1 hour ago, Gol15 said:

Potter bottled a decent away performance, I haven't seen such a basic tactical error of leaving 99% of the pitch open for a 1v1 situation since el Nino Torres scored at Camp Nou, completely unnecessary.

 

9 hours ago, LongtimerLurker said:

For those saying the result wasn't Potter's fault, they are looking past the most relevant moment of the game. The goal is on him, not scoring I don't blame him for. I think he coached a good performance bar, the one significant moment which happened to be us conceding. I'll give the man credit when he deserves it and he does for the most part today, but anyone with eyes especially a coach on the touchline could see that having one player back to deal with the counter is poor planning. Even the tiniest mistakes/margins are severe at this level (UCL) the team on that corner was set up way to naively. We got too aggressive and even if he hadn't told them to do that, he should have called out for some of them to drop back. This is basics and the players should know not to leave themselves so exposed to a counter from our own attack. A hard lesson learned from Potter. Tactically he was essentially beaten, despite having the better performance all in all. Not being able to score or score multiple goals will hinder us heavily throughout the season or his tenure as a whole. This problem needs resolving asap.

You can blame Potter on that but not for tactical reasons but to trust players to make those decisions by themselves. He should have shouted them to at least have 2 behind. He is a manager not micro-manager. 

25 minutes ago, evissy said:

You can blame Potter on that but not for tactical reasons but to trust players to make those decisions by themselves. He should have shouted them to at least have 2 behind. He is a manager not micro-manager. 

The elite managers mirco manage every situation that occurs. 

11 minutes ago, Remodez said:

The elite managers mirco manage every situation that occurs. 

Jose or Carlo didn't and doesn't

2 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

 

In short, they will have plenty of patience to stick with Potter probably for at least the duration

You just removed any hope.

17 minutes ago, evissy said:

Jose or Carlo didn't and doesn't

Jose absolutely did during his first stint. Carlo is an exception. 

2 hours ago, cfcforeverfan said:

Can Bohley just sack Potter already

 

why all other investors are fine with their asset potentially go down the drain like that? Giving 2 more years, all those new players we bought would have their value cut in half because of our constant poor performance

This is a bit of a non argument is it not? Players value (as a financial asset) depreciates over the length of their contract, which is one of the reasons we have given such long contracts to the new signings.  From the investor's pov that is gonna happen regardless of results.

If you are making the point based on potential transfer value on player sales then I'd be interested to see how many players we have sold for a profit over the last 10 years (bear in mind the price of players has massively increased over that period aswell.)  I suspect the percentage would be very low.

The argument to sack Potter for the sake of the investors is a non starter.

 

If you are Todd Boehly would you sack Potter now?

Pluses:

-Instant manager bounce which happened with Potter taking reigns.

Minuses:

-You didn't give Potter enough time to work with the team because: we have a ton of new players, 11 players were injured lengthy periods of this time.

-Potter has to be bought out all of his 60m deal. That costs the club around 60m.

-The new manager has to do all that dance from scratch.

-We have to find a new manager that fits the job.

-We once again teach everyone, mainly the players, to drop tools in adversity and wait for the new manager

-You have folded in the chirps of fans and media and didn't hold onto your plan to hire manager for long haul.

-The league is gone, the CL spots are gone. New manager has no chance of changing that.

 

3 hours ago, just said:

On many, many occasions we saw Tuchel leave Jorginho as the last man back at corners and set pieces. The slowest player we have had playing for us for decades.

https://youtube.com/shorts/57ltK1mZUGo?feature=share

Ok.....What's Tuchel got to do with us losing 1-0 in the Champions League KO stages right now in February 2023?! Enzo and Jorgi are different players firstly. Secondly this is a legitimate criticism of Potter, if you can't take that then you're part of the problem mate.

It's a simple fact we shouldn't have set up like that for attacking a corner, not at 0-0 not at 1-0 up or even 1-0 down especially at that specific time in the match there was still plenty of time left. 

These are the basics. Also if it had been Jorgi I'm pretty sure he makes the tactical foul in their half that's the difference, Enzo is still learning so I'll give him that. I find it astounding someone can make this about Tuchel and Jorginho, Potter sympathisers will see him do no wrong.

The players take a share of the blame make no mistake these are professionals that should understand the situation, but that goal is on Potter and if you can't understand that you don't understand the fundamentals to coach a team (yes you might not be a coach but I'm sure you have over 10 years experience watching or playing).

The coach should be aware at all phases of play, if he chose to ignore Enzo being our last player that means he was comfortable with the situation. This isn't a hindsight situation, it's common sense that player had shown us his pace previously during the game. We didn't respect him and he punished us ruthlessly.

Just admit Potter was naive to the situation and takes some blame. It doesn't mean you don't support the man it just means you accept the reality of the situation. Otherwise I think there are some delusions for certain fans and they won't accept what they can see in front of them due to rose tinted glasses.

You mention Tuchel, that doesn't happen at 0-0 under him in the UCL, it's a level of naivety that I think Potter will now admit to privately and learn from. It's not a particular situation that makes me think Potter out, it just highlights my stance further that he is still not ready for big games like this. Granted he showed something during that game that actually gives me optimism.

However, fine margins and the recent form back up what many still believe that this wasn't the right appointment. Yet he will be given time to prove people wrong, the question is how much time does it take without it really getting ugly.

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by LongtimerLurker

1 hour ago, evissy said:

You can blame Potter on that but not for tactical reasons but to trust players to make those decisions by themselves. He should have shouted them to at least have 2 behind. He is a manager not micro-manager. 

It is without any doubt, Potter's own tactical mistake for the goal.

You simply don't see such instructions and setups in a 0:0 match, the last time I saw a goal like that was when Torres scored at Camp Nou after we were defending the advantage and our opposition really needed a goal.

This is something that is done in match preparation, it is a really basic thing that Potter failed to achieve and it cost us a lot. You won't see such a blunder on the highest level, no manager should instruct his players like that and we saw that a world class player like Enzo couldn't do much in a 1v1, it's 100% the blunder of our own manager there.

When two sides of similar quality get matched up, the difference is sometimes the tactics and the match preparation and sadly, Potter's lack of a good tactic alongside poor match preparation made the difference. Had James scored from the shot just prior to the counter-attack, everything would have been different but ultimately it's the job of the manager to prevent easy blunders and Potter has failed to see out this first knockout match without mistakes.

To be a manager is to micro-manage too and to have a match prepared in detail. Potter needs to do better, it's not just about one match but in general.

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by Gol15

2 minutes ago, evissy said:

If you are Todd Boehly would you sack Potter now?

Pluses:

-Instant manager bounce which happened with Potter taking reigns.

Minuses:

-You didn't give Potter enough time to work with the team because: we have a ton of new players, 11 players were injured lengthy periods of this time.

-Potter has to be bought out all of his 60m deal. That costs the club around 60m.

-The new manager has to do all that dance from scratch.

-We have to find a new manager that fits the job.

-We once again teach everyone, mainly the players, to drop tools in adversity and wait for the new manager

-You have folded in the chirps of fans and media and didn't hold onto your plan to hire manager for long haul.

-The league is gone, the CL spots are gone. New manager has no chance of changing that.

 

I pretty much agree, and a manager bounce probably wouldn't help us all that much this season. Better to let the season play out as is and hope for an upturn in results/performances which gives the fans, the players and the owners belief that Potter might be the right man after all. However, after this disastrous run of results, it would be daft not to do our due diligence and identify the next person we'd like to hire if Potter is unable to turn this around

7 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

It is without any doubt, Potter's own tactical mistake for the goal.

You simply don't see such instructions and setups in a 0:0 match, the last time I saw a goal like that was when Torres scored at Camp Nou after we were defending the advantage and our opposition really needed a goal.

This is something that is done in match preparation, it is a really basic thing that Potter failed to achieve and it cost us a lot. You won't see such a blunder on the highest level, no manager should instruct his players like that and we saw that a world class player like Enzo couldn't do much in a 1v1, it's 100% the blunder of our own manager there.

When two sides of similar quality get matched up, the difference is sometimes the tactics and the match preparation and sadly, Potter's lack of a good tactic alongside poor match preparation made the difference. Had James scored from the shot just prior to the counter-attack, everything would have been different but ultimately it's the job of the manager to prevent easy blunders and Potter has failed to see out this first knockout match without mistakes.

To be a manager is to micro-manage too and to have a match prepared in detail. Potter needs to do better, it's not just about one match but in general.

So every second and every minute Potter says where everybody should be aligned to opposition players? Players have instructions. They probably have 3-4 different corner-tactics and players choose the trick. This time the ball landed badly for us and the quickest player on the pitch perfectly scored that goal. His performance there was 5/5. 

Potter is not micro-managing as he is trusting the players to choose and live with the choice. As does Carlo. With young players and new players you probably need to be more hands on in games and that maybe the mistake Potter did there. I am pretty sure 100% of the players admit it was their own fault and the genius of opponent.

But you can spin that on Potter absolutely as you oppose him and in the end coach has the ultimate responsibility.

4 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

I pretty much agree, and a manager bounce probably wouldn't help us all that much this season. Better to let the season play out as is and hope for an upturn in results/performances which gives the fans, the players and the owners belief that Potter might be the right man after all. However, after this disastrous run of results, it would be daft not to do our due diligence and identify the next person we'd like to hire if Potter is unable to turn this around

I trust Boehly has a list of candidates lined up. It seems him and the staff are looking to strengthen every area of the club. This new d**khead-dude is a funny addition.

7 minutes ago, evissy said:

So every second and every minute Potter says where everybody should be aligned to opposition players? Players have instructions. They probably have 3-4 different corner-tactics and players choose the trick. This time the ball landed badly for us and the quickest player on the pitch perfectly scored that goal. His performance there was 5/5. 

Potter is not micro-managing as he is trusting the players to choose and live with the choice. As does Carlo. With young players and new players you probably need to be more hands on in games and that maybe the mistake Potter did there. I am pretty sure 100% of the players admit it was their own fault and the genius of opponent.

But you can spin that on Potter absolutely as you oppose him and in the end coach has the ultimate responsibility.

At every situation Potter should know what the team does and where the players should be. Unless you want to say that the players didn't listen to him and just stayed in the box, he didn't do a good job to prevent a very undesirable situation.

This is beyond him trusting in players, he clearly trusts in the new players he has now which in itself is a good thing. But as the manager what he really wants is to avoid that situation where the opposition player can run a drill and score. A 0:0 draw there wouldn't have been a bad result but we have to score twice at home now and while I do believe that we can do it, avoiding a sucker punch is very important.

30 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

It is without any doubt, Potter's own tactical mistake for the goal.

You simply don't see such instructions and setups in a 0:0 match, the last time I saw a goal like that was when Torres scored at Camp Nou after we were defending the advantage and our opposition really needed a goal.

This is something that is done in match preparation, it is a really basic thing that Potter failed to achieve and it cost us a lot. You won't see such a blunder on the highest level, no manager should instruct his players like that and we saw that a world class player like Enzo couldn't do much in a 1v1, it's 100% the blunder of our own manager there.

When two sides of similar quality get matched up, the difference is sometimes the tactics and the match preparation and sadly, Potter's lack of a good tactic alongside poor match preparation made the difference. Had James scored from the shot just prior to the counter-attack, everything would have been different but ultimately it's the job of the manager to prevent easy blunders and Potter has failed to see out this first knockout match without mistakes.

To be a manager is to micro-manage too and to have a match prepared in detail. Potter needs to do better, it's not just about one match but in general.

The fact is if you're going to critique this is how it's done. Not Potter out blah blah results etc. To analyse the key moment in the game which resulted in us losing. This isn't an agenda against Potter, looking for reasons to criticise this is just looking at the match as a whole and saying x+y=z.  

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by LongtimerLurker

I'm going to explain to some people that don't understand the relationship between spending and winning games. In addition to why its relevant to Potter's appointment and tenure. This isn't me trying to be patronizing or condescending I just don't think enough people know the specific dynamic.

Theoretically spending more on players = higher liklihood of success on the pitch, but this isn't always the case and there are key determinants as to why. This specific relationship of spending more to win more is known as money ball (makes sense right). A theory I believe derived in baseball, but applied to all professional team sports (makes sense why Boehly would then come from a baseball background and apply it to football).

Now the only reason I feel I can talk about this with any kind of authority is because I actually did my Masters dissertation on this specific area: Why do some teams out perform others with a similar financial outlay. I specifically did a case study on the big 6 prem teams across a longitudinal study of 10 seasons. My findings supported relevant literature in the field, and the key word or phrase my friends is 'efficency'. 

How efficient a team uses its resources is the key determinant to how successful the team is. So what does that mean? Firstly you can spend the same amount as a rival, but the players you acquire may be a better fit for your squad, or be of better ability or perhaps have greater work ethic. Furthermore, football coaches (especially elite coaches) have been seen to significantly impact their team's results especially when compared with teams of a similar financial outlay. The way in which a coach utilises (efficiency) their squad has a huge bearing on team performance.

 

When I found out Potter's win percentage was 43.5% before we hired him (which was about a week or two ago we discussed it on here) that raised a big red flag for me. Add that to our expenditures on players and you apply sport business theory to our current situation, you wonder just what exactly Boehly and Co are thinking. To entrust a project to a coach with such a low win rate and little experience in the market that they seek to operate in is very bold and also quite naive (when I say market I mean a super club trying to win all honours competing with other super clubs your Cities, Liverpools, Madrid etc.).

Currently since Felix has been signed the game plan seems to be give the ball to him let him do his magic (cook as the kids say). That's all well and good, but is quite a basic tactic. When it works it papers over the lack of actual tactical superiority, and shows a distinct overreliance on one player. We struggle to score goals and are relying on a non striker to win us games.

Felix might be the closest thing to Hazard we've had, but even Eden would struggle under these current conditions. The lack of a real number 9 is also hurting us, but purely looking from a business point of view Potter isn't performing with the squad he has, we can talk about injuries and bad ref decisions.

The hard truth that some won't want to swallow is, he is significantly under performing with this squad. Since the transfer expenditure it would be insane to expect all the players to gel instantly, but the longer this form continues (and this goes back to November sure we had a world cup for a month but not scoring more than one goal since then is shocking) the more Chelsea FC value depreciates. From a business pov they may intend to give him years, but I wonder how long they can actually stick to their word. 

34 minutes ago, evissy said:

So every second and every minute Potter says where everybody should be aligned to opposition players? Players have instructions. They probably have 3-4 different corner-tactics and players choose the trick. This time the ball landed badly for us and the quickest player on the pitch perfectly scored that goal. His performance there was 5/5. 

Potter is not micro-managing as he is trusting the players to choose and live with the choice. As does Carlo. With young players and new players you probably need to be more hands on in games and that maybe the mistake Potter did there. I am pretty sure 100% of the players admit it was their own fault and the genius of opponent.

But you can spin that on Potter absolutely as you oppose him and in the end coach has the ultimate responsibility.

To be honest, having a family member that has played the position to a reasonblyy high level, most people on here who also play the similar posiiton would say that the Goalkeeper sees the whole picture. The GK always screams at the players to esure that there is 2 v 1 cover.

What we don't know of course is whether Potter and/or member of teh coaching team on the bench and/or Kepa were doing this anyway and the other players had too much ball fever to listen.

It is naive and the coaching team including Potter should be picking it up. If they were there just to spectate then pay for your ticket like the fans. But i still think that the players shoulder some of that responsibility as well.

14 minutes ago, LongtimerLurker said:

I'm going to explain to some people that don't understand the relationship between spending and winning games. In addition to why its relevant to Potter's appointment and tenure. This isn't me trying to be patronizing or condescending I just don't think enough people know the specific dynamic.

Theoretically spending more on players = higher liklihood of success on the pitch, but this isn't always the case and there are key determinants as to why. This specific relationship of spending more to win more is known as money ball (makes sense right). A theory I believe derived in baseball, but applied to all professional team sports (makes sense why Boehly would then come from a baseball background and apply it to football).

Now the only reason I feel I can talk about this with any kind of authority is because I actually did my Masters dissertation on this specific area: Why do some teams out perform others with a similar financial outlay. I specifically did a case study on the big 6 prem teams across a longitudinal study of 10 seasons. My findings supported relevant literature in the field, and the key word or phrase my friends is 'efficency'. 

How efficient a team uses its resources is the key determinant to how successful the team is. So what does that mean? Firstly you can spend the same amount as a rival, but the players you acquire may be a better fit for your squad, or be of better ability or perhaps have greater work ethic. Furthermore, football coaches (especially elite coaches) have been seen to significantly impact their team's results especially when compared with teams of a similar financial outlay. The way in which a coach utilises (efficiency) their squad has a huge bearing on team performance.

 

When I found out Potter's win percentage was 43.5% before we hired him (which was about a week or two ago we discussed it on here) that raised a big red flag for me. Add that to our expenditures on players and you apply sport business theory to our current situation, you wonder just what exactly Boehly and Co are thinking. To entrust a project to a coach with such a low win rate and little experience in the market that they seek to operate in is very bold and also quite naive (when I say market I mean a super club trying to win all honours competing with other super clubs your Cities, Liverpools, Madrid etc.).

Currently since Felix has been signed the game plan seems to be give the ball to him let him do his magic (cook as the kids say). That's all well and good, but is quite a basic tactic. When it works it papers over the lack of actual tactical superiority, and shows a distinct overreliance on one player. We struggle to score goals and are relying on a non striker to win us games.

Felix might be the closest thing to Hazard we've had, but even Eden would struggle under these current conditions. The lack of a real number 9 is also hurting us, but purely looking from a business point of view Potter isn't performing with the squad he has, we can talk about injuries and bad ref decisions.

The hard truth that some won't want to swallow is, he is significantly under performing with this squad. Since the transfer expenditure it would be insane to expect all the players to gel instantly, but the longer this form continues (and this goes back to November sure we had a world cup for a month but not scoring more than one goal since then is shocking) the more Chelsea FC value depreciates. From a business pov they may intend to give him years, but I wonder how long they can actually stick to their word. 

Interesting post... I discern a hidden message...

Some other manager's win percentages from epl:

5) Arsene Wenger - 58% - Unavailable
4) Jose Mourinho- 60%
3) Jurgen Klopp- 64% - Unavailable
2) Sir Alex Ferguson - 65% - Unavailable
1) Pep Guardiola - 74% - Unavailable

 

26 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

At every situation Potter should know what the team does and where the players should be. Unless you want to say that the players didn't listen to him and just stayed in the box, he didn't do a good job to prevent a very undesirable situation.

This is beyond him trusting in players, he clearly trusts in the new players he has now which in itself is a good thing. But as the manager what he really wants is to avoid that situation where the opposition player can run a drill and score. A 0:0 draw there wouldn't have been a bad result but we have to score twice at home now and while I do believe that we can do it, avoiding a sucker punch is very important.

Valid points but this cannot be the sole area of organisation. It is just not feasible. In a 60,000 stadium with a wall of noise rolling throguh the stands it is not practical for the manager so be the sole voice and arbiter of organisational structure. The players know the drills, know the patterns. Its a corner, From 5 yards outside of the box there is nothing happening that is any different than any corner they have ever faced in countless training sessions. They have done this drill routinely since they were 11 or 12. There has to be an additional organiation from on the pitch, which should echo the instructions from pitchside.

Hey this isn't the sole preserve of our lot. This even happened to the greatest team on God's given earth, those with the multi levers. It helped us get to a CL final and helped a certain striker to dine out on it for the rest of the time he was with us.

20 minutes ago, LongtimerLurker said:

I'm going to explain to some people that don't understand the relationship between spending and winning games. In addition to why its relevant to Potter's appointment and tenure. This isn't me trying to be patronizing or condescending I just don't think enough people know the specific dynamic.

Theoretically spending more on players = higher liklihood of success on the pitch, but this isn't always the case and there are key determinants as to why. This specific relationship of spending more to win more is known as money ball (makes sense right). A theory I believe derived in baseball, but applied to all professional team sports (makes sense why Boehly would then come from a baseball background and apply it to football).

Now the only reason I feel I can talk about this with any kind of authority is because I actually did my Masters dissertation on this specific area: Why do some teams out perform others with a similar financial outlay. I specifically did a case study on the big 6 prem teams across a longitudinal study of 10 seasons. My findings supported relevant literature in the field, and the key word or phrase my friends is 'efficency'. 

How efficient a team uses its resources is the key determinant to how successful the team is. So what does that mean? Firstly you can spend the same amount as a rival, but the players you acquire may be a better fit for your squad, or be of better ability or perhaps have greater work ethic. Furthermore, football coaches (especially elite coaches) have been seen to significantly impact their team's results especially when compared with teams of a similar financial outlay. The way in which a coach utilises (efficiency) their squad has a huge bearing on team performance.

 

When I found out Potter's win percentage was 43.5% before we hired him (which was about a week or two ago we discussed it on here) that raised a big red flag for me. Add that to our expenditures on players and you apply sport business theory to our current situation, you wonder just what exactly Boehly and Co are thinking. To entrust a project to a coach with such a low win rate and little experience in the market that they seek to operate in is very bold and also quite naive (when I say market I mean a super club trying to win all honours competing with other super clubs your Cities, Liverpools, Madrid etc.).

Currently since Felix has been signed the game plan seems to be give the ball to him let him do his magic (cook as the kids say). That's all well and good, but is quite a basic tactic. When it works it papers over the lack of actual tactical superiority, and shows a distinct overreliance on one player. We struggle to score goals and are relying on a non striker to win us games.

Felix might be the closest thing to Hazard we've had, but even Eden would struggle under these current conditions. The lack of a real number 9 is also hurting us, but purely looking from a business point of view Potter isn't performing with the squad he has, we can talk about injuries and bad ref decisions.

The hard truth that some won't want to swallow is, he is significantly under performing with this squad. Since the transfer expenditure it would be insane to expect all the players to gel instantly, but the longer this form continues (and this goes back to November sure we had a world cup for a month but not scoring more than one goal since then is shocking) the more Chelsea FC value depreciates. From a business pov they may intend to give him years, but I wonder how long they can actually stick to their word. 

This is interesting read. I trust what you say here. Why Boehly picked Potter is probably of two main things: he is improving players and teams. I think here the stats are constant in terms of his 13 year history as a football coach. Secondly Potter has impressed Boehly and co with his personality and intelligence. After some angry/end of wall conversations with Tuchel I am pretty sure that must have felt pretty refreshing. 

If improvement of players is something the club is looking for, it is in line with buying young talents instead of going for more established players.

I also can't stress enough of the injuries. Couple seasons ago when Liverpool was really thriving they had a terrible season in terms of injuries. VDV and their fullbacks were out most of the time on top of other recurring injuries. Liverpool finished 15 points short of their usual 95 point season. And they had their perfectly aged, well coached side that was challenging everything all the time. We had 11 injuries just after World Cup. Unprecedented. Think about how hard it is to manage a situation like that...

What I personally want to see from here on to the end of the season is improvement in everything; goals, wins, patterns of play, solidity...and maybe a nice run in the Champions League...relatively injury free end as well..

Next season after the summer (if we are succesful in the window) Potter should be thinking about finishing in top 4. 

 

 

We need to have patience. It would be monumentally stupid to get rid of him as all that'll enable is player power (again)

This has to be a long term project and he has to be given time.

We need at the very minimum a forward and a mid to sit behind Enzo. When we've got that then judge the setup.

4 hours ago, Dubair said:

Did he ? I’m not saying you’re wrong but I feel as if kova or Kante and another were usually designated to stay back, I certainly can’t remember a goal similar to last night other than when Kante slipped against arsenal and that’s 3 years ago. 

To be fair, we've been doing it for a while. It was one of my main complaints with Tuchel. I hated leaving one player back like that, we have been susceptible to the break for a few years now. Still though, it's more evidence that Potter has done very little to change anything to our game. Outside of changing the formation, the whole identity of this squad is still Chelsea's Tuchel, just a much worse version of it.

38 minutes ago, LongtimerLurker said:

Theoretically spending more on players = higher liklihood of success on the pitch, but this isn't always the case and there are key determinants as to why. This specific relationship of spending more to win more is known as money ball (makes sense right). A theory I believe derived in baseball, but applied to all professional team sports (makes sense why Boehly would then come from a baseball background and apply it to football).

Admittedly I only saw the film once and it was a few years ago, but my understanding of moneyball is that it's the opposite: maximising spend (usually when a team has limited resources) by using data to target lesser-known and lesser-valued resources with specific statistical/tactical attributes (basically what you go on to describe). Good post though, sorry to nit-pick. 

My stance on Potter hasn't changed at this stage. He gets the rest of the season and we can review his performance then and see whether he's the man to take us forward going into next season.

Meanwhile, Boehly and co should have contingency plans and start considering other coaching options if Potter doesn't work out.

We just need to start going on a run and winning some games to boost morale and confidence. 2 wins in the last 13 simply isn't good enough, even if the losses haven't been as frequent in the last month.