Where does the buck stop - a rhetorical question

[Morph 19]

"I`m not into bashing Worthy ... there`s been much talk of where the buck stops ? and , to my way of thinking , the buck stops with the players !!!! its THEY who have to earn the silly money they get" - sheded

Reading the post in another thread from sheded made me think about the question where does the buck stop at City?

All of us could throw our hands in the air, whether we were there or not, at the 6-0 result against Fulham at the end of last season. I''m sure we could throw our hands in the air at some of our other results under Worthy and all the management teams that have proceeded him. But it raises that question about who is responsible for a teams poor performance?

Worthy clearly thought the team picked for Fulham was the right team. He picked an 11 that he thought would do the job. He picked team tactics that he similarly thought would do the job. It didn''t because ultimately the team let him, and the supporters, down - big time. Was it poor preparation? Was it poor prematch motivation?

When it comes to sackings the buck ultimately stops with the manager as he is judged on his teams results, but what can he do once he''s sent his 11 onto the "battlefield"?

I''ve always believed that ultimately it''s down to the manager, but players can be like petulant kids who strut around with that arrogant air sometimes and then simply go on the pitch and perform like sulky children who couldn''t care less. What does the gaffer do about that? If he can''t see it before the match - not a lot. 11 sulkers doesn''t leave him enough options with substitutions.

The thing that City don''t appear to have that they have had in the past is a on the field general. Somebody that can spot when things are going wrong and make an adjustment without words from the manager. Think back over the "generals" that City have had that have made a difference - Forbes/Stringer, Bruce, Roberts, Mackay. Do we have one now? Would they make a difference?

What do you think?

...

[YankeeCanary 0]

Morph, as with all sports teams, over time the manager is ultimately the one who has to accept his fate if things don''t go the right way. That''s why managers exist and that''s why there are people in place to decide the manager''s fate. It goes with the territory and everyone understands that. However, I do agree that we need a "general on the pitch. Did you see my post regarding my dream "general". http://new.pinkun.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=63&messageid=210373

[Evil Monkey 52]

I''ve always been of the opinion that it is the players that make a performance, not the manager.  The gaffer can plan everything right, get the tactics right, pick the right players, etc, but if those players then wander onto the pitch and proceed to play like uninterersted muppetts (a la Francis, Bentley, etc at Fulham), then how can that be the fault of the manager?

I think Leeds summed it all up nicely a few years ago when they got relegated, as did Sunderland really! How many managers did those teams go through trying to get themselves out of the relegation battle? And did it make any ounce of difference to the quality and ability and performances of the players? None at all!

We could have sacked Worthy around christmas time, and got in Peter Reid, or whoever, and it would have made no difference because the players we had in the squad simply weren''t good enough to be playing Premiership football!

We can argue that he''d have dropped the likes of Flem and Eddy as the fans wanted, but would Doc and Helveg have done any better? And he could have moved Jonson from the right wing, but who would he put there in his place? Henderson? McVeigh? No, they''re apparently strikers too! So he''d have probably dipped into the loan market for an experienced right winger and probably come out with... yes, Graham Stuart!

Because not only can the manager not determine how a player will play week in, week out, he also cannot determine who is available in the transfer market and whether they want to actually come to little old Norwich - he can try his best, but what difference will it make if those players have already made their minds up?

I play 7-a-side footie on Wednesdays with a core group of around 14 chaps, plus others as cover.  My old housemate, Ed, chose the teams every week, tried to balance them up based on player''s abilities to ensure a tight, exciting game and... guess what... each week at least one person, maybe more, will simply have a ''mare and one side will tonk the other! And people blamed Ed! So now he''s passing the team-choosing duties around - My turn, I chose what I thought to be two very good sides, and my side turned up and played like muppets, and lost heavily.  The next week Jamie Wright chose the teams, and it was a great game because everyone on both sides had a good game! Neither time was it my fault, or Jamie''s fault, it is simply how people play on the day and no one can anticipate that in advance, not even the player!

My point is that players have to take a fair amount of the responsibility.  These people are professionals, not just playing 7-a-side down the UEA with their mates, and if they don''t turn up and perform on the day, then it matters!

And, just like our Wednesday nights, someone else takes the blame.....

[First Wizard 0]

Morph: I have to use a comparison here, so here goes, and stick with it here. The English Civil War!.

There was an awful lot of corruption, treachery and damn right awfulness with the ruling classes (Royalists) in those days, and people not pulling their weight etc.

This of course sparked parliament and good old Cromwell into declaring war on the rulng classes leader, King Charles!.

Now some people and historians say, that Charles was ill advised, and let down by his advisors and troops in the said war, but guess who lost his head when the kings army was defeated?.

Its a bit like City in a way. For King Charles read Worthy, for Prince Rupert read Darren Huckerby.

Now you can say that the troops (players) by their actions caused Charles (Worthy) to fail, but as leader, its him who gets the chop!.

Its not right or indeed proper, but its history!. 

[NottsCanary 0]

[quote]I''ve always been of the opinion that it is the players that make a performance, not the manager. The gaffer can plan everything right, get the tactics right, pick the right players, etc, but if those...[/quote]

My arguement would be this...

Okay, the players do make the performance not the manager, but at the end of the day, Worthy has been here 5 or 6 years, (not quite sure), so that team he put out there is his team and if it isn''t performing it is mainly his fault as the players on that pitch are the ones he bought to do the job.

And if they aren''t motivated or haven''t had the right coaching then they are both his fault as-well. I just think our final day at Fulham was just one big balls up all round, everyone was at fault... apart from the fans, top drawer 

[bailojnr 0]

1st wiz. Interesting that you use the civil war and "good old cromwell" the analogy would have worked well but for the fact that cromwell was as dictatorial as the king. The nightmare in Ireland was of cromwells doing, why do you think we reverted to a monarchy again! Good try but it would be like replacing worthy with hamilton!

[Mark .Y. 352]

The buck ALWAYS stops with the manager, if he cannot get the best out of the players under him then he has to ship them out and get new ones in. We have talked enough times on this board about getting more than the sum of the parts out of a group of players. If the coaching is not up to it, he needs to get new coaches in. Same for scouting, if we are not being fed a stream of potential purchases for NW to cast his eye over then he needs new scouts.

The manager (quite rightly) got the plaudits for getting the club up and he now needs to look over every aspect of "his" business to ensure things are running correctly. In my opinion they are not, I feel we are drifting into a "nice little Norwich" situation where the board/manager/coaching staff are all great mates and would not dream of demanding more from each other let alone threaten the sack.

Mark .Y.

[beelsie 0]

In general the buck will stop with the manager!! Unfair but that is how it is.  As has been said; the players have a responsibility to NCFC, but success will be about their input and dedication in fulfilling the directions and strategies as discussed and practiced on the training ground.  The names of many players past and present have been bandied about on these boards regarding their individual inputs or lack of it. If they are to be regarded as professionals then they ought be prepared to do what is necessary within their personal limits to procure success for their organisation. In business it often is the owner who makes obvious to the staff the objectives and the quality of the product or service he expects that will maintain a succession of satisfied clients coming through the doors. Also the owner knows at the start what remuneration he can afford to give based on certain critera and the likely forecast regarding profit etc. 

The owner therefore will also be selective as regards the type and quality of employee.  The employee signs a contract with all the criteria in an agreed mix of the aforesaid, but, does he deliver the goods?  If he does not, out goes the manager, who in this type of organisation is the sacrificial meat in the sandwich.

In general I believe there is a lack of quality and integrity in the individual who chooses to be a professional footballer.  Can you imagine many of them being professional doctors practicing in a hospitals and exercising a similar degree of effort and professionalism that we have to witness on the football pitch.  With a degree of luck you may be able to get out intact!!  In the paper today James our England goalkeeper has said that he is guilty of not preparing himself well enough for the England game last night. 

In view of that statement would we sack Errickson for his abyssmal showing and the poor display of the rest?  Is playing for our country not enough motivation for a resonable display of effort?  These men are supposed to be the cream of whats available.  So much for the modern man!!!!

[Salopian 1]

The manager may be a triumvirate of some sort,as at Norwich, but ultimately the manager has to accept responsibility. He appointed the other two, and is senior.
All transfers seem to reflect his choice. All tactics and team selection must at least have his agreement

Continentals like to call the "top man" coach, but in many cases coaching is delegated to actual coaches. In the British game The Chairman and Board have the ultimate power, but give the manager enough "rope" - team building, team selection, tactics and motivation. The Board does not generally interfere on a day to day basis while things are going reasonably well, but continuing poor performance will mean that the manager could be sacked. It seems that having given the manager the power and authority, they hold him responsible.

As far as the owners of the club are concerned, ultimately the buck stops with the manager.