Our Kev’s Electric


I like Kevin Wilkin. You know why? It’s not the exciting attacking options he’s brought into the club; it’s not that he’s a genuinely nice bloke; it’s not even the slight resemblance he bears to Gary Numan, whose early LPs played a key part in forming the morose personality of my teens. No, it’s the fact that he’s never satisfied.

I first realised this on the opening day of the season. We’d just won away to Dartford with a new look side which was still bedding in and although we’d not been totally in control of the game it felt like a good three points to me.

Not to Wilkin though. He wasn’t happy. He expected more of his team, expected more control. We saw the same again after we’d put five past Macclesfield. Wilkin wasn’t satisfied and spent much of his post-match press conference bemoaning our lack of ruthlessness, our failure to put to the sword a side reduced to ten men but forced to attack by the deficit they had to overcome.

This sense of dissatisfaction is a fine attribute for a manager to have. He’s never happy with what he sees before him – the punishment he doles out on his water bottles during the match is evidence of that!- and therefore is always striving to improve.

The peculiar case of Dan Holman is proof of this. After a month on loan in which he accumulated the grand total of thirty one minutes on the pitch there were many who questioned the wisdom of bringing him in. Unlike Wilkin’s Evian bottles, the argument that he was always going to be superfluous holds water: after all, our attack has been the part of the side which has caught the eye this season, and Holman was surely never going to dislodge Louis Moult up front.

Furthermore, when we switched to two strikers, even when Moult was suspended, Holman was logically behind Andy Bishop in the queue as the ex-Bury man has far more of the attributes required of a target man. As a result, Holman has obtained a mysterious, almost Arthurian air among Wrexham fans. He appeared from nowhere and looked to have the skills to save us judging by video of his two goals at Chester from Braintree last season and his now mythical accuracy in pre-match shooting drills.

So why did Wilkin bring him in if there was no obvious spot for him in the side? Because he’s never content. Like the cliché about a Chinese meal, our attacking play always leaves you feeling slightly empty: we constantly look to have so many goals in us, and rarely hit the net as often as we should. Even the Macclesfield game illustrated this: we scored five but ought to have got at least three more!

So Wilkin acted to see if he could add a more ruthless edge to our attack. It didn’t work out, but don’t knock the man for trying. He’s never happy, and until we’re back in the Football League you shouldn’t be either.

One thought on “Our Kev’s Electric

  1. I think your comment about our attacking is spot on. Bishop has had a successful career because of his no-nonsense and clinical approach to attacking. I see him as the rock our young fish can dart round, in the crab infested rock pool of the non-league, creating waves, winkling out the odd goal, and turning defenders into jellyfish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s