 | Forum
Reply | Deadline day 5pm
at 10:55 28 Mar 2025
The fact we haven't replaced Waller ("popped" hamstring) and Bird (unspecified but "serious" foot injury) is of grave concern.
I still live in hope that we indeed actually have brought in players for those positions and someone is adding to the drama by waiting for a big reveal.
I expect to be disappointed, however. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 11:20 26 Mar 2025
But if he's out for any length of time right now, we only have Kelly. So he is a big loss between now and the end of this current season unless he can be replaced before the end of this week. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 11:16 26 Mar 2025
Very stark difference with McNulty and BBM - one currently has us in the play-offs and the other led us to relegation. Allowing the latter to rumble on, especially with the secret contract extension, proved terminal.
As for what McNulty says after a match, I'm not sure how much of it he actually genuinely means. There are definitely examples where he should know better by now. Perhaps if he was asked more pertinent questions, there may be better, more genuine responses, but you will never get that from an in-house media team and we no longer have a decent local press to force such issues. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 10:32 26 Mar 2025
You make valid points and I would only disagree in terms of the timeframe. I would argue we were not awful until just before York scored (just after Waller made two attempts to claim a Pearce shot).
We started with urgency, played quick triangles, played through their midfield (Ayinde in particular) and got crosses in from both flanks that actually caused Male issues.
The problem is, we didn't score.
After York scored, it all changed. We stopped doing any of the above (we couldn't get a cross off the ground) and York's middle three, Felix especially, took over the show. From that point on we looked toothless and lacked anybody (Bird) who could hold the ball up. Allied to that, we made it very easy for York to advance and shoot almost at will with cheap turnovers of possession - and it was unacceptable.
The real issue was that there was nothing on the bench that could really help us shake things up. We could've tried a three in midfield but Weston seems to be on the naughty step, so that wasn't going to happen - and Mitchell at the minute is not the answer as the tip of the spear. We would've needed Rodney there to try a two up front with Henderson.
Losing Waller only compounds the misery. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 09:20 26 Mar 2025
Yep understood. But again, we are muddying the waters by talking about what is right or good for McNulty.
No one has said that, I don't think. McNulty is only good enough while he is good enough for Rochdale AFC. If that is bringing promotion to the EFL or our first national trophy, then absolutely great. He benefits but, more importantly, we do.
The minute those things aren't delivered, especially the former, then its adios muchachos to he and his staff. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 09:15 26 Mar 2025
I'm glad we agree on the relevance of the moniker.
It’s a shame you’re now staying home as it means you will have also missed our four recent wins too. That’s the risk taken when staying away, I guess. It’s any fan’s prerogative though, so fair play.
Each and every game has it flaws. Some costly, others not so. Some even collectively frustrate over the season. I’m not denying that and I’ve written screeds on what I personally would like to see done differently - more urgency in the final third every game and not just in some, being the primary.
And as I have said already on this thread, last night's performance and result are unacceptable.
But the fact remains, right now, we are still on track to compete in the play-offs and a cup semi-final for a Wembley appearance. Should neither of those things ultimately come to pass, I’ll add my own dissent on the matter. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 08:18 26 Mar 2025
There’s no mention of Project 5000 because I’m not sure what parameters have been set for it in regards to McNulty's own performance.
As I’ve said before, if we achieve success on the pitch, the board won’t sack McNulty and nor should they. From the outside, it would make us look like a basket case if they did. And if people stop attending matches while we’re on track for promotion, that too would be strange, in my opinion.
I want to stress that last point — this is just my opinion.
What would be interesting is if the three-year plan for promotion did included parameters for increasing attendances. That would add another KPI against which McNulty could be judged. But we simply don’t know.
For me, the only justifiable reason to remove McNulty is if we fail to secure promotion within three years. And then, only if we’re making a real go of it. If at any point we look way off track, I’d expect action to be taken sooner.
That’s my stance. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 07:26 26 Mar 2025
And even if it does, that wouldn’t make him the worst manager we’ve had, in my opinion. It would certainly make his role questionable but it wouldn’t put him in that category. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 06:41 26 Mar 2025
Like many others, you make fair assessments based on what you've seen, and I can only do the same. However, the real question doesn’t matter. Whether or not I think McNulty will get us back into the EFL is irrelevant. What truly matters is whether he does or doesn’t. The Ogdens have given him a three-year plan to achieve this, and, as I mentioned in another post, none of us know what the specific markers for success are within that, other than that promotion to the EFL is the primary objective during this timeframe.
All I can say is that my opinion will be based on how close we look to achieving that goal. If we start plummeting down the table, that would suggest we're not a promotion-chasing team, and my opinion would be that change is needed. We're not there yet.
With less than 10 games left, though, changing the manager now would probably do more harm than good. If, in the summer, the Ogdens decide that year one of their three-year plan hasn’t been met, then I’m sure things will happen. However, I think it would be helpful if they could outline what that plan entails. That way, supporters would have a clearer understanding on which to base their arguments. We were all pretty accepting of the three-year plan for promotion when it was announced – me, primarily, because we still had a club that could even talk about promotion!
After a performance like last night's, it's easy to focus on the negatives of McNulty’s tenure and let them overshadow the positives we’ve seen. The fact remains, though, that we're seventh. We wouldn't be in that position if what we saw last night were the norm.
Your points about the midfield are valid, and the signing of Weston certainly raises questions. However, when Bird was on the pitch, he was able to collect the ball from deep and drive it forward. For me, it's more about this system requiring certain types of players rather than the system itself being fundamentally flawed. That said, the absence of certain players who could do a job, along with a tendency to stick rigidly to structure until it’s too late in games, are significant weaknesses in McNulty's approach.
I still remember the Division Three run-in of 2000/2001. We looked well set for the play-offs, but then the wheels came off around this time of year, culminating in a loss of form and a 7-1 home defeat. Fans were furious and calling for Parkin’s dismissal. But we were still in the hunt for a play-off spot, and the board stuck by him. The following season, he got us into a very strong position for promotion before being poached by another club.
In the years that followed (including his return), we never had it that good again until Keith Hill arrived. And don’t even talk to me about the years before Parkin in terms of the quality of football on the pitch!
Those calling McNulty the "worst ever manager" must not have seen much of our past football. I find it disrespectful. He may ultimately prove not to be up to the task set, but he certainly won’t go down as the worst manager we've ever had – not by a long shot.
So, with less than 10 games to go, I think McNulty actually needs to be given a bit of help to bring in players that will see us over the line – a no.9, a no.10, and, quite possibly now, a no.1! I realise we have until the end of the week to get such players, and the availability of what we need will be as hard to find as a blade of grass in a green room.
Without these players, I do fear that we may miss out on Wembley and the play-offs. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 22:59 25 Mar 2025
Right but that’s where I have an issue, as reaching Wembley and getting into the play-offs, for me personally, would mark success and would be the result of winning games. Something we all want Dale to do?
Again, that’s my personal opinion, and others clearly disagree, but for McNulty to be sacked after achieving that would be unfair.
I’ve just read 442’s post above and he’s right. Us supporters have sat through some right dross historically and I shudder when I recall some of it. None of it came with play-offs or Wembley either. Perhaps general expectations of product have increased well beyond my own, but I just want to see a winning team and I’m not particularly fussed how it’s done.
Where we can all be in unanimous agreement is that tonight was nowhere near good enough and I don’t want to see that again. Barnet was supposed to be an outlier, let’s hope it wasn’t the start of a pattern.
There needs to be a relaxation of rigidity of formation for a start and a target man and no.9 brought in before the end of the week! I know. More chance of a rocking horse taking a shit. But that’s what we need. |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS Preview - Rochdale v York City
at 22:25 25 Mar 2025
It doesn't even need to be framed in such harsh terms. Jim McNulty, like any manager or head coach, should ultimately be judged on results. If those results, over the course of the season, fail to deliver success (or meet the board's objectives), then parting ways becomes inevitable — and McNulty himself would accept that.
Tonight wasn’t about boring football or a lack of entertainment (York fans, and perhaps a few sadists, certainly got their share of excitement). It was about a completely inept and timid performance. If we keep seeing results like this, we won’t meet any of our objectives, and any boardroom talk will shift from entertainment to inevitable change. |
| Forum
Reply | Paul Tait...
at 17:40 25 Mar 2025
That Blackpool game was one of the best away performances seen in a long while too (injury to Clarke notwithstanding). |
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Maidenhead United v Rochdale
at 12:57 24 Mar 2025
And I have answered by saying it will be largely irrelevant what we want in that regard as Jim will be going nowhere if he brings success on the pitch, other than leaving under his own volition. |
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Maidenhead United v Rochdale
at 18:03 23 Mar 2025
I think we are going round in circles now. The criticism of McNulty game by game is mostly warranted. He isn’t perfect and he’s made mistakes. However, holistically, we are currently seventh in the league and approaching a semi-final. That’s us on track at this moment in time and it will do for me given what we’ve been through the past few seasons. Others are free to disagree. If we don’t make the play-offs or bottle the semi-final, then that won’t be good enough and I’ll say so. |
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Maidenhead United v Rochdale
at 17:41 23 Mar 2025
I think TVOS pointed this out earlier TS - nobody is saying we should be settling for second best. If we make the play-offs, we will try to win them or what’s the point?
If we don’t, which is likelier if we enter in the positions with the extra rounds, the three-year plan legislates we enter the play-offs at a higher stage next season and, in year three, the highest position of the title.
Or does it? Without it spelled out we are all kind of guessing.
My take is that the plan is promotion within three years, not in year three and year three only. |
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Maidenhead United v Rochdale
at 16:59 23 Mar 2025
But I asked what the broad consensus of expectation is for this season. Year one of a three-year plan.
As long as we crack the top seven, there’s no way McNulty will be relieved of his position on the grounds that the football is not quite entertaining enough, especially if we win a trophy into the bargain.
As I say, if within the specified timeframe of three years, McNulty does get us back to the EFL, you would have to say he has earned the right to continue in the post. Whether that chimes with Project 5000 or not is a matter of debate, but there is no way he will be sacked if he continues to meet objectives in terms of success on the pitch.
Again, it may help if Cameron or someone on the board explicitly laid out what the three-year plan consists of year on year, if only to align fan expectations… or not. [Post edited 23 Mar 17:10]
|
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Maidenhead United v Rochdale
at 11:23 23 Mar 2025
Having read through all the posts in this thread, I can see that there are some valid criticisms following what was a disappointing performance. The second half yesterday, in particular, was unacceptable for this group of players – I’m sure that’s something we can all agree on.
But what I’m genuinely keen to understand is what the broader fanbase expects from this team this season. Are we aiming for the league title? Or are second, third, or fourth place acceptable goals? I ask because, as I understand it, we’re still on track for the first year of a three-year plan, which is to compete for a play-off berth. There’s also the added bonus of potentially reaching a national cup final.
If we were languishing near the bottom of the table, I’d completely understand calls for a change of manager or head coach, as that would suggest we’re well off course. But we’re not in that position.
I keep hearing that this squad should be achieving much more. Again, I ask, what exactly are the expectations?
It’s worth remembering that these players are a combination of those making the transition to full-time football after coming from part-time clubs last season, or they’ve been released by higher-tier teams, or they’re academy players finding their way. They’re being moulded into a cohesive unit, and I believe the approach is similar to what Gateshead have done – building over time, rather than splashing out on expensive, high-profile players and hoping for immediate success. We’re also clearly lacking a consistent number nine and a target man (until Bird), which has been an issue all season. Some of the criticism suggests Mitchell and Rodney, two key players, haven’t contributed as much as we’d hoped. We can’t have it both ways – if we’re expecting more from the squad, those key individuals need to step up too.
Of course, this evolution hasn’t been perfect. We’ve ended up with too many similar players in the wide attacking positions, and yes, that’s something the head coach needs to take responsibility for. It would be interesting to hear his reasoning behind that, to be honest.
So, in my view, seventh place in the table is about right for this group. With a striker acquired in the summer – and the right one at that – I’d expect phase two of the three-year plan to aim for a top-three finish, with promotion being the goal for year three. I believe this is what McNulty is being judged on by the club’s owners. It might be helpful if the Ogdens outlined this plan to the supporters more clearly, as right now the three-year plan can be interpreted in various ways, as James has mentioned.
It’s also worth considering the impact of the pitch issues over December and January. That clearly disrupted momentum, and it wouldn’t be fair to overlook that considering the disruption and consternation among the support it caused at the time.
I understand the argument for entertainment and that this brand of football might not be for everyone. Personally, I’ve always prioritised results over thrills, and if we’d held on for a 1-0 win yesterday, I’d have been happy regardless of how it was achieved. I’ll always point out flaws match by match, as any fan would, but I try not to lose sight of the bigger picture. For example, I don’t mind how long we spend playing the ball in the first two-thirds of the pitch as long as we show urgency and intent when we get into the final third. Unfortunately, that’s been missing in a fair few games, including yesterday. I do find that frustrating, but I’ve only genuinely been concerned about this squad after the Barnet home game, where the team showed no identity, and it seemed like the players had given up. Thankfully, that hasn’t been the case before or since.
That said, I get that fans want both entertainment and results. If I could get that every week, I’d be happy too. The reality is, though, that we haven’t experienced that since Hill was in charge, and even before him, when we had Holt and Lambert up front. Historically, we haven’t been spoiled with exciting football at Dale.
It’s also ironic that some of those calling for a managerial change have suggested alternatives like Mike Williamson, who sets up his teams in exactly the same way McNulty does, and has failed in his previous two EFL appointments with that approach.
Graham Coughlan’s pragmatic style has worked at Boston, but that type of football is more suited to a backs-to-the-wall scenario. It’s not infallible, and I’m sure those who want entertainment would tire of it sooner or later.
Ultimately, McNulty is working towards a three-year plan to get us into the EFL. If he achieves that within the given timeframe, then he will have fulfilled his task. If not, he will be judged accordingly.
Whether he is the right man to lead us once we’re in the EFL is a separate conversation. But if he gets us there, he will have earned the right to try. |
| Forum
Reply | Refwatch - Rochdale v Boston United
at 06:27 19 Mar 2025
The irony is that it was a lack of communication that led to the second goal. Two players going for the same ball before the cross came in, followed by Gilmour trying to frantically position himself in front of the Boston player at the back post. No defending that, metaphorically or literally.
As for the first goal, I knew it would spark recrimination for “pissing about at the back.” It’s frustrating because we’d been doing this confidently and effectively since the Tamworth game, even under pressure. Here, it was poorly executed and cost us a goal— Gilmour again, unfortunately.
The third goal was a slight variation of another major weakness we’re prone to: turning the ball over from our own attack, whether from a set piece or too much passing around the edge of the opposition's penalty area. This often leads to an easy counter, and, more often than not, a shot or goal. We really need another midfielder in the squad to help prevent this (as Weston isn’t fancied), or at least leave two men back. In this instance, a bit of showboating led to the turnover, but the result was the same — a stroll into the box and an easy finish with the player’s "wrong foot."
These flaws were, of course, made worse by the changes to the backline and the resulting knock-on effect on other areas of the pitch. This allowed Boston to control key areas when it mattered most and execute their own game plan.
The absolute carnage we caused in the final 15 minutes shows what a change of system could do if employed earlier in the game. Incisive attacking, rather than being patient, could make us less one-dimensional. When we are one-dimensional, we absolutely need to be at our best (with the right personnel) to get a result. Last night we weren’t. |
| Forum
Reply | Wealdstone (H)
at 12:59 9 Mar 2025
It was another dominant performance yesterday, with Wealdstone largely limited to launching long balls for Alex Reid to chase. From the first half, it was clear that a second goal would likely fold them, and that’s exactly how it played out.
Sure, there were a couple of moments where we might have been quicker to pull the trigger, but our attacking intent was fantastic. We consistently created chaos around their box, which kept their defence under constant pressure, preventing Wealdstone from finding any rhythm.
The starting front three were excellent, as were TAR and Allarakhia on the flanks. East and Gilmour were solid in midfield, and the back three looked assured despite Gordon’s absence. EEL’s return gives even more options moving forward.
The only real blemish was the goal Wealdstone scored — a too-easy back-stick header from a routine free-kick. That said, because we made the most of our attacking play, it didn’t cost us in the slightest.
And that goal from Hendo. He served better chips than you can get on Wilbutts Lane. Sublime.
Overall, a fantastic afternoon of entertainment in the sunshine, with three points and a welcome boost to our goal difference. |
| | fitzochris
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 1410 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 1410 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
