Hartlepool United's record under Newell

By Albatross
April 7 2003

Has Mike Newell been a Hit or a Miss at Hartlepool United? We've now had half a season to judge, but is it enough to form an opinion? Some think so - and some of those reckon that it's time to get rid already. Here's my two penn'orth.

What do you call a manager who averages 1.7 points a game? If you believe what some Poolies are saying, the answer is, "a failure". That's what Mike Newells record has been since he took over, some 23 league games ago. Is the tag justified?

First of all, let's not get too carried away. The aim as far as most Poolies were concerned at the start of the season was Promotion; and had you said to the vast majority of fans that we'd finish third, we'd have taken it. That aim will be met: it's not mathematically certain yet, but it would take an extraordinary run of results for at least three teams (including Pools) to deprive us of that. Only five teams can get more points that Pools already have - and it's still possible that a win against Orient on Saturday could see that automatic spot clinched, if a couple of other results go our way. No matter what some might think, this is one issue not in serious doubt.

The problem is that having been as far ahead as we were, the chance of finally winning some silverware seemd not just a chance, but a certainty. And seeing it slipping away through our fingers is a very bitter pill to swallow. We may still be there at the top, but the feeling is that we should be celebrating the Title next week, not just hoping for promotion. Many are laying the blame for this firmly at the feet of Mike Newell.

Newell has now been in charge for half a league season - 23 games. An outsider looking at the stats for those games might be wondering why there's an outcry: P23 W11 D6 L6 for 39 points is not too shabby after all, and would yield 78 points over a whole season - certainly enough for a Playoff place and maybe even an automatic slot. Considering our historical record, he'd rank pretty high on that performance amongst some of our past managers.

The problem is of course that we can't look at his record in isolation. Whatever you thought about him, Chris Turner's record for Pools this season was exceptional: P17 W10 D4 L3 for 34 points is true Championship form. And every single player that is in the squad now was there when Turner left. Newell hasn't felt the need to bring in any new players, and for the most part has even stuck with the tactics of his predecessor - and yet the results aren't as good. When everything else is the same, people look is at what's changed - and the answer ends up as the Management Team.

Is this fair to Newell and Sheedy? Well.... the task they have been given is not that easy. Yes, the squad is the same - but the new team will have ideas of their own, and have had to get to know the players from scratch in mid-season. If you think that's not a problem - well, just ask Rochdale fans about what happened when they lost Parkin last season, Sunderland fans about the (admittedly odd) partnership of Wilkinson and Cotterill, or Leeds fans about the early games under Venables. Changing horses mid-stream is always a risky business.

On the other hand, after a blip in December we did exceptionally in January and to an extent February as well; and you'd expect things to be getting better when instead March has seen things get substantially worse, and April is currently seeing things pick up only slightly. That 14 point lead has been whittled down to just one: and while our destiny is still in our own hands, it now looks unlikely that we'll be able to go to Nene Park on the last day with the Championship already settled in our favour. It's a bit misleading to accuse Newell of blowing the lead Turner built up though: when CT departed, we were five points clear, and it was only with that great run starting with the win over Cambridge that we looked to have kicked on and got clear blue water between us and the rest.

The main concern I have with Newell is some of his tactical and positional decisions. Especially recently, we have struggled against teams playing 3-5-2 when we've been away from home. Wrexham and Kiddy both play that system as their preferred formation - and our 4-4-2 has been overwhelmed in the centre. A late rally got us a point on Saturday, but by all accounts some better finishing from Harriers in the first half would have seen us dead and buried long before we staged our comeback. I'd be looking to play 3-5-2 and match them man for man - at least we'd compete better in midfield. But we seem to be playing a rigid 4-4-2, and our last experiment otherwise was the game at Rochdale. For that game, we were missing Barron and Clarke through suspension, and instead played with Bass as a central defender and Arnison as a wingback; add in three bad defensive errors and it's no wonder we were on the back foot. But this seems to have caused Newell and Sheedy to abandon that system, and so we have lost some tactical flexibility. Other teams are finding us out.

Positionally, over the last couple of games we have seen Ritchie Humphreys - an inspirational figure out wide this season - playing in the middle alongside Tinks and as a result not looking nearly as effective. Why? To accommodate Paul Smith is the easy answer, but does Smith currently offer more there than Ritchie? Why not instead try playing one of them wide right, to replace Darrell Clarke who frequently looks like a fish out of water there. Yes they are both natural left sided players, but then so is Clarke judging by the number of times he cuts in to use his left foot, and Smith at least has shown in the past he can use his right for more than just standing on.

Of course, some might argue that it was Newell that made the decision to play Humphreys out wide in the first place - but in reality, the situation was that with Smith injured against Hull, Ritchie was the only realistic option to fill that role and played sufficiently well to make it unnecessary to go out looking for someone else.

Then there's the situation up front. With most of the options there either out of form (Eifion, Richardson), favour (Hendo, Boyd) or fitness (Watson), there's been something of a crisis - and to an extent it's hard to criticise Newell, who has tried different combinations - only Easter seems to have missed out completely. But then again, he was a forward himself, and should be able to guide the likes of Eifion through a bad patch. He's finally ended it now, but it had stretched to 11 games without a goal - a run of Diego Forlan proportions - before he was finally rested.

So where does that leave us? Well, Newell and Sheedy are to a degree still finding their feet, and hopefully a full pre-season will give them the chance to make their mark on the squad. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out - and will be until we see how we do next season. But you have to say, the signs at the moment don't look promising. I just hope he can turn it around.