Ray 111 Posted February 21, 2017 Those who watch Soccer AM will have seen this mantra on the wall behind the presenters, and how apposite is it now for NCFC.We know we have the ability, we''ve seen it in spades at times, however do we have the attitude (mindset)?IMO to finish in the top six our mindset has to change. Whilst we all set our own mindset (the players) we can be influenced by others (the manager) so given our away form so far one can only suggest a change in mindset is required.Does AN possess the power to change his mindset and subsequently influence the players'' mindset? I sincerely hope so, however I have my concerns. Of course I hope they are allayed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Number 9 0 Posted February 21, 2017 Has AN demonstrated that he has mastery over these magical powers?No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,689 Posted February 21, 2017 AN said some interesting things recently about how he reacted badly after a match earlier this season and how he was maybe too damning of his players after that match - and that maybe they reacted badly to that, losing confidence, rather than responding well to it. So he may well be trying different methods to get the best out of the players. At home - well, so far recently - who could complain?? But that away form is a real thorn in the side - and the trouble is that other teams know we are vulnerable away and have more belief against us, which gives them an extra advantage - they know we are beatable - and the more beatable they think we are the more we get beat. So the away form is like a viscious circle and it will take a big effort to turn that around in just a few weeks. So it''s a bit of a conundrum - good players, great home form at the moment, away form still not good enough. Injuries is an issue of course, but then the squad is supposed to be strong. Does AN need to inspire the players to change their mindset - or should the players be able to do that for themselves? We still have it within us to get promotion this season - but the players are the ones that have to get it right on the pitch. They need to grow some balls away from home. They are the ones that have to show the attitude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youre a melt 0 Posted February 22, 2017 In their Fantasy Football studio on the wall they have this; ''Formations don''t win football matches, players do!" which I fully agree with! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastcanary 173 Posted February 22, 2017 There was no failure of mindset when the Light Brigade charged into the valley of death. They were a cavalry brigade, doing what they were trained and equipped to do -- but in the wrong tactical circumstances. The comment of the watching Marshal Bosquet ("Magnifique, mais ce n''est pas la guerre") is an apt epitaph to many of our performances both this season and last. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6088m canary 0 Posted February 22, 2017 There is definitely something in this and it again points to a massive failure on the manager''s part.His job is to organise, motivate and get the team balanced.After all of that is covered then the players ability will shine through but first each player needs to know their role, who to pick up at set pieces etc.The away form is shockingly bad but again this only points towards the manager''s inability to balance or motivate the side.In an away game we know the home team will typically have the first 15-20 mins of the game and we need to be set up to counter this. Our defence simply isn''t up it and the cover they receive from the midfield often non-existent. At home we can take the game to the opposition and thus not have our defence exposed so early on. Seemingly pointless to state that AN should go (and should have gone around xmas of the Prem season where it was patently obvious that we were sleepwalking to relegation) yet i think we''re all agreed he''ll be here at least until June. Perhaps AI can head off up north and leave a gap to get a decent coach in to help out. Can''t see us sneaking into the top six and if not then the failure to address the spine of the team is on our board. However the inability to get this side performing is on one man and one man only. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356 Posted February 22, 2017 Westie gets it 👍Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 22, 2017 Hi Westcoast,I beg to differ, there was an issue with mindset, because as you pointed out the tactics were wrong. Can AN change the way he thinks about tactics? If he can his trained troops will take to the field with a better equipped mindset, insomuch they believe in their commander and his ability to read and change a game/ la guerre. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thirsty Lizard 3,196 Posted February 22, 2017 "Attitude is more important than ability" you say Ray.I guess that explains why Andy Hughes was such a popular player.How about this? To be successful you need attitude AND ability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 22, 2017 Thirsty,Yep, agree with that but then I never said ability wasn''t needed, it obviously is but those with less ability can triumph if their attitude out plays their oppo''s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessingham Canary 108 Posted February 22, 2017 Attitude isnt merely half the battle, but is Victory before battle begins, (Eisenhower, i believe) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastcanary 173 Posted February 22, 2017 [quote user="Ray"]Hi Westcoast,I beg to differ, there was an issue with mindset, because as you pointed out the tactics were wrong. Can AN change the way he thinks about tactics? If he can his trained troops will take to the field with a better equipped mindset, insomuch they believe in their commander and his ability to read and change a game/ la guerre.[/quote]Ray, I don''t see it is helpful to attach so broad a meaning to the terms "attitude" and "mindset" that there ceases to be any distinction between (a) a failure of attitude/mindset and (b) tactical misjudgement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 22, 2017 But as any soldier will tell you, the difference between them and us is training.And I would suggest that attitude is part of training. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Goss Volley 0 Posted February 22, 2017 Attitude and ability are hard to quantify. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, it takes an even bigger man to give a giraffe a haircut. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 22, 2017 Attitude obviously isn''t more important than ability - I would run my heart out every weekend for the club but I would be hated more than Russell Martin.It''s important to have both; look at David Bentley for example... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bagster 101 Posted February 22, 2017 The right attitude can only take you so far, now the right attitude and talent can take you wherever you want to go:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356 Posted February 23, 2017 General Bosquets had a fine mind and his analysis was finely honed. The magnifique charge may be a tactic if your resources are inferior and a desperate, lunging, all-or-nothing surprise attack is all you have left.As the equally famous General Melchett observed:''We have decided on a new plan''''Is it going over the top sir?''''Good God man, how did you get hold of the secret plan?''''It''s what we''ve done 17 times in a row sir''''Yes! And that is why they won''t expect it this time...''His fervently held attitude and mindset was crystal clear:''If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to face facts will see us through'' Parma ps: Might this explain resources not used to their maximum, erratic outcomes, barely-concealed taking the opposition lightly, mental arrogance and fragility, repeated scenarios of defensive weakness and occasional spectacular success? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bagster 101 Posted February 23, 2017 Lol Parma so are you suggesting Alex Neil is our very own General Melchett....the cap fits quite well I think, at least it will make me smile thinking of it like that everytime we play:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted February 23, 2017 Bagster wrote the following post at 23/02/2017 11:29 AM:Lol Parma so are you suggesting Alex Neil is our very own General Melchett....the cap fits quite well I think, at least it will make me smile thinking of it like that everytime we play:) Sorry but Baldrick comes more into my mind " I have a cunning plan"😀 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 23, 2017 [quote user="Bagster"]Lol Parma so are you suggesting Alex Neil is our very own General Melchett....the cap fits quite well I think, at least it will make me smile thinking of it like that everytime we play:)[/quote]I think he might be General Haig''s pet tortoise Alan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 23, 2017 Hi Westcoast,Actually having given this some thought and if memory serves, wasn''t it a mix up in communication that resulted in the Charge attacking at the wrong point?However, my overall point is that what you think about is not as influential as the way you think about what you think about and in our case, it is not just a one off misjudgement (even if it was), it appears to be a common theme running through our away form. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastcanary 173 Posted February 24, 2017 @Parma"The magnifique charge may be a tactic if your resources are inferior and a desperate, lunging, all-or-nothing surprise attack is all you have left." Implication: our resources are not inferior, and forever-on-the-front-foot, overly-attacking football is not the only strategy available to Alex Neil.But is that the actualite? I’m reminded of a post-match interview given by Cameron Jerome following a home game early in the season. Our first half performance against a team we were expected to despatch easily had been dire; in the second half we took the game by the scruff of it’s neck and ended with the expected win. “We tried something a bit different first half” Jerome explained; “we talked about it at half-time and decided to revert to what we are all comfortable with” (words to that effect since I can’t now find the interview). Does the superficial superiority of our resources in fact mask a debilitating flaw, in the form of a chronic inability to adapt? Might AN''s stubborn adherence to "expansive football" perhaps be explained by his recognition of this fact? And is the arrival of several continentally-schooled players his way of seeking to address this weakness in the squad? Ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the suggestion that the "bright young manager" of Parma''s early Masterclasses has morphed into the obstinate, unidimensional blockhead of recent posts? Reflect also that it simply isn''t true that Alex Neil has never shown any signs of learning, or seeking to adjust tactically -- think for example of the Hughtonesque adjustments subsequent to our failed visits to St James’ Park both last season and this, on both occasions prompting vociferous complaints (eerily reminiscent of Cameron Jerome''s post match comment) about failing to make the best use of our players by abandoning the style most suited to their strengths. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356 Posted February 24, 2017 @westiePractice doesn''t make perfect. Practice makes permanent.You are inherently comfortable with what you know, which upon repetition feels good and safe. Any Neuroscientist will tell you that you then automatically and instinctively gravitate towards information that validates and reinforces the action you are comfortable with and discards and negates any information that contravenes it.This is no indication that what you are ''comfortable'' with is right, beneficial to you or working on a empirical, practical level.Certain data endorse the cavalier approach. The most obvious is that in 7/10 games in which a team scores first in the EPL that team goes on to win. It is precisely because the losing opposition have to attack and open their shape that subsequent defeat is then made statistically more likely however. QED more attack does not equal more winning.The flip side of this is that it may be an interesting and valuable gamble to go all out Light Brigade to get the first goal. Alex Neil might argue that this is what he does. The counterpoint to this is that tactical weakness which the Masterclasses identified from very early on - and if you recall I refused to lay it out in print for fear of aiding the opposition - that there was an obvious tactical weakness in the way we repeatedly operated our attack.Ironically, I also felt that the weakness scenario identified was actually quite likely - due to a number of factors - to occur quite early in games. Even the lowliest opposition have shown that they know it. If you look at the build up and pattern of the first Burton goal, you will see echoes of many, many others this season. Thus the Glasgow Gambler''s instinct becomes an obsessive death spiral when coupled with Yorkshire self-righteousness and Barnsley certainty in all things.When it works it''s 5-0, when it doesn''t - and it repeatedly doesn''t in autistically similar circumstances - it is an unnecessary gamble with superior resources when a balanced approach such as Brentford or Villa ( as forced upon by the circumstances of terrible results over 10 games previously) saw us rise from the flames.The minute the resurrection had wings however - and there were clear signs even as early as the win over Derby - that Alex Neil was restraining his gambling-my-way-is-right-and-always-was via gritted teeth and was sadly reverting to type, rather than learning the lessons that were in front of him all the time.Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessingham Canary 108 Posted February 24, 2017 @ParmaOr maybe its "perfect practice that makes permanent", that''s what i was taught anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 24, 2017 Parma/Westcoast,Whilst the ''practice makes perfect'' phrase is one commonly used, I do agree with Parma''s ''practice makes permanent''. Perhaps to refine even further, how about practice makes instinctive.As Parma touched on, if you do something often enough via conscious thought it eventually drops into the sub-conscious and becomes the dominant thought and subsequent behaviour. To act sub-consciously is more comfortable than acting consciously, so most people, most of the time, think and act sub-consciously. This of course is a good thing in many instances, such as putting one foot in front of the other, we wouldn''t want to think consciously about every step we took, although we did as a toddler until such time as the ''walking'' instructions had dropped into our sub-conscious. So, how far away is running, dribbling, crossing, passing, shooting, etc. etc. away from the walking instruction, in neurological terms, it''s the same, the subconscious does not judge, it just does.Turning to the ''Glasgow Gambler''s'' instinct, what we see here is his conscious decision to change the way he thought about things and hence our tactics/set up, which resulted in the sprouting of wings, however this conscious behaviour was not repeated often enough for it to drop into his sub-conscious and become his norm, so, he took the easy route and reverted back to his subconscious style of thinking and behaviour.I think some misunderstood my original post, or I didn''t make it clear enough, insomuch that when I talk about attitude (mindset) and ability, what I meant was, we all have the ability to make decisions, it is our attitude which determines the eventual appropriateness of them. As per the point Parma made re the Glasgow Gambler.Finally, if your attitude is that ''you know best'' and your way is the best way, your brain will always work hard at proving you right, so if ''it'' goes wrong then your brain will find reasons why it went wrong that were nothing to do with you, and I do believe we have seen and heard this behaviour. IMO the best attitude to have is one along the lines of; "I love learning and I embrace change" if this was the attitude of our manager, if this was his instinctive stance then it would possibly be better for us all. An easy attitude to adopt, possibly not, but certainly do-able. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessingham Canary 108 Posted February 24, 2017 @Ray"I love learning and I embrace change"Ray a great sentiment, however you can only learn if what you are practicing is correct, embracing change is good, if requirement for change is understood, change should always be a challenge not a threat, and by "challenge" to do something differently should be a mental challenge, and not a threat, and that philosophy only works if you can visualise the outcome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 24, 2017 Hi LC,I think I agree wholeheartedly with one caveat, surely if you are ''stubborn'' in your belief that you are correct then you will find ways to prove you are correct, your brain is hard wired to do so. Flexible thinking is what is required, but if you believe it is not, then you will always get what you''ve always got.If you believe change is a threat then the above will apply and if you believe a change in attitude/mindset are a challenge then this may be beneficial.If you like, to go full circle, your ability to be flexible in your thinking is perhaps governed by your mindset?Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastcanary 173 Posted February 24, 2017 @Parma“You are inherently comfortable with what you know, which upon repetition feels good and safe.”Ironically, the intention of my post was to challenge the increasingly comfortable acceptance of current orthodoxy, which takes the form of two mantras, the first about the quality of our squad, the second about Alex Neil. Comfortable acceptance of the first — “We have one of the best squads in the Championship" — has given rise to a general belief that the squad have underperformed, which in turn fuels comfortable acceptance of the second — "Alex Neil has learnt nothing, he keeps on pig-headedly making the same mistakes, in particular failing to deal with the defensive vulnerabilities highlighted time and again".While the focus of my post was actually the first mantra, replies have focused on the second. Are alternative hypotheses as to why "a balanced approach such as Brentford or Villa" appears no more than just a fleeting phenomenon simply not worth considering? My suggestion is that the criticisms levelled at AN can, perhaps with even more justice, be levelled at too many of our players, in particular the midfield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 24, 2017 Get it Westcoast,But whilst I accept the mindset of each and every midfielder is ultimately set by them and them alone, it can be be massively influenced by their boss? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites