Back to the Eighties

Wycombe had a player with long hair. Disappointingly, if predictably, this led to constant comments throughout the game from some: “oh, gyppo’s got the ball”; “don’t let gyppo score” etc. There were also occasional chants of “where’s your caravan” and “gyppo” from the Kop. The chants and comments weren’t funny – they were tedious and detracted from a good City performance.

Apparently, for some “kicking racism out of football” means not abusing black players. Gypsies / travellers are still fair game. As far as I’m concerned, these fans can fuck off back to the 1980s where they belong.

Luke O’Brien

City’s homegrown youngster is in fine form at the moment and was my man of the match yesterday. A tigerish performance saw O’Brien make several important interceptions, clearances (one off the line, IIRC), and tackles – as well as making several marauding forward runs. O’Brien’s performances on days like yesterday make me think he’s the best full back we’ve had for a long, long time. At times, he looks so accomplished it’s difficult to believe he’s still only 22 years old. O’Brien also (along with Flynn) played an important part in City’s goal (which I will be watching again when the BBC make the video available online).

The new boys

Dobie impressed me with his movement, his work rate and his footballing intelligence. Ellison was strong and hard-working. He might not have the flair of Omar Daley, but it looks like he will “put in a shift” for City. And scoring on his debut won’t have done him any harm.

Injuries

It was good to see City’s leaders back in the starting line-up together – Flynn and Ramsden have been badly missed this season. The downside is that we have picked up at least two further injuries (I’m not sure whether Worthington was substituted at half-time due to injury or anonymity). James Hanson went off early to be replaced by the enthusisastic Gareth Evans and David Syers was substituted for Williams later on. Both will be missed should they be out of action for forthcoming games.

The officials

I thought the officials had a good game yesterday. I thought the nudge by Lewis Hunt probably merited a penalty, and that Luke O’Brien was unfortunate to be penalised for a foul late on in the game as he ran at the Wycombe defence. Generally though, a good performance from the officials (and that’s not something I say too often).

Work rate

Having attempted to stroll through the Barnet game (with disastrous consequences), City actually went out on Saturday and worked. They got the three points their effort deserved, but the next time I go to Valley Parade I won’t know whether the players are going to turn up or not. It’s no good giving 100% against Wycombe if you come back two weeks later and give 50% against Stockport. That’s how we lost to Barnet…

Having had the odd experience of a summer with more interest in the court appearances of our players than in the possible comings and goings inthe transfer market, our first home league game of the season saw another crime – in which fourteen players conspired to mug a Stevenage side.

Stevenage Borough would have been worthy winners yesterday, and can consider themselves very unfortunate indeed to have come away with nothing. Stevenage can perhaps console themselves with the thought that they will surely play worse and win at some point in this season. The summary on the front page of the Stevenage Stevenage website says:

Stevenage were unfortunate to come away from this encounter without at least a point as a penalty decides the game.

I think that’s putting it mildly. Statistics in football are often debatable – what counts as a shot on target? – but I think the stats on the BBC’s report accurately reflect the state of yesterday’s game. The away side managed 17 shots [5 on target] to City’s paltry 3 [1 on target]. With more clinical finishing (or just a little luck) Stevenage could have won convincingly.

Players looked like they were either tired or ring-rusty, with passes going astray all over the pitch, defenders putting Jon McLaughlin under pressure with terrible back passes, and the City midfield stuggling to get a grip on the game.

We created almost nothing and Hanson and Evans huffed and puffed for little reward. Without the award of a penalty when Lee Bullock tumbled in the box (converted by Gareth Evans), City might have played all day and not scored.

I’m not too worried about the way the side performed yesterday. I think that this was just a bad day at the office for City – and expect to see an improved performance when I next go to see the Bantams play.

The main positive to take from the match is perhaps that City, for once, have managed to play badly and win. Being able to play that badly and win perhaps bodes well for the rest of the season. It was in stark contrast to some of the matches I watched last season.

The Crewe game that City lost 3-2 last season was one of the most exciting matches I’ve seen at Valley Parade for many years. We dropped three points that day, but I think it was the first time I’ve ever enjoyed watching Bradford City lose. The work-rate and entertainment levels that day were absolutely first class.

That the same could not be said for yesterday’s match may explain the smattering of boos that rang out at the final whistle. Despite the victory bringing us our first three points of the season, some were so disappointed by the performance that they chose to express their displeasure.

I think Stuart McCall is a manager more likely to entertain the fans, but perhaps Peter Taylor will prove to be a manager more likely to pick up vital points. He might even be able to drag us into the play-offs this season. We will have to wait and see…

Convictions

I was shocked when I heard that Gavin Grant was in court on a charge of murder. When I watched him play for Bradford City last season, I had no idea that he had killed a man. The quote from Det Insp Steve Horsley makes for uncomfortable reading: “Gavin Grant thought he had got away with murder. He carried on his footballing career while, all along, he had blood on his hands.”

Having been shocked at the charges faced by Gavin Grant, I was horrified to finally find out today the details of Jake Speight’s arrest (I stopped reading about football during the summer and missed BfB’s take on the situation).

The Daily Star reported on Speight’s ex-girlfriend’s story. Speight is reported to have bitten, grabbed, and whacked Kathy Mugglestone.

I don’t care how good a player Jake Speight is – I for one will not be chanting his name. For me heroes need to be more than just good players – they need to be good men. Men of the character of Wayne Jacobs, David Weatherall or Stuart McCall.

When Zesh Rehman made a bad error that led to the first Macclesfield goal, boos rang out. This was, to an extent, an understandable reaction to the concession of such a goal (although I have to say, I did not join in with the booing myself – I am still of the opinion that you don’t boo your own).

Teams are often booed when they go behind at home, and it is usually unclear as to whether an individual is being booed or whether the fans are simply voicing their displeasure at conceding a goal.

However, the booing continued every time Rehman touched the ball. As he went to retrieve the ball from near the dugout, the fans immediately in front of him began applauding. This fine initiative soon spread and we on the Kop joined in with the applause, adding vaguely encouraging shouts of “go on Zesh”.

It was heartwarming and unusual to see such a reaction to the abuse of a Bradford player by his own fans. In fact, apart from the goal scored by Luke Oliver, this was perhaps the highlight of the game for me.

In my opinion, Valley Parade is a better place to play football and to watch football when the boo boys stay silent – I do hope that the next time they target an individual the rest of the crowd will respond in the same way that they did today and drown out the negative response of those fans who feel entitled to pick on players they dislike.

I say “dislike” for a reason. After all, I don’t recall Bolder being booed for his lapse against Dagenham and Redbridge (or either of the centre-halves for their own goals in the same game). Clearly simply making a mistake is not enough to draw abuse or booing from the crowd – the player making the mistake must be a popular scapegoat before the fans will target him with boos.

The fans who began the applause, and those who joined in with it, are more than just fans in my opinion – they are supporters.

Rory Boulding’s career at Bradford City never really looked like taking off, and brother Michael struggled to impress (against burly League Two defenders, in a side whose game didn’t really seem to suit him). While I wish them well, I do not think that the team has really lost an important cog in Michael Boulding or his brother Rory.

Peter Taylor, on the other hand, would be a loss to the club. In the short time that he has been at the club, we have seen a more solid and better organised City side – and we have seen the confidence return. It would be a shame if this promising new beginning were curtailed and the search for a new manager had to begin again from scratch.

My hope is that Taylor will remain with City at least until the end of the season and that the supporters, the team, and the board will persuade the manager to stay for significantly longer. Ideally, the players currently at the club will prove themselves worthy of a place in the squad next season. It would be nice to have some stability and continuity not just in the manager’s office, but in the dressing room.

For me, Ramsden, Flynn and others are important members of the side. I would aim to keep them, and would add to that list:

James Hanson (surely worthy of a place in next year’s squad), the raw but potentially exciting prospect Gareth Evans, the reliable Lee Bullock, the inconsistent but always dangerous Omar Daley, Matt Clarke (who has been much-maligned for his lapses in concentration, but is the strong centre-half we need), the promising defenders Steve Williams and Jonathon Bateson, the ever-present Luke O’Brien.

The ‘maybe’ pile would include our two captains at the start of the season, the injury-plagued Peter Thorne and the error-prone Zesh Rehman. Scott Neilson has, for me, done well enough to be given a chance to continue his football education at Bradford but being sent out on loan is perhaps some indication of his perceived standing in the squad – not a good omen. In my opinion, James O’Brien and Stephen O’Leary have yet to prove themselves (although O’Brien’s dead-ball prowess has impressed), but they may both do so before the end of the season.

Jon McLaughlin has yet to put a foot wrong when playing for the first team – but he has played the sum total of two league games for the club and as such is still an unknown quantity.  There will be also be the question of the youngsters who haven’t quite broken through – Luke Sharry and Leon Osborne.

As for players who might be signed, well I wouldn’t mind seeing more of some of the players we have temporarily. Adam Bolder looked skilful and tigerish in his Valley Parade debut, and Robbie Threlfall is a quality player.  It will be interesting to see how much football Mark McCammon and Gavin Grant get between now and the end of the season and whether Taylor views them as potential signings for next season. Matt Glennon will presumably return to Huddersfield at the end of his loan, and I wouldn’t bet on Luke Oliver being a Bantam next year

Apart from them, I’d just like to see us make a few tweaks. A midfield of Xavi and Iniesta, with Messi playing up front, could see us mount a real promotion challenge next season.

Stable Instability

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was wondering if anyone at the club could reconcile the mid-season departure of Stuart McCall and subsequent announcement that the club were looking for a caretaker to see out the season with the following quote: “Bradford City have had enough turmoil and non-stability at this club”?

I am baffled as to how the situation at the club now can be said to be “stable”. The board’s recent actions seem at odds with the above quote. The quote in question comes from this BBC news story: BBC and I assume that Mark Lawn’s words have been reported accurately by the BBC.

A further question I would like to ask is this: does anyone at the club know what the effect is of changing managers following a dip in form?

The only research that I have seen does not fill me with confidence for the medium-term or long-term prospects of Bradford City.

I quote: “Between 12 and 18 games after appointment, the points’ benefit of changing manager has vanished, suggesting that on average there is only a short-term gain and a longer-term negative effect of changing manager.” (Via this website: McCall Out).

It’s worth noting that the comments the BBC ascribe to Lawn go further:

“I think that Stuart has been a stabling influence and he deserves a new contract so we’ll be sitting down next week and offering him a contract.”

Having acted to avoid turmoil and instability by offering a new contract to someone seen as a “stabling influence”, Lawn has now been involved in the departure of this stabilising influence and in the decision to appoint a temporary manager. Bizarre.

More

I should note that the research I refer to is available as a PDF linked to in the McCall Out post. This research first came to my attention via a comment thread on the Boy from Brazil website and I failed to acknowledge that BfB was my ‘source’ for this research. Apologies for the lack of attribution.

As I’ve noted before, of the ethics of blogging: “Key issues in the blogosphere are telling the truth, accountability, minimizing harm and attribution.” Oops.

This will probably be his final exit. Losing 1-0 at home to Bury, in a game which in my view struggled to rise above the mediocre, is not the send-off I would have wished for Stuart McCall.

I hope that fans of the club will remember Stuart as a player who gave his all for the club and inspired fellow players and fans alike. I hope that they will remember him as a manager who tried to send teams out to play football – rather than to cynically hack, dive, and otherwise cheat (I suspect that not all managers in League Two could claim that they have tried to do likewise). I hope that they remember him as a fantastic ambassador for the club.

I also hope they remember that they probably contributed to McCall’s departure. The message boards have buzzed with anti-McCall sentiment. We have seen patronising comments about him being a good player but “never a manager”, and even some comments that were noxious and offensive.

Well, the “McCall out” brigade have got their way.

For my part, I accept that our results (and at times performances) have been lacking – and that McCall’s departure is far from shocking, particularly in the modern football world.

However, he has gone and we must all now move on. The only problem is – where are we moving on to?

In 2004, Newcastle United decided to sack Bobby Robson on the basis of the first four matches of the season despite his performances in previous seasons (fourth, third and fifth in the Premier League).

Think for a moment about how Newcastle have fared since Robson left. Souness, Roeder, Allardyce, Keegan, Kinnear, Hughton, and Shearer have all been in the manager’s office at Newcastle since then and the finishing positions in the Premier League under the managers following Robson have been 14, 13, 7, 12 and 18.

I’ve made the point before that managers given time to succeed are more likely to do so. Ferguson has been at Manchester United for 23 years and Wenger at Arsenal for 13. What of Jesus Gil’s tenure at Atletico Madrid. Gil oversaw a side managed by 16 men in 17 years. He also oversaw a side that was relegated to the Segunda Division at the end of the 1999-2000 season.

As soccerlens.com put it “Under Gil, Atletico were desperately short of structure, long term plans and patience.” This lack of patience, this short-termism led to a humiliating relegation for Atletico. Is this the model we wish to follow at Valley Parade?

Alex Ferguson, on the other hand, took seven years to win the league at Manchester United and followed that success with eight further league titles in eleven years (not to mention considerable success in cup competitions and Europe).

It is easy enough to find examples of stability and faith in a manager being rewarded and to find examples of instability leading to failure. If I wanted to, I might even be able to cherry-pick some examples that showed quite the opposite. It should be possible to find at least one trigger-happy chairman who has found success after operating a revolving-door policy for managers.

How do we get a better idea of the effect that sacking managers has on subsequent performance? Not by cherry-picking individual examples that support our viewpoint, but by looking at how a number of clubs have performed.

This PDF attempts to answer the question “What is the Impact of Changing Football Manager?”

The author discusses the “honeymoon period” that is often remarked upon by fans. When a new manager comes in there will often, but not always, be a temporary improvement in performances and results. This, however, is usually a short-term gain. The author writes that:

in the Premier League, at least, there is a boost for a short honeymoon period and then performance dips back – and indeed slightly below the level that it was before the club changed manager. Between 12 and 18 games after appointment, the points’ benefit of changing manager has vanished, suggesting that on average there is only a short-term gain and a longer-term negative effect of changing manager.

From the conclusion:

Overall, changing manager seems to have a negligible effect on how well the club does over the longer-term. Indeed, if we look at the Premier League since 1992, it would appear that clubs do rather less well once the initial honeymoon period has passed than they did before changing their manager.

There are also some very interesting data from other sports that are alluded to in the conclusions of this paper.

research from baseball and American Football (Gamson and Scotch 1964, Brown 1982 respectively) suggests that when a coach is not sacked performance seems to turn in a pattern similar to that seen when the club changes manager. The conclusion seems to be that managerial changes in football do little to improve performance.

The author also tells us that Lieberson and O’Connor suggest that performance is more influenced by other aspects such as resources. So perhaps performance is affected by the quality of players, injuries or just bad luck.

If quality of players, injuries, and bad luck have more effect on performance and results than the manager, it seems a little perverse that McCall departure has coincided almost exactly with the return to fitness of key players – such as Omar Daley.

Another key player who has been missing is the man who was named as captain at the beginning of the season. When your captain, senior professional, and leading goalscorer over the previous two seasons is injured it is not surprising if the struggles. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

The problems City have had this season are strongly linked, in my opinion, to their failure to put chances away. While our main goalscorer has been injured, only James Hanson has stepped up and filled part of the gap. The rest of the team has struggled to score goals even when several good chances have been created. We managed (I think) 26 shots against Crewe Alexandra, scored only two goals, and lost the game.

Thorne’s return might make this a honeymoon period for the new manager to enjoy. Whoever they are.

The referee seemed reluctant to make decisions today, which is probably better than seeing a whistle-happy ref spoil a match with constant stoppages for minor infringements. Unfortunately, one of the decisions he didn’t give was a free-kick for what I saw as a foul on Jamie O’Brien – that non-decision led to the Cheltenham side breaking away and the subsequent penalty.

I couldn’t see whether the foul by Williams that resulted took place inside the box as I was at the far end of the ground (in the Kop), but it did look a foul to me and I did not complain about the second yellow card given to Williams (just as I had not complained about the first yellow card he received in the first half).

Another crucial non-decision was that following the foul on Flynn in the Cheltenham penalty area – it looked a clear penalty to me from my position only a few yards away in the Kop. All in all, though, the referee was to my mind “less worse” than Lee Probert and P Quinn had been in recent games.

The City performance was somewhat disjointed, but we looked the better side and certainly played more football than Cheltenham. With more composure in the box and/or a little bit of luck, City would have scored enough goals to gather the three points and I probably wouldn’t be discussing the referee again.

The line-up was much changed, with City missing Neilson (who did not make an appearance from the bench) and Bateson (who was not even on the bench). City began with Hanson and Evans up front, and Brandon in the hole behind the front two. J O’Brien and Flynn were alongside the holding player Bullock in midfield, with L O’Brien, Ramsden, Rehman, and Williams making up the back four. McLaughlin made his Valley Parade debut and looked solid (albeit having little to do, except for a valiant attempt to save the penalty).

Following the sending off of Williams, young Louis Horne came on for his league debut and managed to avoid making any costly errors – unlike the three centre halves who have vied for starting positions this season. Williams, Rehman, and Clarke have all looked vulnerable at times this season and all seem to suffer from the same problem – a casual approach becoming too casual and costing the side points with individual errors.

Having seen Evans spurn a series of chances in the Shrewsbury game, today saw Hanson get the best opportunities – unfortunately, he was unable to take them (although to be fair they were not “gift-wrapped, must-score chances”).

While James O’Brien looked good before being sacrificed to make way for a defender to cover the absence of Williams, Flynn and Bullock seemed not to be at the top of their game today. Flynn struck one cracking effort that whistled wide of the Cheltenham keeper’s post, while Bullock battled away withouth much reward for his effort. Flynn in particular has seemed to be too quiet in recent weeks (starting with the embarassing defeat to Rochdale) and seems to be off-form at the moment.

Luke O’Brien performed well, with the only caveat being that his crossing was ineffective (in common with pretty much every other City player today). Ramsden (possibly our most impressive player this season) also looked solid. McLaughlin was decisive, confident, and solid – pretty much everything you look for in a keeper – but was not really tested by a poor Cheltenham side. Rehman played well, but today’s weak link in defence (there always seems to be one) was Williams.

In attack, Brandon looked fairly lively without ever looking effective. Hanson and Evans worked hard and troubled the Cheltenham back four, without really looking like they were going to score the necessary goals. Omar Daley came on as a late substitute with little time to make an impact, but made one or two promising runs to remind us of what we have been missing for so long. Daley will need time to get back some sharpness and “match fitness”, and we should not expect too much too soon from him – he’s not the messiah, he’s just a player who adds pace and threat to our attack. Without match fitness, Daley will not be a match-winner.

Overall, a reasonably enjoyable afternoon was spent watching an OK game with City players and the officials doing OK, but no better than that. At least we have stopped the run of defeats at home and seen two young players make their Valley Parade debuts in the league.

Stats

Possession

• Bradford 52%
• Cheltenham 48%

Attempts on target

• Bradford 5
• Cheltenham 4

Attempts off target

• Bradford 7
• Cheltenham 3

Corners

• Bradford 6
• Cheltenham 5

Fouls

• Bradford 17
• Cheltenham 6

[From the BBC website: here.]

According to this website, today’s officials were as follows:

Referee: P Quinn
Linesmen: B Gordon and G Hart
Fourth Official: C Akers

I’m not sure which linesman was so keen on flagging for the foul against Matt Clarke which led to his sending off, so I shall direct my ire at referee P Quinn. Quinn was in charge for yet another ruined game – and this was the second home match in a row that had been spoilt by the officials, following Lee Probert’s disgraceful performance in the Bradford versus Rotherham game.

Referee Quinn was booed off at half-time following a number of dubious decisions – notably a contentious penalty and a very harsh sending off. That the referee was confronted by Stuart McCall and then booed off by the fans was to be expected given his performance.

What was slightly more surprising was the crowd’s reaction to the referee when he appeared for the second half. Having had around twenty minutes to calm down at half-time, the fans were still angry enough to chant a chorus of “the referee’s a wanker” when he appeared for the second half. In my opinion, though, this out of character outburst from the Valley Parade faithful was fully justified.

Here’s the text of an email I received from the Football League following Lee Probert’s appalling performance in the Rotherham game:

We receive numerous queries and complaints regarding individual referee’s decisions and their overall performance and although we are unable to respond on each individual incident, we can advise that the performances of all officials are constantly monitored by way of club and assessor reports, the match video or DVD and, at some grounds, the Prozone statistics.  The match is also analysed by the Referees’ Manager, referee’s coach and the referee and, despite the perception of some, match officials are most accountable for their performance.

Whilst we are all fully entitled to our view – Referees make their decision based on years of training and experience and what they see at that moment in time, from a position different from anyone else in the ground – he can only act on what he sees, assisted by the other match officials and not everyone will agree with the decisions he takes.

The Manager also works with his group in a bid to constantly improve standards in a game which has become faster and more frenetic over recent years. Every match is recorded and referees are under closer scrutiny than ever before.

Let’s take a look at some of the points made in this email.

Apparently, “numerous queries and complaints regarding individual referee’s decisions and their overall performance” are received. This is entirely unsurprising given the woeful performances officials put in week after week.

It is stated that “despite the perception of some, match officials are most accountable for their performance”, but I would disagree with this. As has been noted on the BfB website:

Referees do make a detailed report for the FA after every game but trying to get a look at that report is out of the question. A polite mail to the authorities, a raging demand as a consumer of the football product, a pleading begging letter. No matter what you are not seeing why the man who ruined your trip to Cumbria did what he did. It is a policy which is supercilious to the point of an insult.

The italics are mine – if no-one can see the referee’s report, in what was can referees be said to be accountable? For all we know, the referee’s report could be simply rubber-stamped by the FA. There is nothing in the email I received that actually points to referees being accountable.

BfB also note that many supporters “are fed up with paying money (and spending a day of the weekend) watching referees that behave in the way we so often see and knowing genuine worries will be summarily dismissed out of hand by the FL simply which only serves to thumb the nose of the footballing authorities at the supporters.” My experience with the Football League would seem to confirm the impression formed by those at BfB.

And the game? Well, City began very well indeed and in the first 12 minutes put a lot of pressure on a Shrewsbury team who looked poor. Evans had several chances to score, and City forced several corners. Against the run of play, Shrewsbury went ahead and seemed to gain confidence from the goal as City’s confidence seemed to drain away. Evans chased down a ball over the top, won it from a Shrewsbury defender, and slipped the ball to James Hanson who scored a rather scruffy goal that nonetheless delighted the watching City fans.

From there on in, it was all about the referee and his assistants.

Stats

The BBC website has the following:

Possession

* Bradford 48%
* Shrewsbury 52%

Attempts on target

* Bradford 12
* Shrewsbury 6

Attempts off target

* Bradford 6
* Shrewsbury 1

Corners

* Bradford 11
* Shrewsbury 1

Fouls

* Bradford 14
* Shrewsbury 12

City clearly had the best of the game, yet still lost – because our finishing wasn’t clinical enough, because our defending wasn’t alert and steadfast enough, and (finally) because the referee was a wanker. Just like Lee Probert had been in the game against Rotherham.

Both teams looked to attack and the first half saw quite an open game, pleasing on the eye - and one that I imagine would have been enjoyable for a neutral. Scott Neilson probably provided more entertainment than any other player in the first half with some promising runs and the winger was unlucky to see his left-foot shot saved well by the Chesterfield goalkeeper.

Having been ‘turned-round’ by the Chesterfield captain, City began by attacking the Kop in the first half and immediately set Neilson off on a run down the right hand side. Flynn opened the scoring (right in front of us, as we sit just to the right of the goal at the Kop end) when he cut inside and hit a perfectly placed shot past Lee and my irrational fear that City would perform poorly or be unlucky kicking ‘the wrong way’ in the first half began to subside.

Eastwood made an excellent save at a crucial stage in the second half to deny a Chesterfield player, and City promptly went up the other end and scored through Neilson to go 2-0 up. Rehman and Williams deserve credit for some fine defending and keeping a potentially dangerous Chesterfield side from breaching City’s defence. Bateson looked reasonably solid, while Luke O’Brien seemed to struggle with his passing – but looked very good when attacking the right side of Chesterfield’s defence, beating players on several occasions without quite being able to find a City man with his crosses.

In midfield, Bullock looked every inch the solid defensive midfielder some City fans have suspected for a while he might make (I have previously been critical of his performances when playing in the more advanced role McCall seemed to see as Bullock’s best position) and performed well – unfussy, accurate with his passing, and firm in the tackle. James O’Brien was fairly quiet and did not, in my opinion, perform as well as Bullock or Flynn but could be described as ‘competent’. Flynn, meanwhile, seems to get better by the game and deserved his goal (particularly given the decent efforts in the recent game against Burton that saw the City midfielder out of luck).

Scott Neilson showed much promise and entertained us with his dribbling skills, willingness to run at players, and accurate shooting. He may not be as fast as other recent City wingers (Daley, Colbeck, Muirhead), but he seems to have plenty of ability and may turn out to be a better player than Colbeck or Muirhead (memories of Daley are becoming fonder the longer he is absent – for some reason, I seem to have no recollection of all the criticism he has apparently been subject to in the past). Hanson performed manfully and perhaps should have won more free-kicks as Chesterfield attempted to prevent him winning the ball in the air, but this is arguable – perhaps he just needs a little more strength and a little more experience in order to get the better of older, wiser players such as Robert Page. Evans impressed me again with his willing running, and he seems to have sufficient strength and pace to cause defenders problems at this level – a combination that Michael Boulding seems to lack, being too easily pushed off the ball at times.

Substitute Chris Brandon’s late finish was the icing on the cake and made the three points inevitable. Sharry also came off the bench, looked lively, and passed the ball well – providing the assist for Scott Neilson’s late shot against the post.

City’s new-look formation sometimes seems a little lop-sided, but this does not appear to be a problem. James O’Brien and Gareth Evans were able between them to provide sufficient cover for Luke O’Brien on the left-hand side for City and the 4-5-1/4-3-3 formation does not seem to suffer from an inability to get men forward, as has been the case in the past. Playing three central midfielders in O’Brien, Flynn, and Bullock seems to give us a fighting chance when it comes to controlling games (and I think O’Leary would fit in well to this midfield three if Bullock or O’Brien were indisposed, with Sharry a possible understudy for Flynn). According to the BBC’s report, City had 57% of the possession and most of the shots and corners – this was not always the case over the last two seasons at home, when McCall tried to play with a more traditional 4-4-2 with two out-and-out wingers. Perhaps the new formation and the new players will continue to control home games and bring success to the club. This is something I hope for rather than expect, but I am optimistic about our future at the moment having seen effort and enthusiasm put in against Port Vale, Lincoln, and Burton being replicated against Chesterfield, but with a much better outcome.

We fans rarely know whether a substitution is purely tactical or if there is an element of fitness in the manager’s choice – unless a player is obviously injured we will assume that a substitution is tactical, but we do not have the knowledge of the player’s condition that is available to the manager and physio. Sometimes a player will perform well and fans will be baffled to see him replaced – near the end of the Port Vale game, some fans were surprised to see O’Leary replaced by O’Brien. O’Leary later said that he had tired towards the end of the match due to a lack of football in pre-season (O’Leary is also said to have been carrying a toe injury – which flared up again before the Lincoln game).