He said..."We have got to get the ball down and play because we haven't got a Richard Barker that we can throw the ball up to."...I'm lost for words ...oh, loved the comment about nobody talking about the playoffs ....I must have misread the previous comments then. It's a bit like Basil Fawlty saying ..."Don't mention the war"

Mansfield need a new manager. He could take Barker with him. They could get a lie in.

Didn't they notice the 'crowd' who are actually left loved the controversial shift in style of play last night!?

I actually spoke to some people in the pub before the game and they said they weren't going because they wouldn't be able to see Barker battle for an aimless punt bring it down (whilst getting the shit kicked out of him) take three touches then lay it off. That's entertainment.

I'm not one for shouting for Managers (and their assistants) heads every day as it can be counter productive in most cases. BUT....I must say this is a crucial point about our way of playing. Since the days of Chris Turner we have styled our method of play on having two quick and skilful forwards and playing a quick-passing game throughout the side. Largely this has paid dividends with the added bonus that it is great to watch - we have had some great entertainment at Pools over the last 7 or so years.

Butterworth's comments in the Mail last night coupled with DW's style of play has finally convinced me that they see the long-ball method as our preferred style. If this is the case then I think they should both depart. We have had a return to our normal style of play in the last three games (due to the enforced absence of our target man) and its been great to watch. Personally I would rather watch this every week.

I have nothing personal against Richie Barker, he gives 100% for us every time he plays, but I think that style of play can only be successful to a certain degree - and its crap to watch! That way of playing mught f=get you out of League Two but as you get further up the league ladder it doesn't work. Lets get back to playing football - if the present management team insist on playing the long ball game then they should be replaced asap

It's amazing the kind of things you find when you read between the lines isn't it.

Pairing a burly centre forward with a mobile striker is hardly an unknown combination. The problem is the team has to have good enough judgement to know which path to goal to use and when. So how come nobody names and shames the culprits who are pumping too many long balls up?

And if long balls are a deliberate tactic does that explain why we lumped the ball up to the titanesque David Foley all game when he played a full 90 minutes in attack? And was it a deliberate tactic when Cooper was in charge the times I saw us lump long balls up to Porter all game?

Hopefully Wilson and Butterworth are getting the message that when the players can't make sensible decisions, you have to deny them access to the worst options. Unfortunately for Barker that means sitting on the bench, but he only has his team mates to blame for that.

Er ... maybe the reporter asked him about Barker. Would you have done if you had been interviewing him?

Maybe this quote from Butterworth in the Echo this week will ease your minds a bit:
"If you are in the side and scoring goals then you stay there; if you are a defender keeping clean sheets you do as well. Everyone has a role to play.''

Who said the quote below? It should sound familiar 'cos he says practically the same thing every time. I find this more demoralising than anything Butterworth or Wilson might say.

"We had some harsh words at Bournemouth and as a group of players we knew the situation we could find ourselves in. The ones who went through relegation before certainly said what they had to say.
It is all right saying don't look at the table, but you do when it's your livelihood on the line. We didn't want to go to Oldham on the back of that. It was always going to be tough but to get the win there really built the confidence, knowing that we had two home games coming up."

Disclamier, I am not implying any criticism of him as a footballer, just as a speaker.

That's fine if it is applied equally. But because Barker is our top scorer (only because of the penalties he's scored) Then as soon as he is available and Porter fails to score in a game, then Wilson will say "Porter- not consistent" and back will come Barker and his one goal in six games from open play consistency.

I'm not against Barker, he always gives 100% but at this level and at his age, reliance on him as the main striker led us into a relagation battle.

The way forward is to play quick, passing football - this has worked for us in the past and it is better for the supporters to watch. We are good at it as well - we can play the vast majority of teams in the lower divisions off the park.

There may be occasions when a more direct style will pay off and a bustling centre forward type may come in useful. But, I don't think this should be our default option.

So why, before Barkers injury, were we playing the long punt then ....? if it's not mentioned as being preferred by them, do the players go out on the field and make it up as they go along and how else do you interpret... 'as we didn't have a Richard Barker to throw the ball to'...?
The evidence would suggest otherwise.

The trouble is, butterworth has meade an ambiguous statement that is open to various interpretations..a sort of pick n mix and think what you like sort of opinion... I read it as a confirmation of barkers role as the No 1 Striker in their eyes. Unfortunately the management appear to have not actually worked out a coherent plan for his deployment on the pitch and the whole season seems to have been a protracted experiment in finding the right blend, which we now seem to have stumbled upon, more by chance than design. As for "play Barker= hit long balls", what does he do...? You praise his ability to 'deal with the long ball aimed at his throat'... but then what...? Getting the ball and holding it is only half the equation, the distribution is the other half and as finding compatable players to his particular style of play is proving rather protracted, the last few games have been a pleasure to watch.
I won't beat about the bush and I said this several months ago, Barker was brought in to get us up, job done, but the team needed for the challenge of Div 1 was always going to demand a different approach.

Barker and Porter do not mix, if it was the case, we'd not be having this 'discussion'. If you want to play Barker as the main man, get rid of the rest of our strikers, build your forward line around him and have two wide men feeding him ....and when the whole ghastly experiment is over, let me know.

I think the thing is, if you want to use the quote to criticise, you can. If you want to suggest that Butterworth was saying Barkers absence made the players think differently, you can also. It just depends on your mindset and I think most could have predicted who would fall which way.

Whatever you end up agreeing or disagreeing on, I'm delighted for Michael Mackay that he's now being spoken of as an equal and not just a speculative non-league smash-and-grab experiment.
It would be nice if we had some meat to put on the bones of Michael Rae too.

Oh and changing the subject, I've met people even blinder than those who cannot see!

lets hope he is a quick learner then as JOEL is off at the end of the season

I don't often shout.

WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT STRIKERS, WE SCORE LIKE A PROMOTION TEAM, WE HAVE TO STOP LEAKING GOALS, NOW FOR F UC KS SAKE SHUT UP ABOUT BARKER AND PORTER!!!!!!

and worry about how to stop conceding.

Okay??

But he will not see that!!

If you don't want to debate the point, don't. You seem to have a problem with me disagreeing with your view of things, hence the unusual, for you, resort to sarcasm ..... aint it awful when people won't compromise.

and collins

no but you could name all the players that have made a differance or as collins not made a differance

did the others really need saying

and so is collins give credit were its due

what clique is there a clique are you realy the leader

are you just stalking me for a free pint in the millhouse on easter monday

i was warned you where willing to put hours of work in for a pint

fook me how much does a pint cost
mouldy was right you are cheep

depends what you look like

I am not some disruptive element in a classroom to be put down, so let's keep to the facts of the infamous 'quote'. In your original post you condemn the partial quote, ...the only 'quote' that was given in the press, so I can only go by that can't I..? You come out with a much longer quote, yet you state it was from your recollection, hmmm ..... that's some power of recollection if I might say.
I believe that Butterworths final line was a damning indictment of our style of play regardless of what preceded it and more Freudian slip than you care to concede.
Finally, if we fail to resolve a disagreement and my persistence annoys you, just say you disagree with me and that's that, we fail to agree.

Really, it's a bit like Hitler saying....."I don't want a war, war is terrible, it costs lives and must be avoided at all costs, so to stop all fututre wars ....I'm going to invade Europe!"............ Now, if I just take the last five words, I could be accused of taking it out of context, so .... I do think he ought to be careful about what he says in future...that's how wars start