Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Mass Debater

Fans who say the players arent good enough

Recommended Posts

"Ar se"......."bleats"..."cretin".  Ah yes....the voice of reason.

And as for your insistence on bringing Hughton into the argument, that just shows how you are so stuck in your mindset you can''t accept players being criticised.   I''ve accepted Hughton failed in what he set out to do - you just seem to want to carry on a non existent argument.  This thread is about the players and how they will react to a new manager.    I am simply saying that it is not as simple as a new manager coming in and the players will suddenly become free and expressive.  But you carry on in your black and white world if you like. 

For you Hughton has gone- alleluliah! Things will never be as bad again for you. Until we get another Grant, or Roeder, or Gunn..............

For me, whoever the manager is, I''ll be looking to see if certain players can improve their techniques and  develop their game to live up to the salaries they earn.   There are a few who have questions to answer atm imo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"And as for your insistence on bringing Hughton into the argument"I think you will find that is was actually you who first brought Hughton into this thread with your comment "and as much as I do agree that Hughton''s approach did not work well enough" and moved the debate on to his failings

" I am simply saying that it is not as simple as a new manager coming in and the players will suddenly become free and expressive"yet no one is saying that, apart from youa rather silly kind of ''aunt sally'' that you continually put up so that you can knock down, then claim some sort of victory

you lost the argument when the board stated that they should have sacked much earlier than they did - and as the players who stay and those who leave begin to blossom again your nonsensical witterings will become all the more absurd

I don''t believe that you have a clue about football anymore than you live in the Lake District, what motivates you to post up this idiotic rubbish must be a mystery to one and all ..... bar your carer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m really beginning to think that Snodgrass may be the biggest problem we have.

He was the worst possible player to have supplying RvW & Hooper, as they needed quality balls played in early. he is just so, so slow - not just in terms of sheer pace, but in decision making. He never seemed to look up & see what the strikers were doing. He''d dribble for a bit, find an opportunity to cut inside, then cross or shoot. The shots were usually blocked & the crosses useless because the opposition had plenty of time to get in position.

He is quite skillful & fairly strong, so not a bad player as such. But these factors flatter to deceive, his true worth to the team is poor. He seems to have a Hell of an ego too; players need self-confidence, but still need to be team players. Holt was exemplary in this regard.

I think a fit EB & a Quag type signing would have produced a different season (I still don''t rate RvW & Hooper, but obviously they would have performed better with decent service).

BJ is the other real problem. Occasionally he''ll do something, score a good goal, but over all he''s far too inconsistent. He''s a sort of mongrel cross between a defensive/attacking midfielder & is not good enough at either.

Howson I find an enigma; sometimes he can look a real class act, others just totally anonymous. In attitude he seems the antithesis of Snodgrass & could definitely do with more self confidence.

All the above observations apply to the PL. Perhaps they''ll tear the Champs apart, but perhaps not. I''ll bet the Ricky/Snodgrass combo will look just as ropey though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]I don''t believe that you have a clue about football anymore than you live in the Lake District, what motivates you to post up this idiotic rubbish must be a mystery to one and all ..... bar your carer[/quote]

The more you try, the worse you get at picking holes in someone''s argument.  You can''t actually bring yourself to debate the points made about the players, but try instead to discredit the overall poster instead of the message he is putting across.   Well done. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]My perception of things is that the players were not good enough to play in the way Hughton wanted to[/quote]Jesus wept...[quote]What you could criticise is the fact that Hughton was trying to get players to play in a way that didn''t suit them - I would accept that - but the reason we were expected to play like that was to develop a way of playing that would evolve into an effective and successful strategy.[/quote]But it was NEVER going to be an effective strategy, especially with the players we had and Hughton should have known that from day one.The first season I can accept as transitional from Lambert leaving and Hughton trying to make us more solid defensively, but when the 2nd season came around and he was given the chance to go out and get the players he needed to play HIS system - he signed people that either simply didn''t fit, or that he mis-played in a less suited role![quote]Its no good just saying the players are better than they performed this season. They aren''t. They have to go out and prove they are good enough next season.[/quote]No, they really don''t.The vast majority of our players have already proved their ability in our first season back at the top under PL, with other players having proven their ability in other premiership teams e.g. Bassong, Turner etc. I also think it''s fair to say that players like Fer and Olsson have proved their ability at this level, and whilst Hooper and RVW have clearly underperformed, they were always going to in Hughtons ridiculous system that asked goal poachers to play as target men and with no supply to boot![quote]If we had done better this season, Hughton might have been able to secure a third year and upgraded more of the squad to be able to cope with the type of football he wanted to develop.[/quote]You don''t play football that doesn''t suit the players for 2 years solid in the hope that by the third year you''ll have brought in enough new players to make it vaguely succesful - are you seriously that idiotic to back this sort of approach LDC???[quote]Its not as simple as you guys make out.[/quote]It really is...[quote]Strikers not getting service was an issue - but then think about it - Redmond on one side a little inexperienced, Snodgrass holding play up on the other side, Johnson erratic with passing. Three out of your midfield five not good[/quote]Inexperience is one thing, but when you''re being told to focus more on defending than attacking then it''s going to stifle a natural pacy player like Redmond regardless. If Snoddy was holding the ball up too much (and I fully agree that he was) then it was up to Hughton to tell him to stop it and inject more pace in the game - it didn''t happen. Similarly, BJ should have been told to play sensible shorter passes (as Tettey does the majority of the time) instead of trying stuff well above his ability level, not to mention to stop shooting from 25 yards all the time and given the opposition possession back - Hughton didn''t deal with any of that.[quote]Players are responsible for themselves and the players this season weren''t up to the job. Players want the big salaries, but if they can''t deliver - they have to answer the critics.[/quote]So your boss at work tells you do something in a certain way even though you know that it''s ineffecient and you can do it a better way, you also know that if you refuse and do it your way that you will get fired, yet somehow you still want to blame the employee for the poor end product rather than the clown in charge who''s ''forcing'' them to do it that way...you really are unreal at times LDC....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, hopefully Indy we can get Pep Hoofadoofa from Hoofadoofa FC grasshoppers, the guy you saw on Eurosport in 1996 and quite fancied, and he''ll get us playing in the right way.

Hopefully he can get Michael Owen on a "pay as you play" *pffff* and get is attacking again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lake district canary"]My perception of things is that the players were not good enough to play in the way Hughton wanted to[/quote]Jesus wept...[quote]What you could criticise is the fact that Hughton was trying to get players to play in a way that didn''t suit them - I would accept that - but the reason we were expected to play like that was to develop a way of playing that would evolve into an effective and successful strategy.[/quote]But it was NEVER going to be an effective strategy, especially with the players we had and Hughton should have known that from day one.The first season I can accept as transitional from Lambert leaving and Hughton trying to make us more solid defensively, but when the 2nd season came around and he was given the chance to go out and get the players he needed to play HIS system - he signed people that either simply didn''t fit, or that he mis-played in a less suited role![quote]Its no good just saying the players are better than they performed this season. They aren''t. They have to go out and prove they are good enough next season.[/quote]No, they really don''t.The vast majority of our players have already proved their ability in our first season back at the top under PL, with other players having proven their ability in other premiership teams e.g. Bassong, Turner etc. I also think it''s fair to say that players like Fer and Olsson have proved their ability at this level, and whilst Hooper and RVW have clearly underperformed, they were always going to in Hughtons ridiculous system that asked goal poachers to play as target men and with no supply to boot![quote]If we had done better this season, Hughton might have been able to secure a third year and upgraded more of the squad to be able to cope with the type of football he wanted to develop.[/quote]You don''t play football that doesn''t suit the players for 2 years solid in the hope that by the third year you''ll have brought in enough new players to make it vaguely succesful - are you seriously that idiotic to back this sort of approach LDC???[quote]Its not as simple as you guys make out.[/quote]It really is...[quote]Strikers not getting service was an issue - but then think about it - Redmond on one side a little inexperienced, Snodgrass holding play up on the other side, Johnson erratic with passing. Three out of your midfield five not good[/quote]Inexperience is one thing, but when you''re being told to focus more on defending than attacking then it''s going to stifle a natural pacy player like Redmond regardless. If Snoddy was holding the ball up too much (and I fully agree that he was) then it was up to Hughton to tell him to stop it and inject more pace in the game - it didn''t happen. Similarly, BJ should have been told to play sensible shorter passes (as Tettey does the majority of the time) instead of trying stuff well above his ability level, not to mention to stop shooting from 25 yards all the time and given the opposition possession back - Hughton didn''t deal with any of that.[quote]Players are responsible for themselves and the players this season weren''t up to the job. Players want the big salaries, but if they can''t deliver - they have to answer the critics.[/quote]So your boss at work tells you do something in a certain way even though you know that it''s ineffecient and you can do it a better way, you also know that if you refuse and do it your way that you will get fired, yet somehow you still want to blame the employee for the poor end product rather than the clown in charge who''s ''forcing'' them to do it that way...you really are unreal at times LDC....[/quote]

 

So you disagree then?  [;)]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buh"]Well, hopefully Indy we can get Pep Hoofadoofa from Hoofadoofa FC grasshoppers, the guy you saw on Eurosport in 1996 and quite fancied, and he''ll get us playing in the right way.Hopefully he can get Michael Owen on a "pay as you play" *pffff* and get is attacking again![/quote]I''ve heard about flogging a dead horse, but you''re not just flogging it, you''re beating the hell out of it with a baseball bat and then taking sexual advantage of the stone cold corpse!All because you can''t see past the usual suspects that are UK based in regards to manager choice, and that you didn''t agree with the idea of Owen on a ''pay as you play'', you''ve now decided to stalk me from thread to thread banging the same tired old drum.I''d ask if you didn''t have anything better to do with your time, but seeing as how you keep making these responses it''d be a rhetorical question anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m not saying you are a hipster mate but I reckon you put on your zero magnification glasses, braces and Dortmund shirt this morning. Got on your penny farthing and rode down to the apple store and you''re in there right now playing out bands "you wouldn''t have heard of" on an 8 track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buh wrote the following post at 21/05/2014 9:33 AM:

I''m not saying you are a hipster mate but I reckon you put on your zero magnification glasses, braces and Dortmund shirt this morning. Got on your penny farthing and rode down to the apple store and you''re in there right now playing out bands "you wouldn''t have heard of" on an 8 track.

I was finding this thread interesting and had contributed.

Then this ............... this highlights everything wrong with this forum. People coming into a thread with a personal agenda which contributes nothing whatsoever to the subject matter. The rantings of a child or the demented?

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever been involved in management in any form LDC?

That is not to be taken as a dig but a geniune question.

If you have then you will know that unless you can offload all your staff and start with a clean sheet, you have to use the skills and talents of the people you have to their best ability. Management is about getting the best out of people, recognising their differences and identifying what makes them tick. Its the same with football management and players, no single player is perfect at every aspect of his game, but certainly as i said before, the crop we have have got enough talent to play at the top level. But to enable that to happen you must get them playing to their strengths without trying to force round pegs into square holes.

You said earlier my view was simplistic, far from it, getting the best out of players is highly complex and demands outstanding management skills, the simplistic view is to say that the players arent good enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The importance of the manager is vastly operated in my experience. I''ve worked with a lot of different professional sports coaches - they all have similar experiences and training so they all say similar things - ultimately it somes down to the innate abilities of the individuals as there are personal style preferences but not a lot of difference between professionally trained coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...overrated...

Basically quality of players is far more important than manager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T - does this not highlight the vast difference between a manager and a coach?

A coach can work on the technical abilities of players, and as such many will be very similar, whereas the manager''s job is far more deep rooted, looking into everything not just about the player but also about the man and how to motivate and inspire him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T overrated...

Basically quality of players is far more important than manager

What some people don''t seem to grasp is the responsibility of the players. The manager is the enabler - but there is a limit to what a manager can do. Motivation is one thing. Players not sorting out things in their game that could improve is something else. This is what frustrates me about some footballers - they don''t appear to recognise where they could improve - and do something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professional coach training does not only include technique but also tactics, people, and physical training so I actually mean a coach in the true, broader sense. If coaches/managers were really able to make such a difference as people think then you would not see such a high turnover in managers. Only a few managers can possible "succeed" each season so in reality most managers will "fail" to achieve fans unrealistic expectations. Its pretty much a nigh impossible task as no manager consistently overperforms as the amount of control a manager has over the situation is very limited. Its just easier to blame one individual rather then recognise the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lake district canary wrote the following post at 21/05/2014 10:43 AM:

................ This is what frustrates me about some footballers - they don''t appear to recognise where they could improve - and do something about it.

LDC in all levels of football players will do the wrong thing, week in, week out, unless it is pointed out to them.

I have played with players who, in the eyes of most people who have seen the match, have had poor games but they have felt they played well. This applies more to the defence and midfield as if goalkeepers let in lots of goals they usually look at themselves as do strikers if they miss a load of chances.

Players need to have their misgivings pointed out to them, they need to be told what they are doing wrong if the manager sees it that way.

I share your frustration of Snodgrass on the right, not getting in early meaningful crosses and slowing the game down. But he either plays that way because the manager tells him to, the manager allows him to or the manager does nothing about it if he does it that way and he doesn''t want him to.

Snodgrass surely is answerable to the manager as are all players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very much agree with the coach as enabler. Professional coaches talk a lot about the individual taking personal responsibility to recognise and improve their mistakes. Unfortunately no manager/coach can make someone a top performer - the individuals are far more important than the coach/manager hence McNally''s comment about getting the transfer window wrong which was a collective failure. As anyone who has ever recruited staff knows though unfortunately it is difficult to know for sure how your recruitment will work out no matter how much due diligence you perform. Its like getting married you can do all the checks you like but you don''t really know what you are getting until you complete the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Snodgrass surely is answerable to the manager as are all players."

True - but players are also answerable to themselves. It is always easier to blame someone else for your problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True - but players are also answerable to themselves. It is always easier to blame someone else for your problems.

Agreed - but if the player is doing the same thing week in week out that must be what he is being asked to do?

His responsibility is to do as instructed to the best of his ability, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]...overrated...

Basically quality of players is far more important than manager[/quote]

So if this is the case, how do you explain the difference in the successes of SAF and David Moyes? David Moyes inherited the same playing squad essentially as what SAF had to work with. They were champions under SAF, they didnt even qualify for Europe under Moyes.

If the manager is unimportant, how do you explain that? I personally dont think this proves Moyes was a bad manager, I think it proves that SAF was a fantastic manager. For years he had the best team, but also, for a number of seasons, on paper his playing squad was inferior to Man City, Chelsea etc, yet he still got them performing above their level, in the same way Lambert got the best out of his rough diamonds here.

Many times when Man Utd won the league it wasnt simply because they had the best players, it was because they had the best manager.

If the manager is unimportant, then Utd should have won the league this year. They didnt, and I think this simply proves that without the SAF effect, the players Man Utd have at the moment arent the best in the league

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, there are normal variations around the general trend so citing one off example in no was refutes the point. Again there is a natural tendency for people to look at recent individual events rather than the big picture.

Secondly ManU under SAF performed very closely to what you expect.

Thirdly, ManU team was coming to its end and ManU did not invest. I''m sure SAF realised that just that PL

realised it would be difficult to repeat the survival trick.

I could ask the same question if the manager is so important then why don''t they consistently overperform and no one has been able to answer that question because no manager does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best managers do consistently overperform though at certain clubs. I completely appreciate your point that citing an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule (its one of my pet hates), but there are many examples where managers have transformed teams with very little difference to the playing squad.

Steve McLaren has transformed Derby, Tony Pulis has transformed Crystal Palace, and this isnt based on very much more than good management - the squads havent been completely replaced.

Managers I would also draw attention to (albeit at specific clubs and specific examples) are Sam Allardyce at Bolton, and Alan Curbishley at Charlton.

Both had these teams performing at a consistently high level for an extended period of time. Both Bolton and Charlton sank like a stone when those managers left. This is what I feared when Lambert left - if the man behind the success goes, there is no intrinsic ''success left'' and so ability returns to base. I feel this is what happened at Man Utd. They were never as good in terms of ability as their league position suggested - SAF just got the best out of them, where his counterparts at other clubs did not.

Look at clubs that have tried to ''buy the title'' over the year and failed.

Stoke and Swansea have however shown that if you get the managerial selection right, a dynasty can survive.

Many felt that Swansea would regress after Martinez left, but they replaced him with Rodgers and the work was continued, then they got the (short term) appointment of Laudrup right and their success continued. Big question is is their latest manager the right choice.

Managers cant go out and kick the ball for the players, but they can influence whether players are playing to the upper limits of their potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mcclaren possibly a good call as he has outperformed a few times but also plenty of failures

Alladyce didn''t outperform at Bolton at all as heavily subsidised by wealthy benefactor

Think Curbishley at Charlton is a good call

Pulus/stoke - again subsidised by wealthy benefactor and performed where expected

SAF performed where expected

Swansea have outperformed in recent years but subsidised by potentially illegal stadium deal and with different managers.

Not disputing that managers may make a difference in a season but that could just be random. If managers really made such a big difference then you would expect to see them consistently outperform and they don''t. Curbishley and Clough maybe but they are rare exceptions. Managers generally make no long term difference with a caveat if you get a professional experienced coach but then as they are doing the same coaching qualifications these days there is unlikely to be a fundamental difference. If you could find a manager that consistently outperformed each year then the average tenure of managers would not be so short. That means managers may make a short term difference but not a long term difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, LDC''s lack of understanding of football becomes more apparent with the choice of players he''s basically saying aren''t good enough.

Instead of those who have been genuinely poor for the majority of the season - LDC decides to use our POTS as the mark for who''s not good enough.

Jesus wept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"] Many felt that Swansea would regress after Martinez left, but they replaced him with Rodgers and the work was continued,  [/quote]

Paulo Sousa replaced Martinez (not that it makes a lot of difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]Personally, LDC''s lack of understanding of football becomes more apparent with the choice of players he''s basically saying aren''t good enough.

Instead of those who have been genuinely poor for the majority of the season - LDC decides to use our POTS as the mark for who''s not good enough.

Jesus wept.[/quote]

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding too.    If you can''t objectively see how players affect a team I am sorry for you.    There are several of course who have not performed as well as they could - but Snodgrass is the dominant player. He takes all the free kicks and all the corners and gets hold of the ball on the right hand side of the pitch, quite often failing to deliver anything useful, or delivering too late when defences have got back.   Strikers haven''t been getting good service - or hadn''t you noticed??

However, he scores, gets stuck in and does sometimes deliver a good corner/free-kick.  But does that outweigh the negative side?  That is the question. 

But please don''t tell me he is beyond criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as he isn''t beyond criticism LDC I can''t help but feel you don''t attribute enough weight to the argument that he, like many other players, was misused due to Hughton''s tactical ineptitude in terms of attacking movement. Snodgrass had next to no help in terms of creating overloads and neither were we fluid enough in midfield to get high, pin a team in for long periods, and allow him to be at his most effective.

Yes, I agree he took too long to deliver crosses very often and tried to do too much, but you cannot isolate Snodgrass for blame because he was ''dominant''. He had to be. We had nine other outfielders largely shirking responsibility at every turn (other than Olsson and to an extent Redmond for whom the weight of defensive responsibility was too much too young).

If you want a winger who can beat a man and deliver effective crosses every time he gets the ball, you go on and write the club a £20m cheque and we''ll go shopping. You don''t get that in our price range. Redmond doesn''t do that. Pilkington didn''t do that. But you get from Snodgrass die-hard commitment and dead ball ability up there with the best free kick takers in the league.

Elliott Bennett is the one player who potentially could have ousted Snodgrass this season were he fit IMO. He''s not a bad set piece taker himself, he also works hard and tackles well. But his crossing is no more consistent than Snodgrass'' is anyway.

P.S Crossing is the most inefficient method of scoring in football. Hughton''s rigidity preventing us pulling defenders out of position to find a pass through the defence 90% of the time is a bigger problem than whether Snodgrass likes to ballhog.

Rant over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]As much as he isn''t beyond criticism LDC I can''t help but feel you don''t attribute enough weight to the argument that he, like many other players, was misused due to Hughton''s tactical ineptitude in terms of attacking movement. [/quote]

That is the question isn''t it?  How much was down to tactical ineptitude and how much down to player ineptitude?   I would say it was a combination of the two. It is so easy to blame one thing and not the other.   We all saw in several games where we dominated possession, closed down quickly chased as if lives depended on it - and we got points from some of those games.   So why did it not happen more often?   Because the manager didn''t want us to?  Or that the players couldn''t do it in the face of quality opposition? 

Lets face it. It was a pretty awful season all round and I don''t think anyone comes out of it with much credit.   But players are on the pitch to do a job they are paid handsomely for.   They didn''t do it - and they - the midfielders who couldn''t pass straight - the attackers who missed chances - the wingers who failed to get in quality early crosses in - have to answer for that -whoever is/was the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...