen Cleeve saw him as the best applicant from all that supposedly applied.

One thing that canít be denied though is that Clark had a greater depth to his squad than Culverhouse is now enjoying.   Why ?

Because the likes of Hilliard, McQuaid, Stewart had been offloaded to get in the likes of Marriott and Henderson

Linnet1993

  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2019, 04:14:01 PM »
All you have to do is look at the bottom 6 of the league and look at the results we had against them with Clark in charge, aswell as the FA cup against Histon. He had lost the team in about 3 games, the fans after 2 and the chairman after 7. He recruited poorly, Aaron Jones fell into his lap, Stewart, Rocha not good enough, destroyed Limb in 2 months, Thomas was bought in and never got a chance, Richards has done okay only signing he can really get credit for is McCauley. He also passed in Higgs!


birch95

  • Moderated
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2019, 04:38:43 PM »
The point of this post :dontknow: he is history letís move on...... :scarf:

LUFC1992KLFC

  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Clarke (balance)
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2019, 04:53:34 PM »
not really a point
just an observation from looking at the table