Michael Jolley

Quoted from barrattstandman

Why all the fondness for him now . There was not many years when he left .

totally agree, his achievement was overstated, we were lucky to survive. What was the name of that swedish left back? Total garbage Sunday League Player.

At the start of last season away to Morecambe he introduced Hanson, Green, Ohman, Ogbu etc and I really thought he was on the verge of making us very competitive. That team played with pace and power and there was nothing negative or complicated about it although you could argue that a midfield of Whitehouse, Clifton and Hess lacked creativity.
I think the problem he had was that he invested heavily in a few players and didn’t have adequate cover so when the inevitable injuries, suspensions happened he was forced to re-think the strategy. As others have said he could solve problems, but not quickly and in a high pressure environment thoughtful can quickly turn into indecisive and that’s when I think he started to over-complicate things and confuse the players.
He’s an intelligent chap though so he will probably have learnt a lot and may well succeed next tim round.

I think some are overstating his footballing intelligence. I lost faith in him after the Chelsea. Not because of the result which in itself is no disgrace. They had several internationals and a World Cup winner playing that night.

However, the set up he went with made me question whether he actually understand the game that much and understood what makes some systems works and others not. He’d previously had success with his Swedish team, beating Malmo, by playing man to man marking and leaving their centre back without options to play the ball to. Which is an interesting tactic and clearly worked. But no offence to Malmo, their players are mostly crap and wouldn’t get near the championship let alone the upper echelons of the PL.

So when we attempted that against Chelsea, against players who are very happy receiving the ball in tights areas and under pressure, who are mentally and physically so much quicker than the men marking them and who are smart enough to create gaps by moving their man marker out of position, it was absolutely chaos. The first goal we just had a massive hole in the middle of our defence which Barkley skipped through and fired home. No shape, no compactness. Within 5 minutes we were 2 down and that was the end of the tie.

That night showed a real naivety and misunderstanding of why and how it had worked against Malmo and why it wouldn’t work with Grimsby against a lot of Chelsea’s first team. It probably also explains why he never made changes mid game that were effective and why it would take so long to get out of a slump in form.

Quoted from Poojah

Infernal autocorrect.

I used that excuse with a 'direct' text I sent the wife. I think I got away with it. Just.  

Excellent post by the way.

The initial wave of optimism about his appointment was enhanced by the terribly grey football served up by a relic that preceded it. Jolley was refreshing in that sense.

His honeymoon period didn't really happen - if it did, it was awful results-wise - but then, seemingly out of nowhere, a bit of good fortune led to a run of great results that helped us surge to survival.

Like others have said, he was made to work with one of the league's lowest budgets, cobbled together a side that would find a groove but then lose it almost as quick as it found it. His full season in charge included two great months (did he win Manager of the Month for both?) but literally nothing else.

By the end, it was his squad entirely, underperforming. We became offensively blunt, and average at the back. I think he got a bit lost with his own ideas. Maybe guilty of overthinking, and not really being clear on a style of play or philosophy. I think the players became a bit confused by it all. He almost needed to clear everything out and start again with a clear plan, and commit to it.

Having said all that, the way he left made me believe that he'd be lucky to get another chance at Football League management.

Quoted from mariner91

I think some are overstating his footballing intelligence. I lost faith in him after the Chelsea. Not because of the result which in itself is no disgrace. They had several internationals and a World Cup winner playing that night.

However, the set up he went with made me question whether he actually understand the game that much and understood what makes some systems works and others not. He’d previously had success with his Swedish team, beating Malmo, by playing man to man marking and leaving their centre back without options to play the ball to. Which is an interesting tactic and clearly worked. But no offence to Malmo, their players are mostly crap and wouldn’t get near the championship let alone the upper .

He also did the same against Crystal Palace in what was a cracking performance - they may not be Chelsea, but they had a high-quality squad full of internationals. I don’t think it was naive to give it another go, after all, what did we have to lose?

There’s no denying that he got us out of a terrible situation with what was a poor team. Never really kicked on, but we were steady enough. Got to remember he was still inexperienced as a manger, and there’s certainly lots of potential there.

I really liked MJ as soon as he came and the first season was our most memorable by far in the football league since returning (I even compiled a book of Fishy contributions on the subject). The second season never really followed up on the first, I was still fairly gutted when he left but the secret recording helped soften the blow.

I'm sure he learned a lot in his time here. It's a difficult job at any club and hats off to anyone who has the balls to try it.

He's well-spoken and will sweet talk his way into somewhere whether it's Barrow or somewhere else I am sure he'll continue his career at some point.

[quote][/quote]

Quoted from mariner91

I think some are overstating his footballing intelligence. I lost faith in him after the Chelsea. Not because of the result which in itself is no disgrace. They had several internationals and a World Cup winner playing that night.

However, the set up he went with made me question whether he actually understand the game that much and understood what makes some systems works and others not. He’d previously had success with his Swedish team, beating Malmo, by playing man to man marking and leaving their centre back without options to play the ball to. Which is an interesting tactic and clearly worked. But no offence to Malmo, their players are mostly crap and wouldn’t get near the championship let alone the upper echelons of the PL.

So when we attempted that against Chelsea, against players who are very happy receiving the ball in tights areas and under pressure, who are mentally and physically so much quicker than the men marking them and who are smart enough to create gaps by moving their man marker out of position, it was absolutely chaos. The first goal we just had a massive hole in the middle of our defence which Barkley skipped through and fired home. No shape, no compactness. Within 5 minutes we were 2 down and that was the end of the tie.

That night showed a real naivety and misunderstanding of why and how it had worked against Malmo and why it wouldn’t work with Grimsby against a lot of Chelsea’s first team. It probably also explains why he never made changes mid game that were effective and why it would take so long to get out of a slump in form.

If it worked at Palace and Malmo, why wouldn’t you try it at Chelsea?

Quoted from Mariner93er

He also did the same against Crystal Palace in what was a cracking performance - they may not be Chelsea, but they had a high-quality squad full of internationals. I don’t think it was naive to give it another go, after all, what did we have to lose

I was going to say this - it's an unusual tactic that had proved it's worth against premiership opposition - was worth another try. It didn't come off that time

We didn't play that way at Palace. We had a man sent off and went very, very compact other than Mitch Rose man marking Zaha. At Chelsea, every player went man to man and it was a disaster.