I think there is a revisionism around Zadkovich. I keep seeing that the style of play was good, but if that was the case, the results would be different. Can't just say that the players were shit because that comes down to Zadkovich too. He picks the team, he recruited the players. He should have been able to identify this and sign the players who would have been the best of it.
The Roar is a bit like United, shit management and ownership and it seeps down through to the football side. Until new owners come in, we are going to struggle. Valkanis does not fill me with confidence. His managerial record is crap, but obviously need to give him a chance
Your first paragraph seems to be exactly what I said in my response to keeper66, except I disagree that the style of play dictates results.
I know from watching that as the season developed we got better at close passing in pressure situations and with the cohesion and vision resulting in more and better chances. We were able to pass through, around and over a press, looked for and found passes that were positive rather than purely defensive, and we made runs into space that often received a pass. That is what I call the style of our football and I found it entertaining and exciting - something to be proud of in the moments that we could see what Zadkovich was trying to achieve.
The 'strikers' Zadkovich had chosen until Hore's return and Abubakar's signing were more attacking forwards and not strikers as far as I am concerned. They got into position, generally speaking, without 'instinctively' going there, were often reactive rather than anticipating a chance, and sprayed the ball high or wide frequently instead of having a clinical finish.
Brazete, Burke-Gilroy, and Herrington all had good seasons under Zadkovich. Berenguer was playing much better football for the last 5 or so games and the cohesion among players was a big part of that as Zadkovich mixed and matched too often for my liking early on trying to make the parts magically come together. Ludwik and Shour looked to be decent signings.
I liked Zabala being played further forward and he turned out to be quite effective at it.
I don't think we saw anything near the best that Jelacic can bring to a team (whether it is him or the team not living up to his capability), and Warland, Van der Saag, Struick, Zimarino and Halloran were all less than successful choices. Bility is well documented for his strengths and sometimes dire weaknesses - but he did improve with the exposure. On paper there is a chance that all those players could have worked out and when they didn't I don't think Zadkovich had the money to change them for something better.
Even though Waddingham was borderline with his accuracy and could be wasteful with his touch at times he was a part of Zadkovich's choices and grew into the part under him. Well enough that he was sold as a result of what he showed - have to give credit for Ruben there because if you say that it was just Waddingham then you can't argue that bad players are the coaches fault. Some of Zadkovich's selections were awful but equally some were solid and even brilliant.
When we hear and read that Zadkovich could only buy Abubakar after he had sold Waddingham it tells us that he was operating on a very limited budget - so his options when he discovered that players were not working out were equally limited.
Watching throughout the season, we played defensively and limited our own attacking chances early on. Results that were close were more us shutting up shop to limit our opponents opportunities than us playing on the edge of success. As the season progressed and Zadkovich mixed and matched to give players every chance of working out he weaned the playing group down to the ones that worked best and towards the end of the season we evolved into the team that we could be. That whole evolution through seemingly endless chances for underperforming players to the final series of games was Zadkovich coaching with the players he had selected.
I would say that the results did not match the style of play and potential under Ruben as many neutral observers commented on during the whole season. We were not playing that badly in their 'expert' eyes. For me, we leaked easy goals at some point in most games and failed to take our few good chances at the other end. The style of play was not to blame for the results unless you would argue that the player selection did not match the intended style well enough - and on that we might agree.
The owners have a lot to answer for. Ruben, with all his strengths and weaknesses, wears the obvious fallout.
I would have liked for Ruben to have the time and resources to prove himself with a stable and improved squad but that cannot happen at our club and results are the metric that rules when it comes down to it.
Not revisionism in my eyes - a genuine journey of trial and progression as the season unfolded.
.
