The Poolie Bunker

Slightly misleading headline in the Mail. Seems Clark is sure the system is absolutely fine. Here's his words:

"You’ve obviously been listening to social media. The system’s worked, we’ve won three out of six and we’ve got the best defensive, probably not now, but the second best defensive record, but we had the best defensive record coming into the game. We’ve got four strikers, what am I going to do? Just play with one? I’ve even seen when we went down to ten, we stayed with two strikers on the pitch. If we are going to go down the old tactical route, everyone is obsessed with it, aren’t they? Everyone is a top coach. If we lose, it’s down the tactics, it’s down to the system. But it never gets mentioned when you win.”

Of course the system and tactics do get mentioned when we win. The 1-0 'victory' against Woking is a prime example when most of us were questioning the tactics when we won but came damned close to drawing when we got overwhelmed in the second half. We won at Aldershot with a massive amount of luck and people were questioning the tactics even then. Anyway, the long and the short of is, Clark is happy with the way the team is setup so no change in system or tactics will happen under his tenure.

If our present run continues, he won’t have a system to worry about.

The stats don't lie. When Harris and Popov are the front two there's a 1 in 3 chance one of them will score (bit less after Saturday). When Clark replaces them with Hugill and Bondo, as he does most games, the likelihood of Pools scoring (that xG thingie) goes down to about zero.

Pools have a Head of Performance and a Head of Analysis on the staff - how come neither of them has had a word?

(That's Danny Nye and Sam Clifton in case you're wondering Snowy. No wonder there's no money left for players )

I think this can safely defined as …..’over engieering’.
We have it appears a myriad of role players , ensuring no one is responsible for anything…and anything that does go wrong results in fingers being pointed with gay abandon all over the place so that no one carries the can.
I do prefer the idea of a manager who is a manger with a right hand assistant manager who answer for everything else.
It’s obvious the off field crude overmanning is just a waste of money and effort if our results are anything to go by.
Just my opinion like.

"The system" which cannot be changed means opposition coaches know what to expect and how to play against us, even down to the completely predictable substitutions. A good manager / coach changes tactics and personnel to attain results. Clark seemingly is one dimensional. Why were giving Bondo game time is a mystery when we've loaned 2 young strikers out who must surely be better players than Bondo.

How did Cyril Knowles n Pop Robson ever manage all them roles on their own.
Then a commercial manager finished the job off when Cyril got seriously ill (RIP Fella)

Er I think we got Promotion that season.

To many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind.

UTP.

Head of Performance is surely a joke? Surely assessing the performance and acting on it is the manager/coach's job.
I'll do it for free, so far the performances have ranged between poor and piss poor.
Clark obviously has no clue if he thinks just having strikers on the pitch is what wins games, you have to provide them with opportunities to put the ball in the net and that's what's missing.