petef
Match Room Manager 
Posts: 4,626
|
Post by petef on Oct 7, 2012 15:01:14 GMT
Not sure its a good idea slagging individuals off so quickly after a poor "team" performance.
PB had his faults and some of his post match comments were sometimes not what the fans wanted to hear but I bet it earned him respect inside the dressing room.
Lingy as we all know is not the most articulate of speakers and often uses wrong words and expressions. None of us really need to know what the manger thinks do we and we already know from his body language that he's not happy. All he needs to say is that it was below expectations performance and we will work on it in training and even to suggest that Rene was the only one who was "worthy" is a dangerous game which can effect team moral and spirit.
There does though seem to be a "mind set" problem witnessed against Burton and again yesterday where a malaise seems to sweep over the team from the first minute and never gets snapped out of for the ninety . Against Rochdale we were the exact opposite and at it from the off.
A Jekyll and Hyde team we are indeed.
|
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Oct 7, 2012 16:56:16 GMT
Loyalty is a 2-way street so you can't demand it if you don't give it. Criticising players in public is a recipe for disaster. No-one likes it; players or fans. It always sounds to me as if the manager is trying to deflect any blame. PB was in good company with his post match comments. You never hear Wenger or Ferguson criticise any player openly in public but there have been many revelations by players after they have left the respective clubs that neither manager has such reservations in private. And boy do those players work their socks off for their managers. This is true, as is what Lambie said. In an ideal world, we'd all love the manager to be honest and say what he thinks but sometimes you have to be more tactful. Saying "we were poor" week in week out suggests that it's a poor team, and if the team is poor, that's the manager's fault, because he built the squad and picked the starting XI Buckle grated with his relentless positivity but I can see why he did it. I'd love to think I could be a ranting manager but I don't think I could be. Certainly on Football Manager (yes, that again), the game's communication element (team talks, press conferences and conversations with players) places heavy emphasis on morale, and if you criticise the team in a press conference you damage their morale and they react negatively, so I tend to tread quite carefully with my answers. That's not to say you can't have a go at them - players often react positively to aggressive post-match team talks, but they always react negatively to criticism in the media. So I guess in the game at least, Ling would have destroyed their morale by now |
|
|
|
Post by loyalgull on Oct 7, 2012 17:25:36 GMT
all the above are interesting takes on how or not media interaction by a manager is positive or negative regarding player/team performances.But deep down players know as a team or individuals they have been good or bad in a game or run of games.Management all very easy with a winning team,complete bloody hell in defeat,i personally wouldnt want a job like that for sure
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 7, 2012 18:39:49 GMT
one good shot from Jarvis and that was pretty much it. A waste of five quid!  Did we really pay that much for Jarvis? |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 7, 2012 18:43:27 GMT
I think my point is that listening to people distinguish between a good and bad performance is one thing. But there's usually several different ways of explaining a not so good performance. That's where it's often subjective: did the opposition play well? Did they do a job on us? Did we get the tactics wrong, were we plain bad or did we throw in the towel? That's where it gets difficult when you're not at the game. You are missing the obvious, Barty. There is only one possible explanation for a sub-standard performance. It isn't that the players "couldn't be arsed". It isn't that the manger is not as tactically aware as we are. It is that the manager has just agreed to become manager of Bristol Rovers. That always guarantees a lacklustre performance. |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Oct 7, 2012 20:27:26 GMT
It has been the case on any forum in the past that some people feel you have no right to comment on any game unless you were there. That is not a view I hold as I was not at the battle of Hastings but I still feel I have view points about it that I could discuss in any debate. That was another crap home performance where we didn't really turn up and the referee turned a blind eye to the violent conduct and time wasting of the visitors  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:19:53 GMT
You are missing the obvious, Barty....it is that the manager has just agreed to become manager of Bristol Rovers. That always guarantees a lacklustre performance. Silly me to forget that one, Jon! That was another crap home performance where we didn't really turn up and the referee turned a blind eye to the violent conduct and time wasting of the visitors Absolutely, Stefano. Harold was a poor choice as king in the first place. I wasn't there myself but I would have gone for the Norwegian bloke. And, when it came to battle, it was obvious that Harold should have rotated his squad by resting some of the key players at Stamford Bridge. Then he cocked up tactically with his line-up of the archers up front and and the infantry spread across the field in two lines of four. A chap I know knew one of the infantry lads who said the archers never really turned up. Pathetic really. I'm glad I didn't go all the way to Sussex for that rubbish. Mind you, Harold's brother talking to the Norwegians beforehand didn't really help. What price loyalty these days? Nor does the fact the Normans went on and did pretty well afterwards really come in to it in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Oct 7, 2012 21:41:43 GMT
You are missing the obvious, Barty....it is that the manager has just agreed to become manager of Bristol Rovers. That always guarantees a lacklustre performance. Silly me to forget that one, Jon! That was another crap home performance where we didn't really turn up and the referee turned a blind eye to the violent conduct and time wasting of the visitors Absolutely, Stefano. Harold was a poor choice as king in the first place. I wasn't there myself but I would have gone for the Norwegian bloke. And, when it came to battle, it was obvious that Harold should have rotated his squad by resting some of the key players at Stamford Bridge. Then he cocked up tactically with his line-up of the archers up front and and the infantry spread across the field in two lines of four. A chap I know knew one of the infantry lads who said the archers never really turned up. Pathetic really. I'm glad I didn't go all the way to Sussex for that rubbish. Mind you, Harold's brother talking to the Norwegians beforehand didn't really help. What price loyalty these days? Nor does the fact the Normans went on and did pretty well afterwards really come in to it in my book. boy was I poorly advised on my o level choice!! I got A at history and someone told me it was not a good subject to take. Boy were they wrong. i could have had interesting facts to weave into my posts but instead i post boring one liners |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Oct 7, 2012 21:42:43 GMT
You are missing the obvious, Barty....it is that the manager has just agreed to become manager of Bristol Rovers. That always guarantees a lacklustre performance. Silly me to forget that one, Jon! That was another crap home performance where we didn't really turn up and the referee turned a blind eye to the violent conduct and time wasting of the visitors Absolutely, Stefano. Harold was a poor choice as king in the first place. I wasn't there myself but I would have gone for the Norwegian bloke. And, when it came to battle, it was obvious that Harold should have rotated his squad by resting some of the key players at Stamford Bridge. Then he cocked up tactically with his line-up of the archers up front and and the infantry spread across the field in two lines of four. A chap I know knew one of the infantry lads who said the archers never really turned up. Pathetic really . I'm glad I didn't go all the way to Sussex for that rubbish. Mind you, Harold's brother talking to the Norwegians beforehand didn't really help. What price loyalty these days? Nor does the fact the Normans went on and did pretty well afterwards really come in to it in my book. Best laugh I have had all weekend  thanks Nick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2012 21:55:24 GMT
boy was I poorly advised on my o level choice!! I got A at history and someone told me it was not a good subject to take. Boy were they wrong. i could have had interesting facts to weave into my posts but instead i post boring one liners There's a lad who posts on this site from over your way, Stuart. Bloody good he is too! Think he studied history....... |
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Oct 7, 2012 22:07:20 GMT
boy was I poorly advised on my o level choice!! I got A at history and someone told me it was not a good subject to take. Boy were they wrong. i could have had interesting facts to weave into my posts but instead i post boring one liners There's a lad who posts on this site from over your way, Stuart. Bloody good he is too! Think he studied history....... bloody whipper snappers chip off the old block? a bit more refined to say the least ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 7, 2012 22:13:29 GMT
boy was I poorly advised on my o level choice!! I got A at history and someone told me it was not a good subject to take. Boy were they wrong. i could have had interesting facts to weave into my posts but instead i post boring one liners Far be it for me to knock our esteemed historians, and I'm rather partial to a bit of EP Thompson before bed myself, but the person who gave you that advice had a point  |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Oct 7, 2012 22:35:43 GMT
Ah. One of my tutors last year, who's just retired, had been at Warwick when Thompson was here. Had some interesting stories to tell - quite an intense guy, by all accounts
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Oct 7, 2012 22:36:34 GMT
boy was I poorly advised on my o level choice!! I got A at history and someone told me it was not a good subject to take. Boy were they wrong. i could have had interesting facts to weave into my posts but instead i post boring one liners Far be it for me to knock our esteemed historians, and I'm rather partial to a bit of EP Thompson before bed myself, but the person who gave you that advice had a point lmao touche sir |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,227 
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 7, 2012 22:42:10 GMT
Been away for the seond half of the weekend, it seems that a week isn't just a long time in politics! As for that Hastings match, I think the Saxons were too over confident, kept pushing forward and left too many holes at the back, leaving them susceptible to the inevitable counter attack resulting in a crushing victory for the Normans. However, rumour has it, that their manager, William the Bastard was a fan of the Gulls! |
|
