BOROCHAT
Newest article: Re: TUCHEL OUT by Phoenix Today 15:16Today at 15:16:25view thread
Oldest article: REVELL IN
by Stevo17/2 22:04Tue Feb 17 22:04:06 2026
3 peopleview thread
Next thread: New signing? by NorfolkIAN26/6 13:51Fri Jun 26 13:51:54 2026view thread
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 568
I preferred it when our assistant managers used to sleep on the bench
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 546
Evans might have avoided a few bans if Raynor did that.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 1002
As I said the other week, we are going to have a horrible season with low crowds and a toxic atmosphere.
I have almost no pre-season excitement, anticipation or belief.
I better be seriously wrong but sadly I never am.
Fuck sake.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 903
Nah, it won't be as good as last season, but we won't go down.
Whether that's classed as horrible is subjective. Probably hover above the relegation zone and finish 17th, whilst Borochat goes into meltdown about how we are so bad and getting relegated and can't see when we will win another game etc.
So that aspect of it will be horrible.
Edit: this is assuming we still have Marshall, Pidge, Phillips etc. If we lose any more player or have lots of injuries then we could be f**ked.
Edited by Sev at 16:46:17 on 7th July 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 839
I haven't said we will go down.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 819
Yeah I know, but to me a horrible season would be getting relegated. That's why I said it's subjective as to what horrible means. So won't be a brilliant season, but won't be horrible (to me). Will just be a bit meh.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 847
FWIW, by horrible I mean I fear I won't look forward to attending games again, owing to a serious lack of goals scored, a lack of wins, lots of defeats, a horrible atmosphere in the ground, and a potential relegation scrap if things go against us.
By comparison to the season just gone, and the resulting raised expectations of many, it would appear even worse than it otherwise might be, and what happened with the tickets this summer (category changes as well as price hike) leading to even more discontent.
Desperately hope to be wrong, but I really am fearful right now. And loads of sides in L1 seem to hate us for some reason and it is us fans who take their shit, so that'd be a lovely cherry on top with them gloating at best or abusing us at worst, at games.
Edited by Chuds at 17:46:22 on 7th July 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 583
For me, the most frustrating thing is the fans that don't see the bigger picture.
Yeah, the football isn't great at times but we're going to toe to toe with gigantic League 1 budgets. There's no need to boo when we're drawing 0-0 at half time with Huddersfield.
They're the same as the Southgate-OUT brigade that seem to forget England spent years doing naff all at tournaments.
Edited by SFCfox at 11:16:44 on 8th July 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 551
We're not hoofing it enough though imho...
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 406
Aye.
And I would like to hope people who regularly read or post on here know if my fears do come to fruition, I won't be pant-wetting and demanding Revs is sacked, Wallace resigns and Leon gets strung up from the scoreboard as ultimately with the size and pull of our club, each season we stay in League One should be viewed as a success.
Which isn't to say our aspirations shouldn't be higher, or that staying up alone should be viewed in any way as a success after last season, but more that last season all the pieces mostly fell into place at the right time and we managed to win the fine margins more often than not, which sadly is a pretty unsustainable way of enjoying continued success, albeit probably the only way we could do so at this level.
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 445
Totally agree and think most "old timers" get it but some of the newbies do not .Yes know I am generalising
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 430
Not wrong though. That’s the trouble with the vocal minority, they’re vocal.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 424
maybe the silent majority need to silence the vocal minority.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 407
I tried numerous times, but got shouted down by a couple of people because they didn't like my tone!
It seems nowadays you are not allowed to disagree with someones opinion with reasoned arguments and points, whilst putting your own views across.
It would seem you just insult each other with out making any valid points!
When you see some of the stuff some of our supporters post and put out in public domain its not wonder we are disliked so much
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 336
It would seem you just insult each other with out making any valid points!
Have you thought about a career in politics?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 570
Chuds, to be fair we didn't score many goals last season, and I can't see that changing this year. We will set up to be hard to break down as usual. Rev's clearly doesn't play an open, attacking game. I think Charlie will be a bigger loss than Harvey. But I'm sure someone will step up alongside Pidge. Would love a couple of good loan signings (Hopefully a goalscorer). Our style isn't very pretty, and can be a hard watch, but it will be interesting to see which formation he uses for the majority of games. I think top 12 is very realistic. Hopefully our home form will continue to be good. Don't think many teams will relish coming the us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 529
Top half and a bit of a cup run would be an excellent season given the league next year.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 573
Buy an ice cream like I was told to do :-)
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 505
Would hate to be an admin on the Walls forum if the one you want is out of stock.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 768
We had plenty of complaining despite being at the sharp end of the table all season. The football wasn’t great, granted. But it’s the type of football Stevenage have to play to compete in League One. Should we not be challenging for the play-offs (a very realistic possibility) then I can imagine the place becoming toxic very quickly. From there the club could get sucked into a bad place (relegation battle). I doubt it but nothing is ever certain.
Hopefully my faith in the club having a plan to replace Banfield isn’t misplaced. No doubt Revs’ long term contract will be mentioned too somewhere. It’s in investment in a long term project and people would do well to remember that if this does turn into a transitional season for us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 508
The first paragraph is where I'm at too. I'd hope that most our fans would appreciate the size of the club compared to the majority in this league, how we're punching well above our weight and even more so with the new financial rules now in play. But that's unrealistic - the nature of modern football plus social media etc means everyone wants everything instantly, and our fans were, as you said, getting annoyed with successful albeit crap football last year. A bad run is only going to bring the Revell naysayers out even more and it could get unpleasant quite quickly. I've always thought we had a relatively patient and sensible fanbase but that shifted a bit last year as people got excited by promotion etc.
I'd hope we'd aim to play more expansively and confidently next year as we saw in glimpses this year, but it's clear that a more defensive first approach works for us and our players, and it's what Revs prefers so it's unlikely to change. If that keeps us in L1 then so be it - I'd love us to take more risks but it's not going to happen.
I'm more worried about bringing in another couple of older/injury prone players in Magennis and Taylor - we started last year being able to leave good players completely out of the squad and ended with Bez being our back up striker option - that's a byproduct of picking up lots of players with sketchy injury records, but also means we probably need quality and numbers, which seems unlikely based on what Revs has said in the last few days. Could be a tricky season - still lots of times to pick up a few more signings but it felt like the recent interviews were managing expectations as much as providing updates
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 463
Taylor had a bad injury, which doesn't make him injury-prone. The same was true of Charlie Goode, which is why we were able to sign him, and his eventual fitness record was excellent. There is a reason why you can afford players when otherwise they would be beyond your budget.
I don't mind Magennis's age either; his overall fitness record is good, and if he can bring out the best in Jamie Reid in the same way that Kane Hemmings did, he could prove an astute signing.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 437
I don't disagree - Revs has said we have to take a risk on players others have seen as too injury prone, but it could come back to bite us if we suffer similar issues to those we had last season. Taylor himself has said he's had recurring ankle problems - and a friend who's a Charlton fan said 'good signing if you can keep him fit' - and he's missed big chunks of every season since leaving Wolves, aside from last year.
But I think him and Magennis will both do well and if the latter can do some of the graft that Reid can't then they should form a decent partnership, but being reliant on those types of older players or those with a history of injuries could leave us exposed, particularly if we can't spend much to boost the squad numbers
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 986
Disappointing. Hope that another experienced coach comes in to replace him.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 981
Good luck to him ,but again money talks and the bigger cub tkmg.What do we do know , chance for Ronnie to return ?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 942
we've got two relatively inexperienced people.already in Scott and Revs. not sure Ronnie is what we need for the first team.
An old head with a decade plus EFL and above coaching experience would be my shout if Alex feels we need another coach.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 779
I think this is where Revs sinks or swims. No point protecting him with an experienced head anymore. We did the same with Sarll and there comes a time where you have to see what they've learned/how good they are by themselves. He is welcome to bring in whoever he wants to add to his coaching staff (within a budget of course) and he should, particularly if he feels there is an area he is lacking or he thinks he needs a different idea/perspective, but I don't necessarily think it needs to be an "old head"
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 936
Think we will definitely need a 3 man team, but then have no idea who . But this could have been on cards for a few weeks now so possible appointment is imminent.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 925
Leon does a lot of the business stuff and all the negotiating.
Alex is a tracksuit manager. I'd think he was always on the grass with Scott for tactics sessions if not all the fitness stuff, which gives him a bit of time to watch video and play with his whiteboards and magnets in the office.
we have a GK coach, fitness coach, analyst(s) and video guy producing and clipping stuff for the manager to watch and use ... and Keef to put the cones out and fetch the balls, plus some very experienced senior professionals.
no idea how crucial Neil was but wouldn't surprise me if Alex tries to run light. whether it might work is anybody guess (Chuds is optimistic).
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 760
I think the "keeping the backroom staff light" opinion is one that increasingly annoys me. Surely the backroom staff is one of the more feasible changes we could make as a club of our size and budget.
I know the argument has always been that whatever money we spend on an analyst or two could be spent on a player, but the average salary of an analyst would barely make a dent in our budget, surely? You've got clubs out there paying graduates barely above minimum wage for it (which is appalling, but they do).
It's always been fascinating to me in recent seasons (most strikingly in the last one) that we start incredibly well, then we sort of peter out as the season goes along. I've had tons of chats with other fans about why it could be - from a smaller squad size, to fitness, to injuries, to teams "figuring us out"... But one contributing reason could genuinely be that at the start of the season when we're playing Saturday-Saturday, our analyst has time to both analyse the previous game AND give pointers to prepare for the next game.
When the games start coming faster (Saturday-Tuesday-Saturday), if we only have one analyst, then they would have to immediately start analysing the game we've just played on the Saturday evening, maybe finalise their thinking on Sunday. They've then only got a day and a bit before we play on Tuesday to dig into our next opponents previous games, tactics, etc. Same goes for the Saturday game after a Tuesday night. They've got Wednesday to analyse the Tuesday night game, then Thursday/Friday to analyse our next opponents.
Let's say that they can even get the report done in that time, I can't imagine the depth or quality is amazing (this may lead to some of Revs' opinions about the usefulness of data being questionable!). On a human level (as someone working in data myself), I also feel for the poor analyst working flat out 7 days a week! Knowing that salaries in that space in football are not exactly stellar either.
I also think that one of the main reasons that teams can "figure us out" at this level is because they have bigger analytics capabilities. Even having just one dedicated member of staff to look into your next opponent frees up so much time for another analyst to reflect on your teams' failings in recent games and how to improve. I also think that as the season goes on, teams in the league with these bigger backroom teams have more footage and data of us to dig into (hence they are more prepared to play against us as the season wears on, whereas we aren't at all). Teams around us are changing their approach as the season goes on based on data, whereas we seemingly decide on a way of playing in the summer, then just keep trying that.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 767
You make some very interesting points, but I have to question you saying we strikingly petered out last season as it just is not true!
We won ten matches in our final 17, only losing four (or five of our final ten, only losing two)!
And that despite us being riddled with injuries that meant most players starting games played almost every game for the final two or three months.
We didn't sustain top two form, but that was never going to happen with our resources (even if we had additional analysts).
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 339
Agreed on your main point, but to say that our form didn't strikingly drop is a bit revisionist, even if it did pick up at the end. Our first 11 games saw 8 wins. Our subsequent 19 saw only 3. If that's not a striking drop in form I don't know what is!
I just think it may be an argument that the period between November & February (which was poorer form-wise) could be linked the the matches becoming more frequent and therefore a possible reason for the drop in form being a lack of analytics capacity.
We for sure turned it around but the fact that from the 11th game until (as you say) the last 17 wasn't as great as the form either side throws up questions - most importantly being why that was!
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 233
Your original post suggested we petered out which Chuds took as falling form at the end of the season.
in your response you clarified and are correct that our form fell off a cliff for whatever reason in the middle of the season.
And looking at our starting 11s its hard to see why. we weren't consistently missing any nailed on starters, but we couldnt buy a win. it was just a rut that took ages to get out of.
be interesting to see some detailed statistical comparison of that spell against our better spells before and after... Chances created, Xg, chances conceded, distance covered, whether we sat deeper as well as frequency of games or whether we just lucked out by playing teams who'd found a bit of form before meeting us.
get on it Nate or Chuds.
Edited by BALDOCKBORO at 08:47:56 on 9th July 2026
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 585
Momentum plays a huge part in success, and failure, in sport. Look at Lincoln and Spurs last season; the former simply didn't believe they could lose, the latter couldn't buy a win for weeks.
Luck tends to even out over the course of a season and I felt we had our share of good fortune on more than one occasion last autumn. By mid-seaon the breaks were going the other way. We lost at Cardiff and Luton when arguably we didn't deserve to, with a negative impact on confidence and belief. That is my reasoning.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 867
He was largely the invisible man who never gave interviews, which doesn't mean his input wasn't a crucial part of last season's success. I simply don't know. I've always been struck by Scott's eloquence; he is a thinker who expresses himself particularly well. If Revs went for any reason I think he could and would step up.
But this won't have come out of the blue. Plans will be in hand.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Banfield Gone
Views: 258
Exactly. Not sure how important he was. Gaffer will always say the whole staff but the mask slipped when I said he'd make Harvey and Charlie better players and he said yea before sailing and the staff. I know how much 1-1 coaching Alex did with Charlie even during games, so that will be interesting to see how his form goes with a different manager.
Id spoke with Neil a few times and usually he had very little to say. After Stockport he did say, Stevenage have just finished 6th in league 1, that's something. So maybe he thought I've done that I need a new challenge and they'll be paying. He lived in Essex about 45 mins away so it's uprooting himself from home and he won'tbe going that for the love of it.
Decent bloke but we move on.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Previous thread: jordan Henderson by Balders6/7 09:15Mon Jul 6 09:15:14 2026view thread