Gj's Selection Policy

[Redhyde]

When you are being successful in terms of results as we are, (we are, we're 5th) I think there's only three sensible selection policies you can employ. You can either pick the "best team" whatever that is defined by, or you can pick the team that is doing well for you, There's a third option where you're so superior you can rotate the team regularly but we're not in that position and you're still going to make people unhappy when it comes to the crunch games.

Option 1 is to pick the best team. If you pick the "best team" whenever it's available, you will generally tend to pick the same players, and this will create a big divide from the first team to the reserves. It lessens the competition, it demotivates the reserves, but it does give you the best chance to win each game on a pure piece of paper. Games aren't played on pieces of paper. I think this only really works in a small squad now. In days gone by you would pick the best team, but with the large squads of today in order to keep everyone happy and motivated as much as posible, does it really work to have a team set in stone? I'm not so sure. It would take a very strong manager to do this, and a very motivated first 11, and a strange bunch of reserves happy not to play much but good when they come in. But it does take away the fear of a player playing badly about him being dropped. For some personality types a perhaps weaker one they need this.

"On occasions you have to pick the same side because you've won, in which case that's your best side at that moment in time." - GJ. I utterly disagree with that statement. It can of course be true, but with form and fitness your best team changes game to game depending on what's available and what you want to do. I think it's GJ's way of combining the two options i'm writing about where i believe they're very separate philosophies.

I really believe alot of people are stuck in the we must pick our best team thinking. Maybe this is a bit patronising but i'm including myself in this. I'm young and have grown up with subs and squads being important. Alot of people haven't and i'm not going to say these people don't understand it, but perhaps they haven't switched the mindset completely from watching the same players pitch up week in week out. Even I like to see what i consider our "best team" play in numbers 1-11. So i think this is a small source of alot of the older fans unhappiness with our selection policy, not the numbers but the altering of our team and not playing what we consider our best team every week.

Option 2 is indeed to keep picking a winning team. GJ - "You've got to make them all feel that they have an opportunity to play for you, and that they all when they come in they keep their place." I think in todays management system and style this is the easiest and indeed best way to keep a bunch of players happy short to medium term. If of course the smae players always keep performing you turn it into a "best team" scenario as described above. A player feels motivated when he's on the pitch because if he's playing well and hopefully a player keeps himself utterly ready to take his chance when it comes along. You have pressure when you play to perform well. This suits the type of personality that we've brought in to the club.

This translate though as when fit we don't always pick the "best team" as many of us feel with LJ playing and PH on the bench on Saturday. I believe that PH is the better player, but i understand why he didn't play to start with. When LJ came in against Barnsley and played well, it'd have been utterly harsh to drop him. He'd be thinking, well..what more can i do? And you'd have a player who'd question why he'd bother trying if he won't ever get a run in the team no matter how he plays. But I really believe this is the best way forward for squad harmony and motivation which i do believe contributes to results. Because of the timing of PH's injuries he played against Plymouth and not against Barnsley under the SAT - TUE - SAT rotation we employ. Don't mistake this for a complete rotation policy as this has been explained by GJ that we overused the term and misunderstood, which we did. If he'd played against Barnsley witht he same result he'd have played against Wednesday under GJ's actual selction policy.

"He's got to know that the managers picking teams consistantly." - GJ So this is where i actually start to disagree with what GJ does, because what he says here is totally right. I've just highlighted why the picking of LJ is actually consistant but even GJ publicly criticised LJ's performance so under these rules as we know them I'm 100% confident under GJ's slection policy PH will start fitness providing next match. So if he doesn't, i will be surprised and annoyed for the first time this season in that squad positional fight. But that's realy only speculation. This isn't really and LJ thread but it's the example most care about.

Gary's contradicted this policy previously though by referring to the concept of "owning the shirt" and it being "theirs to lose" which obviously doesn't tie into the "take your chance, keep your place" idea. This is my perception but i'll need conformation on the exact example i'm using. When Chris Weale came in he played well, Adriano was back in immediately as soon as he could because he'd done so well previously. Now that is fair enough, but it's not consistant and not what Chris Weale wants to hear. He came in did well then got dropped again. The next time he came in and perhaps the next if indeed it was that many he made msitakes. Now it's perhaps coincidence but I think not (because it ties into the motivational theory that i'm talking about ) that a guy who knows he's not getting a consistant and fair chance starts subconciously perhaps conciously not caring and not performing to his highest ability. It takes exceptional and rare personality who will when there is no reason to. He's clearly a good keeper both before and after his time here. And "He's got to know that the managers picking teams consistantly." - GJ, but he didn't and so he left. We can also use Noble but he wasn't always totally ready to take his chance and did indeed on occasion let the manager down when he came in so it's slightly diffferent. But the Weale one is the best example so far IMO.

The test of GJ's honesty over his selection policy truly comes next match when he considers who to pick between PH and LJ. And does Skuse keep his shirt now he's come in and done well or is he the next victim of the owning the shirt policy? We do have a crux of the policy coming up where good players will be left out because either they've come back from injury or in some cases there really is a "best" player for a position. Will be interesting to find out,

Apologies for the giant wall of text. Congratulations if you made it this far.

[leedsred]

When you are being successful in terms of results as we are, (we are, we're 5th) I think there's only three sensible selection policies you can employ. You can either pick the "best team" whatever that is defined by, or you can pick the team that is doing well for you, There's a third option where you're so superior you can rotate the team regularly but we're not in that position and you're still going to make people unhappy when it comes to the crunch games.

Option 1 is to pick the best team. If you pick the "best team" whenever it's available, you will generally tend to pick the same players, and this will create a big divide from the first team to the reserves. It lessens the competition, it demotivates the reserves, but it does give you the best chance to win each game on a pure piece of paper. Games aren't played on pieces of paper. I think this only really works in a small squad now. In days gone by you would pick the best team, but with the large squads of today in order to keep everyone happy and motivated as much as posible, does it really work to have a team set in stone? I'm not so sure. It would take a very strong manager to do this, and a very motivated first 11, and a strange bunch of reserves happy not to play much but good when they come in. But it does take away the fear of a player playing badly about him being dropped. For some personality types a perhaps weaker one they need this.

"On occasions you have to pick the same side because you've won, in which case that's your best side at that moment in time." - GJ. I utterly disagree with that statement. It can of course be true, but with form and fitness your best team changes game to game depending on what's available and what you want to do. I think it's GJ's way of combining the two options i'm writing about where i believe they're very separate philosophies.

I really believe alot of people are stuck in the we must pick our best team thinking. Maybe this is a bit patronising but i'm including myself in this. I'm young and have grown up with subs and squads being important. Alot of people haven't and i'm not going to say these people don't understand it, but perhaps they haven't switched the mindset completely from watching the same players pitch up week in week out. Even I like to see what i consider our "best team" play in numbers 1-11. So i think this is a small source of alot of the older fans unhappiness with our selection policy, not the numbers but the altering of our team and not playing what we consider our best team every week.

Option 2 is indeed to keep picking a winning team. GJ - "You've got to make them all feel that they have an opportunity to play for you, and that they all when they come in they keep their place." I think in todays management system and style this is the easiest and indeed best way to keep a bunch of players happy short to medium term. If of course the smae players always keep performing you turn it into a "best team" scenario as described above. A player feels motivated when he's on the pitch because if he's playing well and hopefully a player keeps himself utterly ready to take his chance when it comes along. You have pressure when you play to perform well. This suits the type of personality that we've brought in to the club.

This translate though as when fit we don't always pick the "best team" as many of us feel with LJ playing and PH on the bench on Saturday. I believe that PH is the better player, but i understand why he didn't play to start with. When LJ came in against Barnsley and played well, it'd have been utterly harsh to drop him. He'd be thinking, well..what more can i do? And you'd have a player who'd question why he'd bother trying if he won't ever get a run in the team no matter how he plays. But I really believe this is the best way forward for squad harmony and motivation which i do believe contributes to results. Because of the timing of PH's injuries he played against Plymouth and not against Barnsley under the SAT - TUE - SAT rotation we employ. Don't mistake this for a complete rotation policy as this has been explained by GJ that we overused the term and misunderstood, which we did. If he'd played against Barnsley witht he same result he'd have played against Wednesday under GJ's actual selction policy.

"He's got to know that the managers picking teams consistantly." - GJ So this is where i actually start to disagree with what GJ does, because what he says here is totally right. I've just highlighted why the picking of LJ is actually consistant but even GJ publicly criticised LJ's performance so under these rules as we know them I'm 100% confident under GJ's slection policy PH will start fitness providing next match. So if he doesn't, i will be surprised and annoyed for the first time this season in that squad positional fight. But that's realy only speculation. This isn't really and LJ thread but it's the example most care about.

Gary's contradicted this policy previously though by referring to the concept of "owning the shirt" and it being "theirs to lose" which obviously doesn't tie into the "take your chance, keep your place" idea. This is my perception but i'll need conformation on the exact example i'm using. When Chris Weale came in he played well, Adriano was back in immediately as soon as he could because he'd done so well previously. Now that is fair enough, but it's not consistant and not what Chris Weale wants to hear. He came in did well then got dropped again. The next time he came in and perhaps the next if indeed it was that many he made msitakes. Now it's perhaps coincidence but I think not (because it ties into the motivational theory that i'm talking about ) that a guy who knows he's not getting a consistant and fair chance starts subconciously perhaps conciously not caring and not performing to his highest ability. It takes exceptional and rare personality who will when there is no reason to. He's clearly a good keeper both before and after his time here. And "He's got to know that the managers picking teams consistantly." - GJ, but he didn't and so he left. We can also use Noble but he wasn't always totally ready to take his chance and did indeed on occasion let the manager down when he came in so it's slightly diffferent. But the Weale one is the best example so far IMO.

The test of GJ's honesty over his selection policy truly comes next match when he considers who to pick between PH and LJ. And does Skuse keep his shirt now he's come in and done well or is he the next victim of the owning the shirt policy? We do have a crux of the policy coming up where good players will be left out because either they've come back from injury or in some cases there really is a "best" player for a position. Will be interesting to find out,

Apologies for the giant wall of text. Congratulations if you made it this far.

Dude.... have you ever heard of keeping your players on their toes? Have you ever thought that perhaps a different motivational tool might be needed for different situations? Horses for courses... surely a combination of all of those selection policies can be used??????

I'll bet you any money you like IF Paul Hartley is fit he'll start against Forest..... Skuse may depending on the fitness of Bradley Orr and how GJ wants to play his midfield against a tough team like Forest where Sno might be a luxury........

I really don't understand the seemingly obsessive nature of talking of a selection policy? If we don't know how is going to be picked surely that gives us one up on the opposition who can't choose their tactics against us??? most high profile example of which was when he played Trundle - Noble and Carle against Palace and completely took them by surprise

[Redhyde]

Dude.... have you ever heard of keeping your players on their toes? Have you ever thought that perhaps a different motivational tool might be needed for different situations? Horses for courses... surely a combination of all of those selection policies can be used??????

I'll bet you any money you like IF Paul Hartley is fit he'll start against Forest.....I really hope so. Skuse may depending on the fitness of Bradley Orr and how GJ wants to play his midfield against a tough team like Forest where Sno might be a luxury........

I really don't understand the seemingly obsessive nature of talking of a selection policy? If we don't know how is going to be picked surely that gives us one up on the opposition who can't choose their tactics against us??? most high profile example of which was when he played Trundle - Noble and Carle against Palace and completely took them by surprise

That's complete nonsense, that exactly showed GJ's policy. We had played that line up against Sheff United where we were very good but unlucky, and a great win against Preston the game previously. There's no surprise at all in who played. There's a huge difference between knowing what to do and being able to stop it.

Keeping player on their toes? That comes in in the picking the team that's winning, and keeping the players who take their chance, in the team. You must've missed that in the wall of text. A combination can be used, but it's inconsistant, and as a manager inconsistancy is an awful idea if you want happy staff.

This is the conflict in GJ's best team idea. I don't think his idea that the best team is the one that last won you a game, i think it's situational and his confusion between the two policies is a problem. DId we play the right team int he palyoff final? We played the team that won us barely the playoff matches, but situationally I called beforehand to play our biggest chance of success, the 4-5-1 formation that had massively over performed the 4-4-2.

But how happy would you have been to be (i would've dropped Trundle) dropped after those playoff games for the playoff final? You'd be devastated. Now perhaps GJ should've been stronger and should be when it comes to giving us the best chance to win matches. I think he should always give us the best chance to win games. But i don't have to work with these players.

GJ's quote tells us why selection policy is so important. It massively affects squad motivation, and it can pretty much instantly puts to bed BS rumours about players handing in a transfer request when they have no reason to. Players will be unhapy not playing, but they will be more unhappy if they're confused by how they do get to play, and even more unhappy if they're not dealt with fairly and consistantly. PH as explained by GJ hasn't been so far. If he doesn't play against Forest he will have been. So we'll know if we can believe our manager. When he calls for positivity and trust in an 18 minute video that's vital.

[leedsred]

Keeping player on their toes? That comes in in the picking the team that's winning, and keeping the players who take their chance, in the team. You must've missed that in the wall of text. A combination can be used, but it's inconsistant, and as a manager inconsistancy is an awful idea if you want happy staff.

This is the conflict in GJ's best team idea. I don't think his idea that the best team is the one that last won you a game, i think it's situational and his confusion between the two policies is a problem. DId we play the right team int he palyoff final? We played the team that won us barely the playoff matches, but situationally I called beforehand to play our biggest chance of success, the 4-5-1 formation that had massively over performed the 4-4-2.

But how happy would you have been to be (i would've dropped Trundle) dropped after those playoff games for the playoff final? You'd be devastated. Now perhaps GJ should've been stronger and should be when it comes to giving us the best chance to win matches. I think he should always give us the best chance to win games. But i don't have to work with these players.

GJ's quote tells us why selection policy is so important. It massively affects squad motivation, and it can pretty much instantly puts to bed BS rumours about players handing in a transfer request when they have no reason to. Players will be unhapy not playing, but they will be more unhappy if they're confused by how they do get to play, and even more unhappy if they're not dealt with fairly and consistantly. PH as explained by GJ hasn't been so far. If he doesn't play against Forest he will have been. So we'll know if we can believe our manager. When he calls for positivity and trust in an 18 minute video that's vital.

I'll be honest i did scan at certain points in your original text so sorry i did miss a big point!

But i guess my points being that a rigid selection policy goes out the window when you want to play a different system away from home against good/poor side or at home against a good/poor side. Surely you just pick a team to win.

I'm afraid the only thing that stops BS rumours about players kicking off and handing in transfer requests is down to malicious individuals following their agenda to cause trouble. I see no problem with GJ making a decision and not telling me about it till afterwards... and don't forget the PH rumour came before GJ had even been spoken to.

Anyway cheers fella - i hope it made you feel better that marathon text?!! I felt compelled to answer because of the effort you put in. :-)

[Redhyde]

But i guess my points being that a rigid selection policy goes out the window when you want to play a different system away from home against good/poor side or at home against a good/poor side. Surely you just pick a team to win.

You should do as the job is to win. But you run the risk of upsetting people by doing so. That's the trade off. If you've got people who really only want the club they play for to win at the expense of personal glory, great. But i think that personality type is very rare amongst footballers and people in general.

Thanks for taking time to read, some if not all of it. Noone else probably will, but i feel it's an important and fair criticism of GJs viewpoint.

Some fans Gary have genuine and balanced criticisms, and we can still be happy generally with what's going on.