Togetherness and Spirit

[JakeOTIB]

Surely I can’t be the only the who love how the City players interact with each other off the pitch? At the moment, there’s seems to be a very strong cohesion amongst our lads and it’s noticeable when seeing how one another talk to each other and how friendly they are on social media. There aren’t any individual players who affect the spirt negatively, everybody gets a long so well and it’s also lovely to see some of the newer lads becoming good friends with some of the guys who have been here a while. I believe that this is a strong factor as to why we are where we are in the league because of the togetherness and spirt. Long may that continue!

[Bristol Oil Services]

It's massive. I'd imagine the introduction of Diony, Kent and Walsh didn't go as smoothly as the almost seamless addition of Palmer. 

This club do and are learning stuff, all the time. We'll done all.

[Selred]

7 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

I'd imagine the introduction of Diony, Kent and Walsh didn't go as smoothly as the almost seamless addition of Palmer. 

I’m not so sure about this. I didn’t see or hear much about players not getting on with these lads, like when we had Fredericks for example. 

Personally I think the issue was that we were burnt out by our style of play, plus we had a few players who were wanted to leave and asked too in Jan (Bryan & Flint).

[Davefevs]

Even before the introduction of the above named loanees, LJ admitted he’d allowed little groups to form.  The loss of shop-steward and costa reward card holder Aaron Wilbraham was a bigger loss off the pitch.  He kept the squad together, did LJ’s job for him...which is what you want from your senior pro.

You need the players to self-police each other, especially when I doubt (soeculation from me) that Macca and Holden play the traditional go-between good-cop to LJ’s bad-cop.  I think it’s probably a fairly amicable group, though LJ does have some steel I am led to believe.

It does seem that we have a together bunch.  Whenever I've been amongst the players at CHSW, I find that Matty Taylor is quite a catalyst for fun and harmony in the squad...and he brings that in a different way when he gets on the pitch.

 

[Bristol Oil Services]

45 minutes ago, Selred said:

I’m not so sure about this. I didn’t see or hear much about players not getting on with these lads, like when we had Fredericks for example. 

 

I'm not sure that I am sure about this either. In fact, I'm fairly sure I'm not sure. As I'm sure you will recall, I referred to what I "imagine" might be the case.  

47 minutes ago, Selred said:

 

Personally I think the issue was that we were burnt out by our style of play, plus we had a few players who were wanted to leave and asked too in Jan (Bryan & Flint).

And I'm not sure about any of this.

This is one of the infuriating things about football - there's little we can be sure of, beyond who plays, who scores, league position...

 

 

[cidered abroad]

The "Dressing Room Factor" is the least discussed thing in football, yet the most important.

However long you have been supporting City, just think back to the times when we have been successful on the pitch and these are when we have had a tight knit dressing room. PB, FF, AD, TC, JJ, GJ, SC and now with LJ.

Now what about those dark periods like 1958-60 and the years after GJ lost the dressing room. I will not state names of dressing room "Split" leaders because I have no actual proof but it was abundantly clear that dressing room politics caused our downfall in 2013.

Was there disharmony last season? I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves.

It is clear to me that this is every managers "Nemesis" and I guess it took LJ longer than three transfer periods to sort out. He will need to be constantly in the lookout to safeguard his job.

[wendyredredrobin]

It's a lot easier to maintain team spirit when you are winning every week.

[Bar BS3]

3 hours ago, JakeOTIB said:

Surely I can’t be the only the who love how the City players interact with each other off the pitch? At the moment, there’s seems to be a very strong cohesion amongst our lads and it’s noticeable when seeing how one another talk to each other and how friendly they are on social media. There aren’t any individual players who affect the spirt negatively, everybody gets a long so well and it’s also lovely to see some of the newer lads becoming good friends with some of the guys who have been here a while. I believe that this is a strong factor as to why we are where we are in the league because of the togetherness and spirt. Long may that continue!

I genuinely believe this is why we decided not to sign just anyone during the transfer window. 

Meet know another 1st team ready striker would have been nice, but unless it was the “right one” then I can see why we didn’t. 

[wendyredredrobin]

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

I genuinely believe this is why we decided not to sign just anyone during the transfer window. 

Meet know another 1st team ready striker would have been nice, but unless it was the “right one” then I can see why we didn’t. 

And a top class striker would have to be paid megabucks per week, which might only lead to resentment. 

[In the Net]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Even before the introduction of the above named loanees, LJ admitted he’d allowed little groups to form.  The loss of shop-steward and costa reward card holder Aaron Wilbraham was a bigger loss off the pitch.  He kept the squad together, did LJ’s job for him...which is what you want from your senior pro.

You need the players to self-police each other, especially when I doubt (soeculation from me) that Macca and Holden play the traditional go-between good-cop to LJ’s bad-cop.  I think it’s probably a fairly amicable group, though LJ does have some steel I am led to believe.

It does seem that we have a together bunch.  Whenever I've been amongst the players at CHSW, I find that Matty Taylor is quite a catalyst for fun and harmony in the squad...and he brings that in a different way when he gets on the pitch.

 

Team bonding is a very important factor, this has been found out at Rovers since Brown, Harrisson  (and, dare I say MT) have gone. I guess that every club goes through times when they have 11 men who happen to wear the same shirt, as opposed to 11 who would run through brick walls for each other.

[Red Army 75]

8 minutes ago, In the Net said:

Team bonding is a very important factor, this has been found out at Rovers since Brown, Harrisson  (and, dare I say MT) have gone. I guess that every club goes through times when they have 11 men who happen to wear the same shirt, as opposed to 11 who would run through brick walls for each other.

Who. 

[Port Said Red]

9 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

The "Dressing Room Factor" is the least discussed thing in football, yet the most important.

However long you have been supporting City, just think back to the times when we have been successful on the pitch and these are when we have had a tight knit dressing room. PB, FF, AD, TC, JJ, GJ, SC and now with LJ.

Now what about those dark periods like 1958-60 and the years after GJ lost the dressing room. I will not state names of dressing room "Split" leaders because I have no actual proof but it was abundantly clear that dressing room politics caused our downfall in 2013.

Was there disharmony last season? I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves.

It is clear to me that this is every managers "Nemesis" and I guess it took LJ longer than three transfer periods to sort out. He will need to be constantly in the lookout to safeguard his job.

Thank you, I am just to young to have seen the Pat Beasley era, but I am reading the Harry Dolman book at the moment and it does some details about the 58-60 period where it all fell apart.

The funny thing about the Dicks era is that the way team spirit came about would be frowned upon these days, and would probably hinder the performance of todays ultra professionals. 

[The Journalist]

Don’t you think “team spirit” is overegged a bit in sport?

I mean... what comes first, team spirit or a winning team? You don’t hear of many losing teams with a wonderful team spirit and you don’t hear of many winning teams who all hate each other.

Personally, I think winning and performing creates a happy environment more so than the other way around. The key is keeping it that way once it’s been harnessed - which, as @Bar BS3 says, probably explains the thought process behind January.

Just my two cents.

[ScottishRed]

6 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

And a top class striker would have to be paid megabucks per week, which might only lead to resentment. 

Whilst I think that is possible, the alternate view is that a top class striker could be viewed by the group as the final piece in the jigsaw that will help the existing players achieve promotion bonus’s, opportunity to play in the PL etc.

I think the problem with anyone coming in on more money is that THEY have to integrate very quickly and don’t show a Billy Big Bollocks attitude - that part is down to the recruitment team ensuring that the dreaded DNA is correct.

[Port Said Red]

27 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

Don’t you think “team spirit” is overegged a bit in sport?

I mean... what comes first, team spirit or a winning team? You don’t hear of many losing teams with a wonderful team spirit and you don’t hear of many winning teams who all hate each other.

Personally, I think winning and performing creates a happy environment more so than the other way around. The key is keeping it that way once it’s been harnessed - which, as @Bar BS3 says, probably explains the thought process behind January.

Just my two cents.

I have heard both Hansen and Lawrenson say that there were all sorts of fights and cliques in the Liverpool dressing room throughout the 70's, but they were one of the most successful teams in history.

[Silvio Dante]

What is more impressive is when there is a togetherness as a squad. I think it was Cloughie who said that you’ll always be hated by the players who aren’t in the first eleven, and to manage that risk is the real talent. 

When you have, as we have, two teams of championship standard players to have them “as one” is rare. The same togetherness was there under Cotts (anyone remember Dave Richards - as much a part of the squad as anyone else!) but that was with a defined first 12-14.

Its easier when you’re winning - but it’s definitely still a challenge

[spudski]

You can have all the talent in the world, but if your face doesn't fit with this Clubs ethos, you ain't coming here. Or if you are here and you start making problems within the group or don't have the work ethic, they'll move you on.

We got stung by Kent and Diony...Tomlin and Ayling get moved on, they young German Keeper sent packing for not having the right work ethic, and if you sit and moan about your lot and are not happy to fight for your place and moan about not being in the squad or being on the bench you get moved on or sent out on loan in some cases...Magners and Engval imo.

I know 100% that we've scouted players and turned them down, not because of their talent, but because they wouldn't fit as people at this Club.

The Unity the Club are building here, is a major factor to us doing well.

[Cowshed]

4 hours ago, The Journalist said:

 Don’t you think “team spirit” is overegged a bit in sport?

I mean... what comes first, team spirit or a winning team? You don’t hear of many losing teams with a wonderful team spirit and you don’t hear of many winning teams who all hate each other.

Personally, I think winning and performing creates a happy environment more so than the other way around. The key is keeping it that way once it’s been harnessed - which, as @Bar BS3 says, probably explains the thought process behind January.

Just my two cents.

Don’t you think “team spirit” is overegged a bit in sport?

No. Its not fully understood what it is. Team spirit is a mindset. If players do not buy into the football and have the collective mindset to apply themselves to the football the team will fail. It has to fail because without that buy in it cannot perform.

Teams that lose frequently can still have a high degree of team spirit. Teams can punch above their weight and exist in divisions where the odds are stacked against them .These teams can display very high levels of team spirit -They fight v flight because their survival depends on the collective effort behind the football they play . 

Its not essential for teams to like each other. It does help obviously help but what is essential is that the technical, tactical, physical aspects of a team are aligned and they will not gel if individuals psychologically cannot commit to the teams intent. 

[Davefevs]

Sheringham and Cole for example didn’t get on. 

[Trueredsupporter]

 

5 hours ago, spudski said:

You can have all the talent in the world, but if your face doesn't fit with this Clubs ethos, you ain't coming here. Or if you are here and you start making problems within the group or don't have the work ethic, they'll move you on.

We got stung by Kent and Diony...Tomlin and Ayling get moved on, they young German Keeper sent packing for not having the right work ethic, and if you sit and moan about your lot and are not happy to fight for your place and moan about not being in the squad or being on the bench you get moved on or sent out on loan in some cases...Magners and Engval imo.

I know 100% that we've scouted players and turned them down, not because of their talent, but because they wouldn't fit as people at this Club.

The Unity the Club are building here, is a major factor to us doing well.

Think Tomlin got moved on for having the wrong type of legs. Legs that didn't run backwards. 

[poland_exile]

6 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Don’t you think “team spirit” is overegged a bit in sport?

I mean... what comes first, team spirit or a winning team? You don’t hear of many losing teams with a wonderful team spirit and you don’t hear of many winning teams who all hate each other.

Personally, I think winning and performing creates a happy environment more so than the other way around. The key is keeping it that way once it’s been harnessed - which, as @Bar BS3 says, probably explains the thought process behind January.

Just my two cents.

I couldn't agree more. 

Looking at some of the more high-profile clubs / sides, and you had the famously bitter row between Sheringham and Cole (I think it was them?), in which the pair refused to even speak to each other. Didn't stop 'em from becoming one of the most feared partnerships of all time, and did nothing to prevent United from racking up the titles. 

Meanwhile, you had Liverpool's Spice Boys who were probably the most 'bonded' of the 90s. Look what they won.

Having players that get on with each other is often a plus. But it's not the be all and end all. I think people have a tendency to look at the Crazy Gang and think they did it all on team spirit. That's clearly bollocks - you don't win and reach the top just because the people on your side are mates.  

That our players appear to like each other is no bad thing, and it's to be encouraged. I'm sure it does provide an extra factor x to the team's dynamic, but... our recent success is down to, among others, hard work, strategy, talent, and the odd slice of fortune. That the players like going paintballing or having a pizza together is neither here nor there. 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, poland_exile said:

I couldn't agree more. 

Looking at some of the more high-profile clubs / sides, and you had the famously bitter row between Sheringham and Cole (I think it was them?), in which the pair refused to even speak to each other. Didn't stop 'em from becoming one of the most feared partnerships of all time, and did nothing to prevent United from racking up the titles. 

Meanwhile, you had Liverpool's Spice Boys who were probably the most 'bonded' of the 90s. Look what they won.

Having players that get on with each other is often a plus. But it's not the be all and end all. I think people have a tendency to look at the Crazy Gang and think they did it all on team spirit. That's clearly bollocks - you don't win and reach the top just because the people on your side are mates.  

That our players appear to like each other is no bad thing, and it's to be encouraged. I'm sure it does provide an extra factor x to the team's dynamic, but... our recent success is down to, among others, hard work, strategy, talent, and the odd slice of fortune. That the players like going paintballing or having a pizza together is neither here nor there. 

There is an interesting documentary on ‘ The Crazy Gang ‘ where it’s recorded that  Fashanu and Lawrie Sanchez equally detested one another .

Fashanu found it hard to congratulate Sanchez on the FA cup winning goal so deep was the rift .

 

[Whitchurch1966]

I don't think it showed on the highlights but I was at Blackburn on Saturday and noticed that as the players came towards us after the game had finished I saw Semenyo run up behind Kalas and jump up on his back, he was smiling from ear to ear. Bear in mind the issue of him being called back from Newport, interest from Chelsea, not getting on during the game and I would think spending very little time with Kalas, I thought show was an example of how close the squad must be and how quickly they have made him feel involved.

[Cowshed]

38 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

lThere is an interesting documentary on ‘ The Crazy Gang ‘ where it’s recorded that  Fashanu and Lawrie Sanchez equally detested one another .

Fashanu found it hard to congratulate Sanchez on the FA cup winning goal so deep was the rift .

 

Its about as good as example of player buy in as there is. If you believe in what you are doing a team can still be very spirited, and Wimbledon at their peak were fearsome.  

[Robbored]

53 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

There is an interesting documentary on ‘ The Crazy Gang ‘ where it’s recorded that  Fashanu and Lawrie Sanchez equally detested one another .

Fashanu found it hard to congratulate Sanchez on the FA cup winning goal so deep was the rift .

 

Same applied to Andy Cole and Sheringham - couldn’t stand each other.

[elhombrecito]

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Same applied to Andy Cole and Sheringham - couldn’t stand each other.

If only somebody had mentioned that already... 

2 hours ago, poland_exile said:

you had the famously bitter row between Sheringham and Cole

 

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Sheringham and Cole for example didn’t get on. 

 

[JamesBCFC]

1 hour ago, elhombrecito said:

If only somebody had mentioned that already... 

 

 

I'm sat at work now just wondering if Cole and Sheringham got on.

[downendcity]

6 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

I'm sat at work now just wondering if Cole and Sheringham got on.

Is that Andy Cole or Andrew Cole?

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Same applied to Andy Cole and Sheringham - couldn’t stand each other.

 

1 hour ago, elhombrecito said:

If only somebody had mentioned that already... 

Couldn't hear it on the Dolman Tannoy when mentioned before!

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Is that Andy Cole or Andrew Cole?

Lloyd. Apparently Sheringham dissed his `Rattlesnakes` album in an interview and the two never spoke again.