Neal wrote:"If anyone neutral was to compare our squad to others I'd be very surprised if they didn't put us top eight"
Against what criteria?
Why?
Can any different manager get better results out of 1 set of players, sometimes, not always.
I don't know how many on here still do any sport seriously, not professionally but serious about trying to improve. I do. And I can tell you form is a bloody frustrating thing. I can perform great 1 day, the next day I don't, the conditions etc are the same. Look at some of the best players in the world, Mezil Ozil, on paper should be brilliant, been fairly useless at Arsenal and a kid who was out on loan at Charlton keeping him out. That can scenario can be repeated a thousand times. Same goes with Managers.
Our squad on paper means absolutely nothing. Why is it one season a player looks great or even for a few games, then doesn't, we have seen this time and time again. The CV on any player means nothing, its how they perform "Today" and you never know that. I asked an ex Torquay manager this very question a while ago, he said to me, I looked in their eyes as they walked in on a Saturday morning and I could tell straight away the ones who weren't up for it, but with a small squad you have no choice but play them.
A lot of the success managers have is down to luck. Luck that they take over a set of players who have got some potential AND want to do something about it. Luck with injuries, the luck that at least 1 of the 3 almost open goals against Altrincham went in. Luck that at the time of taking over the club has some financial strength. I could go on. There could be some managers out there who MIGHT be able to get another 10% out of this current set, BUT none of you on here or anyone else would know who they are. Its a lottery. Ling had a strategy to get 1-0's in season 1, he faded, and to be honest was slagged off on here for dire football, so that wasn't good enough.
How many managers at this level, have CV's that are a total success, none, because they wont be at this level if they do have.
You'll be looking a long time son, hardly anyone posts on this site anymore.
Interesting post though Neal, always a good read yours - open and honest.
If i may comment on the first point you raise about Mesut Ozil and 'form'.
You will always get players who perform for one club and not another or perform for their club and then suddenly start struggling and failing to replicate that form again. I think that so long as a player continues to do the things he has belief in then eventually he will find the right fit. For example, Fernando Torres. I've watched him a few times now he is back at Atletico and he looks reborn. Maybe a combination of feeling secure AND naturally being able to fit into the way they play. At Chelsea he looked totally out of place and always struggled but i think it was because of their style of play. Just didn't suit him.
How can a player go from starring for Spain, Atletico Madrid and then Liverpool to being shite overnight? The answer is he can't. He was never shite, just a particular club at a particular time didn't play to his strengths and his confidence drained. As someone who suffers from social anxiety and a lack of confidence i cannot begin to describe the feeling you get when occasionally some confidence is discovered within oneself. It's like you are a different person. That transfers into your life as it transfers onto the football pitch if you are a footballer.
As for managers. I don't think this applies. When you are a player on the pitch playing with confidence you will automatically make passes, take shots and so on without even thinking about it because you are 'in the moment' and reacting to impulses as they happen. If you are confident these impulsive reactions to pass, shoot or whatever often turn out to be the right decisions even though one hasn't even thought about them. They are instinctive.
As a manager i feel that before a game it's all about research. Learn about the opposition and how they are going to play, learn about their danger men and how you will combat them and learn about their key strengths whether that be set pieces or hitting on the break. Don't place too much emphasis on this though, just have your team aware and well drilled and competitive.
But it's during the game where plaudits are earned and i believe it's now called 'game management'. In actual fact i think that making decisions in-game is a piece of piss. Just use your noggin and you won't go joggin'. Make common sense substitutions. For example (and not exclusive in CH's reign) take York v Torquay last season where Torquay lost 1-0. I was there. York were shit, Torquay were slightly shitter but not a lot in it. York 1-0 up going into the last 30 with the game petering out. If i were in charge i'd have just gone for broke and stuck forwards on and shouted my knackers off for them to get forward and put them under pressure. If they had have broken away and won 2 or 3 nil then so be it. Torquay would have lost anyway as they were already 1-0 down. What was the **** point in being conservative and trying to look studious?
This is my bug bear with managers and a trend that CH set that made me believe he is nowhere near competent enough to manage a football club. It's called common sense with a twinge of desire. One for Coronation Street viewers here, if you were in a minibus crash and the bus was precariously hanging off a mountain top then upon waking from unconciousness would you take it easy as you feel a bit poorly and sit tight which would mean going down with the minibus or would you take action to get yourself out of the bus. If you failed you die but there might be a chance by taking positive action that you escape the minibus and get to safety.
This is the perfect analogy for that night at York and for the whole of TUFC's league 2 season under him. Torquay failed because of Knill but also because CH failed to take risks when risks became the only viable solution to survival. This was because of fear. Fear of failure. Any manager who has a fear of failure is in the wrong job.
The story you tell about the manager having no choice but to play a player despite gut feeling that they ain't up for it i don't subscribe to. If a player is not up for it then they get dropped. If it's a youth trainee that replaces them then so be it. If HE fails then it's the manager that gets it in the neck. Fine, explain why you chose X player instead of Y and have some faith. Or you could do what CH has done this season and play it safe by opting for players that got us relegated just because they 'are experienced'. Give me 'inexperienced but willing to shit blood' over 'experienced but don't give two shits' anyday. So you DO have a choice whether to play them or not, it all depends on whether you are prepared to elicit change by sticking your neck out and making the changes or whether you favour self preservation.
Self preservation always sees the cowards revealed in the end and always results in the sack anyway. Just that the individual gets a bit more time to deceive the fans, rip off the club and recoup a bit of cash before they get found out.
It is the lack of common sense and inability to see the obvious which will see CH end up owning a restaurant on the coast somewhere and not become a professional football manager.
As for luck. No such thing as luck. If i win the lottery tonight is that luck? I'd like to think that it was because my 6 numbers came out and nobody elses did and that is why i won. Is that luck or the fact that 6 numbers HAD to be drawn and i happened to have all 6. I find £20 on the street. It will be found eventually but because I found it is it luck? Or is it because it happened to be in my line of sight as i was walking down the street? Is that luck or eventuality?
No manager gets luck.
Ling failed ultimately although he was damn bloody close to the perfect formula for success in lower league football. He set his team out to be hard to beat and a well drilled team with a smattering of really, really good players got to the play offs. I hardly ever enjoyed a Ling side play although i did enjoy the results and i guess that is the crux. Would you happily pay good money and travel the UK to watch a team try and defend for 90 minutes and hopefully nick one on the break? Be completely starved of entertainment after a 4 hour drive up to Rochdale but a deflected corner meant a 1-0 win? I wasn't happy with this and although i didn't want Real Madrid, i still wanted us to pose some sort of sustained attacking threat now and then.
Ling lost fans despite relative success because the style of football, not now and again but nearly EVERY WEEK was predictable negativity. It got too much and Ling refused to modify this to adopt a slightly more adventurous approach. Make no mistakes, after Buckle, Ling's style eventually became comatose. We'd go away and literally HAVE to score with our only real attempt at goal or we'd come away with nowt. Ling experienced some health issues and parted company but he thought a particular system worked and when it began failing he lack the flexibility to change and in actual fact he failed to identify that he had been found out. I don't know if his illness made this more difficult and i wouldn't like to guess but that is what happened.
Ling had talent but common sense failed him and obviously he was ill too so mitigating circumstances. He became stubborn and inflexible and when a specific tactic became ineffective these were 2 traits that weren't going to help change things.
Knill, Knill was simply a complete buffoon and i do feel guilty a little for using such vulgar terminology but the fact is he was. He was slightly ahead in the buffoonery stakes of all the people who 3 months in weren't even remotely concerned about his management. It was pretty obvious, as it was 3 or 4 games in to CH's tenure, that he didn't really have any idea whatsoever what he was doing and prolonging this idiots stay at TUFC just made it more difficult for the new man to turn things around. That new man was CH therefore timing didn't really matter in the end.
Knill has no mitigating circumstances. He was just bizarrely clueless and there is not one particular management fault you can pick up on that he could be addressing. He was just so dim all ends up that i can't even begin to comprehend what went on in his head.
Managers earn respect not just for results but for how they conduct themselves and the manner in which they manage the team. If they seem totally clueless over a period of time then it most probably is because in actual fact they are. That is why CH needs to go as soon as possible.
Torquay player legend but no managerial common sense.
Common sense is innate so if it's not there then you're going nowhere.
