Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mostyn6

  • Rank
    please stop quoting Curtains.
  • Birthday July 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,810 profile views
  1. Breakfast club taught me/us in attendance that whilst his decisions might not always be right, he's an intelligent and dedicated bloke who does actually want what's best in the long term. I never got the impression of Mel being someone with ulterior motives or an underlying agenda. Quite publicly, he wants Derby to be in the PL and he wants to leave a legacy of a great football club behind. I got the feeling, and he alluded to it, that he won't make decisions to "appease" fans going forward, which is the only reason we can explain appointing Nigel Pearson a few years back.
  2. yes, the improvement was vindication for Wassall bringing in help. If it was anything more, as you're suggesting, why wasn't Wassall relegated back to the academy and Redknapp given the title of interim gaffer?
  3. you "don't think"? What evidence have you got? I'm using the official explanations, given by Morris, Rush, Wassall and Redknapp, that Redknapp was an advisor, not a decision-maker or coach, just a senior assistant manager. I'll wait for you to prove me wrong.
  4. Promotion, Promotion, Promotion, Promotion, Promotion, er.... got Forests hopes up with 8/8 in 2014/15?, Promotion and Promotion?
  5. I would argue it's a sign of self-awareness and lack of delusion if you realise you need the right staff to help you. I would argue that had Nigel Clough sought a better backroom staff, he might have got us promoted to the PL. I seem to recall the great Jim Smith struggling for years, scratting around trying to replace McClaren with the likes of Crosby, Round, Smith? and eventually settling on Todd before being sacked. It's an important position and Wassall had nobody until Redknapp to support him. Every manager needs an assistant. Even the "greats". Do you dismiss any good Brian Clough did because he needed Peter Taylor? You both look daft with such ignorant comments.
  6. absolutely disingenuous claptrap to put the blame for Rotherham and Hull, and Jason Shackell at Wassall's door, and I'll tell you why; those things repeated themselves, under every manager since. Every manager since, and before, had teams that threw away leads, had a player who was a bit of a dick, and didn't get promoted. If you actually did some factual research, you'll find that Wassall's contribution was way more positive than it was negative. He arrested the slide (from top on boxing day, to 5th on Valentine's Day) and re-introduced attacking football, goals, wins and a feelgood factor, whilst sustaining a play-off place. The Rotherham game had no bearing on the season whatsoever. It didn't impact on our play-off place at all. The Hull first leg was solely about player error(s). Go and look at the goals ffs! He didn't pick a negative team or formation. It's sickening and shamefully ignorant that you (people) cannot associate mental weakness in the team with what happened in those 2 games, but can to perhaps defend anyone other than Wassall.
  7. Mel still hopes Frank will stay
  8. you're too easily riled. You need to chill out or get some counselling.
  9. Not sure Allardyce's football is ugly to watch and I'm pretty sure we've only been part-attractive over the last 5-6 years. I would expect Allardyce's football to be as sporadically attractive and ugly as we are used to.
  10. Get Allardyce in. He'll organise that central defence and cut out the goals scored in the width of the goal from pen spot to 6yd box
  11. well, first off, just said "Lampard is DUE to talk to Chelsea tomorrow" on talksport.
  12. well, first off, just said "Lampard is DUE to talk to Chelsea tomorrow" on talksport.
  13. I expect him to talk more about the spread of TV money and the bad deal and missed opportunities for media/streaming etc.
  14. they are quoting the Sun, which has re-hashed a story from last week. Not saying it's not happening, but that story is not confirmation.
  15. I wouldn't agree with that. We had 3 loans, roughly 27-28% of the on-field team. They were at the forefront cos they belonged to Liverpool/Chelsea and were young and British, but truth be told, the rest of the team contributed just as much as those three. I could pick holes in all 3 player's games and effectiveness, not to be cruel or moan, just because that is the level we are at and they are still learning the game. Wolves went up with their loan players being very effective too, not sure it's a bad thing. I agree with your statement in general though, I just don't think they were the core.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.