100%

[vlad666 203]

First off I think every player has a duty to be as fit as they possibly can and always give 100% every time they take to the field. Regardless of talent, that is the minimum requirement. Our current team has so many players just coasting through games it''s almost laughable. I''m not a fan of Bradley Johnson but at least the bloke puts it in and gives his all. It''s a sad state of affairs when you can single out one player in a team who wants it more than the others.

In this league we''re up against some good teams and obviously I don''t expect us to be winning every week. What I can''t accept is the way we''re losing. If you give better players time on the ball they''re going to hurt you. I want us to be in their faces, closing down and see players who wear our shirt with pride. There is absolutely no reason we can''t do this. If I saw this attitude and we were bottom of the league I would honestly be more happy watching than I am now.

We''re in a terrible rut and things must change. Lets just get back to the basics and see EVERY player give their all.

OTBC.

[Guest]

Agree, er, 100%. Until the players start doing the basics our result won''t start stabilising. It''s disappointing though, you can accept the fact they don''t have faith in the manager and also that they will have poor games. You can''t accept them not going out and working hard.

[Ray 111]

viad666,

Whilst not for one moment excusing players, I am going to attempt to look deeper.

Obviously I don''t know your personal situation, but you have probably at some stage been in a situation when you were performing some form of work for someone, now were there days/weeks/months/years when your opinion of the guy/gal you worked for was, shall we say, of a low order and in your opinion they kept asking you to perform your job in a manner/style which you were convinced would not provide the best outcome?

For a while you did your best, you peformed your job as requested, but then you started to notice that a vast majority of your customers were complaining about the service you were providing, you know this is because they too agree with you, that the style of the man at the top is not to their liking. Then they start to shoot the messenger, you. You become the point of focus for their resentment of paying good money for a poor service.

Now, if you ever found yourself working in an environment such as this, did you eventually lose heart and go through the motions, no longer going the extra mile, giving 100%? I suspect so, I certainly have.

It would be all too easy to say, yeah but these guys get x thousand pounds per week, yeah they do, but it doesn''t matter how much money you get paid, your emotions and feelings, which drive your behaviour, pay no regard, they still kick in no matter what''s in your bank account.

So, how do we get back to 100% committment, do we change the manager, or we do we take a more radical and cheaper approach and give him the assistance he needs to put it right.

Do we employ an attacking coach to work with him, or give him coaching on how to change his thinking to be more positive, knowing that more comes to those who think they deserve it than those who don''t or both?

I know what I would do, but will the Board?

[vlad666 203]

I understand what you''re saying Ray but Hughton doesn''t pay the players wages. The fans do. Regardless how the players feel about Hughton they have a moral obligation to the fans to give their all.

[Salopian 1]

With the lack of commitment mentioned by Viad666, there is also the fear, shown in the unwillingness to close down and tackle. We are now being picked off from distance, with a series of goals from distance. I would exonerate Turner, Bassong and Bennett, who regularly throw themselves bravely at balls struck towards goal. What has happened to the two lines of four which the manager introduced in an attempt last season to staunch the flow of goals conceded? It may be due partly to using inexperienced younger players on the wings, and who have yet to learn how to defend.

The fear seems to be reinforced by the manager''s dictum of "not conceding and see if we can nick a goal", and they regularly seem to be like rabbits caught in the headlights.

There is also the confidence factor. A win or two and play improves, but a reversal and it disappears again. Hughton is an experienced manager, but perhaps he has lacked the experience of motivating a squad like ours.Whatever the cause of the lack of confidence, and the heavy defeats have not helped, It is difficult to see how anything other than a run of a games without defeat will change things, and at the moment such a run looks very unlikely.

[lake district canary 4,531]

It is a combined confidence and lack of overall quality.   The passing of Johnson for one, the pace or bad decision making of Snodgrass the inexperience of Redmond etc etc - not to mention injuries.  Its no one thing.  Hughton has to shoulder the responsibilty, but circumstances haven''t helped him.]

[Ray 111]

viad666,

I agree totally they do have a moral obligation and they probably feel they are fulfilling that obligation, but their emotions pay little heed to how much they earn or iundeed, who is paying it. Many people have moral obligations to others, husbands to wives, wives to husbands, both to children, etc, etc. but that doesn''t stop them making decisions which go against that moral obligation, no matter how much they earn and who pays them and who does what for who.

It could also be argued that we (the fans) pay the wages of Hughton. McNally, et al, so they all have a moral obligation to us, not just the players.

Bottom line, I agree, but what the individual players, managers, coaches, board members see as meeting their moral obligation may be completely different to what we think it is. The logical stance is that the thing to do is still perform at 100%, no matter what the formation and tactics are, to fulfill our moral obligations, however as human beings our lives are run by our emotions not logics, we dont have logics we have emotions.