General Mackie

Jon obika has scored 5 more goals and has 1 assist the same as the infamous mackie this season that says it all really I'm afraid.
 
Win five on the bounce and find something absolutely batshit crazy to complain about.

Thanks internet!
I don't think it's a crazy complaint at all and a lot of people are being pretty dismissive of those who think it isn't great practice to only use two subs because you need to get someone on for a token appearance at the end.

I get the argument that bringing on someone to help manage the game in the dying stages can be useful. I don't think Mackie is even particularly good at that, but that's another issue and I admit I haven't seen that many of out recent games so perhaps he did well against Ipswich etc in which case fair play (I did see the Blackpool game where he came on in the 86th minute and instead of taking the ball into the corner played it back inside, putting us under pressure and nearly costing us a goal).

I don't get the argument about keeping him happy and keeping the squad happy. Saying that potential signings will look at it and see that we look after players completely ignores the fact that every time Mackie comes on for a token appearance to keep him happy, someone else misses out. It's a much lower level but I play on Saturdays and there is a guy in my team who is a bit older but has been there long time, has a great attitude, helps out with training and general running of the club etc. He starts every week and is useless, there are always better players on the bench and it is pretty infuriating that the team is made weaker to pander to him. When we were 4-0 up vs Wimbledon, would it not have been nice to see Spasov get some minutes in about the lowest pressure situation possible? Against Accrington maybe Atkinson could have got a taste of the first team, been introduced to the fans and had a run out at the stadium? We don't have many defenders, a suspension or injury could see him needed at a crucial point, surely giving him 20 minutes or so to get play with his team in a competitive match in front of a larger crowd for the first time would have been more beneficial to the club than paying to watch Mackie contribute not a lot?

Winning games is great and five in a row is a brilliant achievement. I'm delighted with it but you can always improve and I don't think many would argue we've been really firing on all cylinders despite the wins, it's easy to point out the results as a justification that every decision has been correct but that is far too simplistic a view in my opinion.

Of course this all assumes that Mackie is on a contract that is almost pay as you play. It seems to be the assumed situation but I certainly don't know for sure.
 
I don't think it's a crazy complaint at all and a lot of people are being pretty dismissive of those who think it isn't great practice to only use two subs because you need to get someone on for a token appearance at the end.

I get the argument that bringing on someone to help manage the game in the dying stages can be useful. I don't think Mackie is even particularly good at that, but that's another issue and I admit I haven't seen that many of out recent games so perhaps he did well against Ipswich etc in which case fair play (I did see the Blackpool game where he came on in the 86th minute and instead of taking the ball into the corner played it back inside, putting us under pressure and nearly costing us a goal).

I don't get the argument about keeping him happy and keeping the squad happy. Saying that potential signings will look at it and see that we look after players completely ignores the fact that every time Mackie comes on for a token appearance to keep him happy, someone else misses out. It's a much lower level but I play on Saturdays and there is a guy in my team who is a bit older but has been there long time, has a great attitude, helps out with training and general running of the club etc. He starts every week and is useless, there are always better players on the bench and it is pretty infuriating that the team is made weaker to pander to him. When we were 4-0 up vs Wimbledon, would it not have been nice to see Spasov get some minutes in about the lowest pressure situation possible? Against Accrington maybe Atkinson could have got a taste of the first team, been introduced to the fans and had a run out at the stadium? We don't have many defenders, a suspension or injury could see him needed at a crucial point, surely giving him 20 minutes or so to get play with his team in a competitive match in front of a larger crowd for the first time would have been more beneficial to the club than paying to watch Mackie contribute not a lot?

Winning games is great and five in a row is a brilliant achievement. I'm delighted with it but you can always improve and I don't think many would argue we've been really firing on all cylinders despite the wins, it's easy to point out the results as a justification that every decision has been correct but that is far too simplistic a view in my opinion.

Of course this all assumes that Mackie is on a contract that is almost pay as you play. It seems to be the assumed situation but I certainly don't know for sure.
What a lot of good sense. However; you are about to be told that you’re slagging off Mackie.
 
What a lot of good sense. However; you are about to be told that you’re slagging off Mackie.

Nah, I'm not going to argue that he's slagging off Mackie.
I think almost every Oxford fan sees that Mackie's race is now run, that he's no longer an effective striker at this level and doesn't deserve a place in the team except maybe when a bit of shithousery is required towards the end against a tough opponent.

I do, however, think that the argument is slagging off Karl Robinson, though.
People who are complaining about the Mackie two minute cameos, and are saying that the club would be better off giving those two minutes to someone else, are effectively accusing KR of wasting the club's money just to get his mate a payday.

Personally, I think KR knows what he's doing. I think all the evidence suggests that he knows how to build a happy and effective squad - you can see this in the performances, and you can see this in the league table.
And if KR believes that getting Mackie paid in a way that doesn't compromise the quality of performance, and in doing so that keeping one of his senior pros happy, is a good way of maintaining squad unity (which, by the way, is an absolutely classic team building tactic - identify the key leaders and influencers in a group, make sure they're happy and they'll bring the rest of the squad along for you) - then I'm perfectly ready to trust his judgement.
 
Nah, I'm not going to argue that he's slagging off Mackie.
I think almost every Oxford fan sees that Mackie's race is now run, that he's no longer an effective striker at this level and doesn't deserve a place in the team except maybe when a bit of shithousery is required towards the end against a tough opponent.

I do, however, think that the argument is slagging off Karl Robinson, though.
People who are complaining about the Mackie two minute cameos, and are saying that the club would be better off giving those two minutes to someone else, are effectively accusing KR of wasting the club's money just to get his mate a payday.

Personally, I think KR knows what he's doing. I think all the evidence suggests that he knows how to build a happy and effective squad - you can see this in the performances, and you can see this in the league table.
And if KR believes that getting Mackie paid in a way that doesn't compromise the quality of performance, and in doing so that keeping one of his senior pros happy, is a good way of maintaining squad unity (which, by the way, is an absolutely classic team building tactic - identify the key leaders and influencers in a group, make sure they're happy and they'll bring the rest of the squad along for you) - then I'm perfectly ready to trust his judgement.
Take your point. But I think “shithousery” is often a risk we don’t need to take and can often be simply a liability.
 
Nah, I'm not going to argue that he's slagging off Mackie.
I think almost every Oxford fan sees that Mackie's race is now run, that he's no longer an effective striker at this level and doesn't deserve a place in the team except maybe when a bit of shithousery is required towards the end against a tough opponent.

I do, however, think that the argument is slagging off Karl Robinson, though.
People who are complaining about the Mackie two minute cameos, and are saying that the club would be better off giving those two minutes to someone else, are effectively accusing KR of wasting the club's money just to get his mate a payday.

Personally, I think KR knows what he's doing. I think all the evidence suggests that he knows how to build a happy and effective squad - you can see this in the performances, and you can see this in the league table.
And if KR believes that getting Mackie paid in a way that doesn't compromise the quality of performance, and in doing so that keeping one of his senior pros happy, is a good way of maintaining squad unity (which, by the way, is an absolutely classic team building tactic - identify the key leaders and influencers in a group, make sure they're happy and they'll bring the rest of the squad along for you) - then I'm perfectly ready to trust his judgement.
I take your point about building a happy squad. I have no doubt that Mackie is a great pro and good to have around the place but I don't think that's enough to justify an appearance every single game so he can get a bonus when there are better options on the bench.

The games I mentioned against Accy and Wimbledon were won long before Mackie came on. Is there really going to be that bad an impact on squad morale of Mackie doesn't get on in these games and we use the sub to give 20-30 minutes to a youngster to help get them ready in case they're needed later in the season. If that upsets Mackie then I would suggest he isn't a particularly good professional which I'm sure isn't the case. It also needn't be just two minutes, those games were won long before he came on.

You mention compromising the quality of performance. I think most would accept he isn't someone you would turn to in the hope of getting a goal and yet he still came on in around the 89th minute against Sunderland when we were 1-0 down, in place of Henry who was the best player on the pitch in the second half and had put in three or four fantastic balls that no one else in our squad could have. Perhaps Robbo thought an extra striker was needed and it was a genuine tacticalpve but it didn't fill me with hope to see him coming on whilst losing out most creative player. The bench was a bit thin that game anyway bit it does seem as though a sub is being held back at all times to get Mackie on which limits us tactically.

This isn't necessarily a dig at Robbo, he's doing a very good job and really seems to care but he's not infallible. Did he not question whether Mous would have a role I pre season? He also by all accounts tried to loan Sykes out while playing Robbie Hall who everyone could see is unfortunately done at this level as well as holding back Taylor and Agyei. The argument that Taylor is incapable of playing full games consistently seems to have gone away now and he is scoring for fun and Agyei looks impressive so I think you can make a strong argument that he got those decisions wrong. He's got more right than wrong this season but that doesn't mean his judgement can't be questioned.
 
I guess our lad Jamie isn't getting paid again this season?
 
[emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674][emoji674]
This made me laugh so much!!![emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I...I...can’t stop watching it. Ever.
 
Back
Top Bottom