I don't think anyone could say that Stuart Maynard hasn't been a good appointment because he has done well enough after taking on the role after Luke Williams left us at the worst time. The beginning was very unfortunate for Maynard, and I don't fault him for the downward fall that happened when we seemed to start losing every other week. I think from the coaching point of view, that is where his strengths are. He knows the squad now and who to start. There was a period especially last season when good performing players were dropped unexpectedly, and I still would say he's learning on the job.
The issue for me is he has a tendency of still impacting how players perform by instantly switching back to previous players and disregarding form. We started with a fair squad, but certain players were overplayed and this left us with much of an issue. Such as relying on David McGoldrick without giving someone like Cedwyn Scott more of a rotational role. Obviously, Scott then got injured and then needed time off for his mental health. I think experienced managers would have been able to see some of these issues coming. Scott was probably wanting to play as a striker but would often be pushed into an attacking midfield role. He was okay in that position, but you have to wonder when we needed someone to ease Jatta and McGoldrick, why Scott never really got that chance. I mean, there was a point Scott had more of a chance, but he quickly fell back to being someone on the bench.
Leaving changes late, or making them all in one go. The FA Cup match is the only time I feel justified in defending that decision, as we really needed to manage the players' fitness. Did he have to make them all in one go? No, but Peterborough had made changes long before all our subs came on that helped them come into the game. It just became an excuse, to the frustration that he does tend to make bold changes when it's not really needed. On the other hand, he has done well with changes and again, it comes down to management.
I just don't think Maynard sees how to get the best out of players' performances and sees the squad as being acceptable for being subpar. Whereas I think the old fashioned approach of handling players in form yields better results on the pitch. I don't think it's a case of him having favourites, but he seems to rate players more highly over others and prefers to risk them at the expense of maintaining form. Kellan Gordon burst into the team when we needed someone to pick up after the loss of Jodi Jones, but the way Maynard played him I believe impacted Gordon's form. Now, I don't think Gordon is the most consistent player but he's a totally different player when in form. Maynard is still clearly learning. He's gone from the nervous selections to knowing which players are best, but it does come at the cost of maintaining form.
His decisions in-game are a sign that he's sometimes out of his depth. Salford, for example, we desperately needed speed to counter how Salford passed the ball around. They enjoyed sitting off us, allowing the pace and the lack of direct approach from Notts meant that at 1-0, we were only going to lose that game. I still have my reservations about if he's good enough. I want him to succeed, and as I say, he will get my support, but certain parts of his ability are an eye-opener.