|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 28, 2010 15:07:02 GMT 1
Interesting list of reasons for a team to fail. All seven are the manager's responsibility. Only one is remotely the responsibility of the players and even that is that the player is poor so it's the manager's fault for bringing him in in the first place. How about an eighth reason: Decent, or even good, players fail to perform to their own standards. Don't tell me that's always the manager's fault as well. To me it's very simple - everyone has a responsibility and one person can't be responsible for everything, even if they're made to carry the can ultimately. Put it another way - if I do something badly at work, is that my fault or is my boss to blame? Or could it be a bit more complicated than that? Alan Hansen made a very sensible comment the other day about players having to take responsibility for themselves instead of wittering about everything and everyone else being responsible for their own failings. I couldn't agree more. We're setting ourselves up for another fall here. A lot of people are pinning all the blame on one person, then too much will be expected of his successor, then he'll fail to meet those unrealistic expectations. It's the cult of the manager - a club's success or failure doesn't begin and end with one person. Well I think managers have more chance to influence a club than anyone else does. Just look at the examples of Ferguson or Wenger in particular. Or look at the example of Redknapp at Spurs, who immediately improved results from Ramos without bringing in new faces. Point about the players, yes I agree they are responsible too. However, if they are not performing, not listening to the manager, not doing their jobs properly then they should be dropped. Only the manager can do that. Simpson has been in charge for over 2 years, he's bought in all his own players now, that he wanted, after claiming the old peter's squad didn't have the necessary attributes, this group is no better. Take Lewis Neal for an example, a player Simpson identified as wanting and then signed. he has made 23 starts and 8 sub appearances this season, i don't think anyone could say he's been performing this season, so why is this. Has he listening to simpson's instructions? if not why was he picked so often? if he was playing as simpson instructed, you've got to ask questions of those instructions. If the reason for his poor performances is Neal's only mentality and desire, then again why has been picked so often? The point about Neal can be applied to Macca also.... and there is no excuse that there is no cover there, its Paul Murray whos sat out since January despite being one of the best players up to that point...
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 28, 2010 15:23:25 GMT 1
yep el huracan, or indeed to cureton, who despite barely moving for 11 games continues to be involved and play more minutes than bright.
has simpson been instructing cureton to wander about the pitch aimlessly, avoiding challenges and not bothering to chase? if so that's down to simpson
if he hasn't instructed him to do this, then he's not listening to simpson, in which case he should be dropped.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 28, 2010 18:21:02 GMT 1
Interesting discussion but I still don't think it's as simple as that. I don't subscribe to Patrick Barclay's view at all. Sure a Mourinho or a Ferguson will lift a team - they're amongst the very best there is. But the same goes for a truly outstanding player - look at the difference at Man United this season when Rooney has played and when he hasn't.
Below that very highest level however, I don't think individuals alone have anything like that impact. I believe it's the interaction of individuals and the pooling of their various talents (and weaknesses) that affects results.
Now you can say that the manager can drop a player who's not performing but that seems to me like a "Championship Manager" view of football - bring someone else in. The reality is more likely that there isn't an obvious replacement, or it will be someone playing out of their preferred position, or the replacement's injured or suspended or there's only a youth team player, or the replacement's out of form as well etc etc.
I don't get this notion that, if a player does badly, then he's not following his manager's instructions or he can somehow be coached/managed into playing better. A player might do everything his manager told him but on the day, for example, he just can't beat the first man with his cross. Players lose form, lose confidence etc. Yes you'd hope a manager could help them recover it but there are limits to any manager's ability to do that.
What are the options for replacing Neal for example? Leslie. For McIntyre? Murray. None of these four has had much of a season - I've seen all of them play badly, more than once. Were they doing their jobs/following instructions? I've no way of knowing. Were they off form? Certainly looked like it to me. What can the manager do about that? Change the team again. If they were on form and consistent, that wouldn't be necessary. So is that all down to the manager? Not in my opinion.
I just don't buy the "change the manager" solution that clubs, and fans, so readily turn to. That changes one component out of the many that make up the team (in the wider sense of the word). Maybe it's the critical one and that single change will be the catalyst for improvement. There's no way of knowing of course because a new manager will always make other changes and things may get better or worse.
But it's not unreasonable to think that an existing manager can make changes that will also have the desired effect. If you think that a perceived failure over one season makes the manager "bad" then that isn't an option of course and he'd have to go. On the other hand, if you believe the manager must have good qualities to have got the job in the first place then, if he still wants the challenge, he might be in the best position to improve things.
Managers are scapegoats for the failings of others, as well as their own. I guess that will always be so.
If I was Roland, I would re-interview Simpson for the job before I decided anything. And I wouldn't bow to pressure from the messageboards.
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on Apr 28, 2010 21:45:20 GMT 1
All of Simpsons tenure of 2 seasons except for 4 games .
Says it all really !
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 28, 2010 21:47:02 GMT 1
Good discussion, and whilst I disagree with you Venceremos I can respect your thoughts.
A can think of a couple of big examples where a manager has come in for another manager and without changing the players that were available to him, massively changed the results: Redknapp for Ramos at Spurs, Capello for McClaren at England and further down Howe for Quinn at Bournemouth, and even Cotterill for Kevan at Notts C. None of those examples needed to bring in players, yet their influence on tactics, motivation and selection of players led to a major pick up of results.
I do agree that in a lot of cases managers are not given enough time to make an impact and that sometimes clubs are too quick to change. However, there has to be obvious signs of improvement within the results, performances and outlook for the future. Sometimes there are also budgetary reasons why this might not have happened - e.g. portsmouth, or further down, accrington, or derby - where clough's brief was to severley reduce the wage bill.
However, the thing for me is that I don't see what evidence of progress there is under Simpson. As it is after re-building the entire squad, we're not much better off than before. We've got few players likely to be here next season and those that are contracted have hardly been anywhere near good enough. I know people will point out that Holt was sold and contacts were withdrawn which has affected Simpson's planning, but those things happened before the season started and funds were given to the manager to bring in replacements - and simpson bought in players that he had identified.
You say about Neal, and the fact that the alternatives weren't convincing either - well they've all been more convincing than Neal. Funds were also there to bring in loan players - Cureton's signing proved it - but no one else was bought in. Why has Neal had chance after chance, but Leslie and Robinson been dropped at every opportunity? Why has Murray been relegated to an observer since January despite an under performing midfield? And why on earth did Cureton continue to play and get to stand around not doing anything for 11 matches?
I'll ask you, what are the reasons why we should keep faith with Simpson for next season? Do you find the football entertaining? Do you see evidence of a squad that is good enough for promotion in place? Do you have faith in the ability of the manager to bring in the quality additions needed? Do you see players at the club that have increased in value and are likely to command big fees in future, as has always been necessary at this club? And how many new signings are needed?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 28, 2010 23:33:33 GMT 1
I agree with some of that stfcfan87.
I wasn't trying to defend Neal particularly, my point was that Simpson, perhaps wrongly, saw a better player in him than he's shown himself to be this season. Maybe he's better than we've seen, I don't know (although the evidence isn't compelling), but I don't think anyone else playing in left midfield has made a case for being retained. So the "Simpson picks the team and is therefore responsible" argument doesn't quite stack up for me, unless all the left midfield players are simply bad players. I don't think that's true, which suggests to me a loss of form and/or confidence or a lack of effort. Either way, for the reasons I gave earlier, I don't think that's entirely the manager's fault. Those players have to take responsibility for their own careers and it seems to me they've let themselves down. If they viewed it purely out of self interest, they've done little to suggest they could earn a decent contract anywhere else.
Why did Cureton continue to be picked? I guess it seemed a good idea at the time. Although it wasn't unanimous, there was a very positive vibe about him when he signed. That continued for some time, even though he struggled, because it wasn't unreasonable to think that a proven goalscorer would come good eventually. And, let's face it, there weren't many alternatives.
In answer to your specific questions at the end:
All I can say is that there are arguments for sticking with Simpson (as I've discussed earlier) and arguments for changing. Both sides are well rehearsed by now.
Entertaining football? No, not lately, although I do think the recent poor form has triggered an exaggerated response that we've somehow been dull and dreary all season long. I don't believe that's true.
Promotion winning squad? Not as it stands, but I think it's closer to it than many seem to. Midfield's the critical area for me but that's generally been the weakest area of the team since I started watching them. In fact I think it's true of most teams at this level - hard work's a minimum standard, genuine quality's always in very short supply.
Can Simpson bring in what's needed? Last summer isn't encouraging I know but I think there were mitigating circumstances. He has made some good signings too.
I don't see players commanding big fees in future but I think those days are more or less gone. There'll be the odd player moving up for a big fee but it doesn't happen very often now. The big clubs recruit young and/or from abroad, rarely from the lower leagues. It's more about contracts than transfer fees now and I expect this to increase - transfer fees are almost non-existent in both rugby codes now and I think lower league football is going the same way. However, I do see & hear of some promising young players at the club (the Taylors, Richards, Bradshaw, Simpson, Arestidou, Gray and Hooman, with Goldson and others coming through).
How many new signings needed? Good question. Much depends on how quickly some of the youngsters develop and how many players we can move on this summer. I'd like to see at least two good midfielders in, players that can really improve our passing and movement, a striker or two, a centre back and a left back. So that's six or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by Liam on Apr 28, 2010 23:57:55 GMT 1
Venceremos and Sean, as always, I respect your comments, but (and this isn't a dig - I'll explain why I'm asking if and when you respond) do you travel to many away games?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 29, 2010 0:09:51 GMT 1
No - too expensive (with family) and too time consuming. Usually only manage 3-4 a season.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 29, 2010 0:21:38 GMT 1
Staines game for me. Probably the most inept display i ever seen from a Town team.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 29, 2010 0:34:32 GMT 1
Staines game for me. Probably the most inept display i ever seen from a Town team. That's the one home game I missed! I'd say happily but it was a death in the family that kept me away. Come on Liam - I responded but it's late and I'm going to bed!
|
|
|
Post by Liam on Apr 29, 2010 0:40:37 GMT 1
I completely understand that and, as I say, I'm certainly not going to start talking any cr@p about either of you 'not being a real fan' or anything because of it.
What I will say is this: myself, I'm an exile and I have been since I was 18 (for the last 7 years or so). As a result, I can only get to about 20 games a season. I would imagine this is about the same amount of games as those of you who go to every home game but don't travel away.
The point of this spiel is that I think the cross-section of performances probably influences an individual's perspective of the manager more so than the overall results.
What I mean by this is that, for those of you who've mainly just seen the home games over the last couple of years, you'll have seen a majority of wins (many of them very convincing - particularly last season) and may therefore feel more patient. For those of us that see a mixture or, as I do, mostly away games, it's a very diffirent story.
I have time and time again given up my Saturday, travelled hundreds and hundreds of miles and spent (in total) well over £700 a season to watch a team that literally - and I do mean 'literally - doesn't create chances, doesn't even create half-chances, doesn't string more than 3 passes together and, at times, doesn't even look up for it.
This in itself is hugely frustrating, but it's made even more infuriating when the manager literally - and again, I do mean 'literally' - NEVER makes tactical changes when things are about to go tits up and just lets the inevitable unfold.
Regardless of any arguements regarding the strength (or lack thereof) of the squad and whether this is or isn't Simpson's fault, it's the fact his teams consistently have no creativity, are consistently never tactically tinkered with however badly things are going and frequently, if truth be told, are out-battled by the opposition that has turned me so firmly against him. I now honestly believe that even given a big budget and some good players (which he had last year) he wouldn't be capable of organising a genuinely promotion-chasing team, which is why I don't see the point in persisting with him.
Last season was a 'successful' one, but those of us who go away regularly frequently still saw pathetic performances (and it really is very upsetting when you've spent your entire Saturday and £100-odd to see a team that doesn't look capable of mustering a single chance), not because we didn't have a good team, but because when things weren't going well nothing was changed and we just let the inevitable unfold. Generally, the public at home would be fed some bulls**t afterwards about how we 'competed' (in truth we rarely did) and it was the fault of the players for not doing their jobs properly.
However, for those of you who last season mainly witnessed one of the best home records in the whole of England, involving win after win, I'm sure it does seem a little strange to see such angry criticism of the manager. I can understand why there's a feeling that things were going well until the last few months.
Equally, I realise that the sample of games I've witnessed in the last few years is probably not entirely representative and has almost certainly coloured my opinion in the same way that a sample that mostly includes home games with very few defeats has coloured yours. I'm not saying either viewpoint is objectively correct.
All I'm saying is, please don't think everyone calling for Simpson's head is simply a reflection of the tendency in modern football to unthinkingly call for instant success. In the same way that I'm sure the average season ticket holder has seen plenty of good performances over the last couple of years, some of the rest of us have seen some cr@p which literally has to be seen to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 29, 2010 0:46:40 GMT 1
Actually you say that you think our squad is closer to promotion than many seem to? Unless I'm mistaken, our first choice keeper for the vast majority of the season hasn't been ours and our left back isn't ours. We've also got 2 of the other 4 defenders out of contract in the summer - so while I agree the midfield has been the main problem, I think our defence is going to be a problem for next season, Coughan's certain to need replacing, so we're going to need a centre back and a left back in my view at minimum, then I'm far from convinced by Holden. If we can keep SCS, then he and Langmead give us a good base to go forward, but we do need to sort out his contract before someone else comes in for him.
As you state midfield has been a problem, and again we've 4 of them out of contract - Murray, McIntyre, Simpson and VDB. And up front the only one who's been producing the goods is out of contract.
As it stands, I think we're going to need at least 7 new players in order to turn us into contenders next season - a keeper, a left back, a centre back, a central midfielder, a wide man and 2 strikers
And with regard to Neal, I'd rather pick Leslie everytime and even though he is inconsistent, at least he does actually having good days!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 29, 2010 8:49:16 GMT 1
No I don't work commitments don't permit.
I'll ask you, what are the reasons why we should keep faith with Simpson for next season? I have a problem with the word faith. I have a problem with it when used in the context of this manager, his successor and - most of all - the person who appointed him and will sack him.
Do you find the football entertaining? This is secondary - the issue is we're losing too many games and not winning enough. I like nasty ugly football. We need to equip the team to go about the opposition so that they are on the back foot by putting the ball under extreme pressure when out of possession and putting it often enough into danger areas when we have it. Get the ball in the box at every opportunity and even the likes of Bright and Elder will score. Free-kicks, throw ins whatever.
Do you see evidence of a squad that is good enough for promotion in place? Yes, there are a core of useful players who can form part of a promotion challenging squad. That promotion challenging squad will include loan players. Of the current roster: Disley, Langmead, Hibbert, van den Broek, Leslie, Simpson, Cansdell-Sherriff, Dunfield, Chris Neal should play a lot of games next season. At a push I would go for Holden as well. I would also use the youth players because - in my niavety - I think this is a young man's game.
At least two of these should be capable of 15 league starts next season and four of them with say 25 appearances (starts and subs combined). In saying that I am probably being conservative because the youth players have got into the winning habit - introduce that into the first team dressing room with three or four kids in there.
Do you have faith in the ability of the manager to bring in the quality additions needed? It will be a team effort. I'm very interested in why the club couldn't attract its primary targets in the summer of 2009 (on the back of a promotion challenging season) compared to the summer of 2008 (on the back of a very low finish). I don't know that those reasons have been removed.
Do you see players at the club that have increased in value and are likely to command big fees in future, as has always been necessary at this club? Clearly Langmead has in his time here. In 12 months I think that there could be a useful list.
And how many new signings are needed? Let's sign the people who are out of contract in the list above. Let's assume that the ones that I haven't listed above but are still under contract are still here.
I'm not interested in whether these are loan or permanent signings
Full-back. Where do we see Danny Taylor playing - Left back or Right Back? Central midfield. Centre Back. Striker.
Given that I am envisaging Murray, Coughlan, Jackson, McIntyre off the payroll these won't be players that no one else wants and so the club needs to be in a position to compete for their signature. The club couldn't do this in 2009.
Question marks over Chris Neal. He's good enough but can he remain free of injury.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 29, 2010 13:56:13 GMT 1
Liam - that was a great and heartfelt reply (& worth a best post nomination). We may be coming at this from different perspectives but I completely respect your point of view.
Actually, I also agree with a lot of it. We've seen some terrible home games too (I've only missed one home league game under Simpson) and, although I don't go often as I said, I've only ever seen Town win once away (under Peters or Simpson) - at Bury in the play offs.
I don't think we're miles apart stfcfan87 - you say 7 new players, I said 6. I don't necessarily mean the 6 have to be in the team every week, just squad members and able to play regularly. I agree with Sean though that there's a core of players around whom we can build - and I think we might see much better from some players if we can get the right new faces in.
Maybe I'm naturally inclined to go against the crowd, maybe I'm getting soft. I do have mixed feelings about Simpson but I have to turn away from those wanting his head on a stake - which I'm not accusing anyone here of!
|
|
|
Post by Liam on Apr 29, 2010 16:16:53 GMT 1
Understood, mate - I agree with a lot of what you're saying too and I can understand why you want to try and add a bit of balance to what at times has been a rather one-sided discussion re. Simpson recently. I just wanted to emphasise the point that missing out on the play-offs isn't the main reason a lot of us are angry - there is also a wealth of evidence to suggest that tactically PS simply isn't up to the job, which in the long term is a much more serious issue if we ever actually want to achieve anything. I for one don't actually think it's reasonable to 'expect' us to be promoted. I do, however, think it's reasonable to expect us to create some chances and perhaps even have a meaningful shot on goal more than once in every 5 away games or so. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect the manager to attempt to alter things when this doesn't look like happening. I do, however, think it's unreasonable for the club's official website to declare that "Town put in another good attacking display" after a game like Saturday's in which we didn't create a chance, thus giving the impression to those at home that we played well and are consistently doing so, but that's a seperate argument......
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 29, 2010 18:53:59 GMT 1
Cheers Liam - all your points are valid and well argued.
In the end we all want more or less the same thing, though we might sometimes disagree on how best to get there. I think that gets forgotten on here sometimes.
We await the next instalment ...
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Apr 29, 2010 19:00:47 GMT 1
Difficult to put my finger on it exactly, but probably SSS's four-hundred-and-seventy-eighth thread of an 'I don't rate Paul Simpson and here's another angle on why' nature.
You may very well have a point SSS, but there's no need to make it on a daily - sometimes even more frequently - basis.
|
|