What Was The Objective?

[Olé]

I've not been so close to the forum the past couple of months besides scanning the posts after games, but something has been bugging me - if it's been raised before sorry....

Sean O'Driscoll. Seems like a smart guy, very articulate and with good ideas. A sound choice for the long term development of the squad and the club's ability to develop within.

But this season - you know, the bit about staying up. I know some will say it was over already when he joined, but was there really no plan and objectives for getting out of it?

And not the "we plan for each game" and "I don't look at league tables" stuff. The joined up targets over three months, the stuff that HAS TO involve looking at league tables.

We've improved as a team but I honestly couldn't say I've seen a single performance where you'd say they were playing out of their skin to meet a known survival target.

Teams that stay up and teams that go down do so pulling at least a few big results out due to the situation. We haven't. It feels like the players have had no target to drive this.

Remember Gary Johnson's groups of 10 games? The targets for each of those were planned to add up to a wider target that was consistent with what he was aiming to achieve.

That wasn't just some bit of fun. In business the MD sets the vision and defines the strategy and senior managers set the objectives for their teams to deliver against this.

Shorter and smaller aims should always be based on and add up to bigger and more important aims. It's a truism of most endeavours, running a project, a business or a football team.

SO... here's the question. What was that objective for THIS season after Sean O'Driscoll took over? Was there a target to keep us up, that then broke down into targets for players and games?

Or was there zero pressure on the rest of this season and immediate thoughts toward long term development, consistent with O'Driscoll's remarks that he wasn't looking at the league table?

If we go down, we go down - the players have been appalling. But it'd be nice to know we haven't just become the first club to actually surrender without any strategy or goals for survival.

[sportingmad0209]

The aim must have been survival, but the team over achieved when SOD first came in, which made him think they was good enough to keep us up.

[Guest]

If we go down, we go down - the players have been appalling. But it'd be nice to know we haven't just become the first club to actually surrender without any strategy or goals for survival

I think we did. Otherwise (arguably) SOD wouldn't even be but instead a 'hand-grenade' manager would have been. I think the club as a whole are looking to the absolute long-term and in the short term que sera sera. All we can hope is that the long-term plan is not misplaced.

[Aizoon]

May be worth it to throw out the trash.

[David Brent]

I think he was brought in with the aim of a survival. After all, Lansdown acted pretty quickly in bringing in SOD after dismissing McInnes. I can't believe Lansdown would've thought "right, we need to bring someone in who is resigned to us going down but looking at completely changing our style going forward NOW".

I'm optimistic for our future with SOD in charge.

[BCAGFC]

Obviously everyone at the club wanted to stay up but from Day 1, SOD was non commital on that issue, just wanting to concentrate on performances, which in turn should yield results. Perhaps it was a mandate from higher up to squash expectation of survival?.

I think it became clear very early on to SOD, that some of this group of players are extremely limited in ability/mental strength and he soon realised that he wouldn't be able to apply his favoured methods to them.

It was strange however, that SOD never brought anyone in on loan, as he must had already realised that there were huge deficiences in the squad (especially midfield & after Stead's injury). Although SOD said there wasn;t anyone better out there or who wanted to come, it also could have been another mandate from the top...after all we had to waste around IIRC £1.8m on sacking DMC etc, etc, to have any chance of keeping to their £10m loss target for this season.

Last season, the loanees played a MASSIVE part in keeping us up, they wanted to play for us......why not this season?.

[Cider red]

In my opinion the board had given up on staying up with del or without him, and were probably planning for league one months ago. The writing has been on the wall for at least a season and a half now, weve gone from being a competetive team to one of the regular wipping boys of the division. I think the club would probably prefer to be in league 1 when we are redeveloping the gate, then we can come back up with a proper stadium and facilities that enable us to give this division a proper go.

[redysteadygo1]

Well here's my theory for what it is worth.

The previous two seasons we were in a similar position towards the end of the season and managed to get results to stay up. Was this the result of incentives of a big fat bonus?

However, as everyone knows the penny ( excuse the pun ) has dropped and the lid has been firmly kept on the coffers. Hence, most of the players did not raise their games from the poor performances we have had to endure all season. In other words they could not be arsed!

[marmite]

I started a thread before DM was dismissed about relegation being a done deal then. I still believe that the club know they cannot survive in the Championship under the current set up regarding gates, wages, signing on fees and balancing the books. Otherwise S'OD would have been given cash to strengthen where we all knew the weakness was. There was probably a hope that the 'new manager bounce' might save us without spending any cash but with this group of players, it was always going to be difficult. Even the best trainer couldn't train a donkey to win The Derby! I think S'OD is here for the long term rebuilding of the team whilst the board take charge of stadium development to increase income. Just my view, and I will still get my ST next season even in Div 1 as long as the pricing is sensible.

[exAtyeoMax]

SOD did say it was difficult getting anyone in, whether on loan or on a deal.

Whatever the remit was, SOD can only do so much. The team improved massively when he came along - especially at home, I don't know why the away form was so bad…

[City 'till I die]

An excellent thread. SOD may not have the title of 'manager' however he is the Head Coach and has a leadership role.

Nobody at Bristol City (a failing company, organisation and football club) is considering quantitative data. We are doomed.

[Robbored]

SO... here's the question. What was that objective for THIS season after Sean O'Driscoll took over? Was there a target to keep us up, that then broke down into targets for players and games?

Or was there zero pressure on the rest of this season and immediate thoughts toward long term development, consistent with O'Driscoll's remarks that he wasn't looking at the league table?

If we go down, we go down - the players have been appalling. But it'd be nice to know we haven't just become the first club to actually surrender without any strategy or goals for survival.

You have to ask why McInnes was sacked.

The reasons seemed to be that the board felt that after yet another home hammering he'd run out of idea's and that City were heading down back to League 1. I guess the board also knew that the fans were beginning to lose faith in him as well and it would be just a matter of time before the 'McInnes Out' banners started to appear.

I'm sure that when O'Driscoll took over his first goal was to to all he could to retain Championship status but I'm sure that he realised after a couple of games, having seen the resources at his disposal just how hard a task that would be. He managed to turn the home form around but couldn't achieve the same away.

Now that we are relegated his plan/remit is to rebuild the club and his recent 'vision statement' describes exactly what that means. O'Driscoll is not like any other City manager that I can remember. He has a unique approach and I'm looking forward to seeing what he can achieve over the next few seasons. Could he become to City what Martinez is at Swansea?

[Aizoon]

You have to ask why McInnes was sacked.

The reasons seemed to be that the board felt that after yet another home hammering he'd run out of idea's and that City were heading down back to League 1. I guess the board also knew that the fans were beginning to lose faith in him as well and it would be just a matter of time before the 'McInnes Out' banners started to appear.

I'm sure that when O'Driscoll took over his first goal was to to all he could to retain Championship status but I'm sure that he realised after a couple of games, having seen the resources at his disposal just how hard a task that would be. He managed to turn the home form around but couldn't achieve the same away.

Now that we are relegated his plan/remit is to rebuild the club and his recent 'vision statement' describes exactly what that means. O'Driscoll is not like any other City manager that I can remember. He has a unique approach and I'm looking forward to seeing what he can achieve over the next few seasons. Could he become to City what Martinez is at Swansea?

I would suggest that Alan Dicks had a similar, if less articulate, approach. He had a long-term strategy that he was enabled to carry out by a knowledgeable and sympathetic chairman and a large slice of luck in terms of the 73-74 Cup run.

[Kid in the Riot]

SO... here's the question. What was that objective for THIS season after Sean O'Driscoll took over? Was there a target to keep us up, that then broke down into targets for players and games?

Or was there zero pressure on the rest of this season and immediate thoughts toward long term development, consistent with O'Driscoll's remarks that he wasn't looking at the league table?

If we go down, we go down - the players have been appalling. But it'd be nice to know we haven't just become the first club to actually surrender without any strategy or goals for survival.

Well, the simply answer is; we don't know. Only the Lansdowns and SOD know if there were specific targets in terms of staying up or no. of points to achieve. And the players if it was translated to them, but unlikely I'd say given SODs ethos.

Here's what SOD would of said to your post Ole:

"Of course results are important. But a points tally is an 'outcome', if you concentrate too much on the 'outcome' then you will lose concentration and forget about the 'performance'. Long term, consistent performances will achieve results. We go out to win every game and setting out a goal/outcome will not change this."

[Olé]

Here's what SOD would of said to your post Ole:

"Of course results are important. But a points tally is an 'outcome', if you concentrate too much on the 'outcome' then you will lose concentration and forget about the 'performance'. Long term, consistent performances will achieve results."

I agree - but he'd be the first manager I can think of who promised long term consistency as a solution to a very short term and immediate problem. Unless of course survival was never the objective, which from the responses is sounding increasingly like others also believe was the case.

I didn't expect us to stay up but there hasn't been any visible urgency or a determination to "cling on" proportionate to the situation the more we've fallen adrift. If that's through not looking at the league table then it doesn't say much for the coaching in isolation as we're still shipping goals and losing.

I would expect a sense of immediate urgency to be worth a few points. Whatever psychology the team instead had while on the brink in the past few weeks hasn't been worth a thing. There's barely been a whimper. I expect the same logic to apply at the other end of the table in League One too.

Which is why this first experience of our performances without overall objective (or interest in required outcomes) concerns me.

[Rudolf Hucker]

Don't feed the troll.

[CliftonCliff]

I agree - but he'd be the first manager I can think of who promised long term consistency as a solution to a very short term and immediate problem. Unless of course survival was never the objective, which from the responses is sounding increasingly like others also believe was the case.

I didn't expect us to stay up but there hasn't been any visible urgency or a determination to "cling on" proportionate to the situation the more we've fallen adrift. If that's through not looking at the league table then it doesn't say much for the coaching in isolation as we're still shipping goals and losing.

I would expect a sense of immediate urgency to be worth a few points. Whatever psychology the team instead had while on the brink in the past few weeks hasn't been worth a thing. There's barely been a whimper. I expect the same logic to apply at the other end of the table in League One too.

Which is why this first experience of our performances without overall objective (or interest in required outcomes) concerns me.

For what it's worth Ole, I have been having similar thoughts about the situation for some weeks. I suspect the post above from Marmite (post 10) may be closest to the truth. Nothing else really seems to explain the absence of a last minute, impassioned effort such as we saw last season.

It's as if the same defeatist attitude among the players that I've written about on another thread also existed in the boardroom. An air of resignation seems to run through the whole club at the moment and this may also fit with the decision to go for SOD, who it was clear from the off was not a quick fix merchant. They will never publicly admit it, but it smacks of an acceptance that financially and in every other way we have to go backwards in order to go forwards.

[Xiled]

I agree - but he'd be the first manager I can think of who promised long term consistency as a solution to a very short term and immediate problem. Unless of course survival was never the objective, which from the responses is sounding increasingly like others also believe was the case.

I think it was all about managing expectations. The timing of O'Driscoll's appointment wasn't about strategic rebuilding as that job can't start until the summer whether we get relegated or stay up. But I'm sure there was a feeling within the boardroom that unless he was appointed quickly he would be unavailable in the summer.

Just about every manager and every team sets out to win every game so even with all the talk of performance rather than result, I'm sure it has been hurting him that we have slipped further into the mire.

So, he's done what most of us would do in the circumstances - attempt to switch the focus from the short term into an idea of rebuilding from the ground up from the summer onwards.

O'Driscoll's managerial style is not in the immediate impact category but his achievements at Doncaster and Bournemouth were impressive. I hope we give him time to shape a side with his own choice of players. I think the playing style will just about satisfy the crowd at Ashton Gate albeit less attacking than some would hope for. Away from home I expect him to build a side that is not beaten easily.

Of course he has been watching the league table evolve - it was foolish of him to say anything else.

Let's give this guy a decent chance. The merry-go-round of managers since Gary Johnson has been expensive and ultimately unsuccessful. It's time to try a new approach.

[054123]

I wouldnt really worry about it now.

I think we all need a break from the slow lingering death that the last 3 years have been.

I'm willing to draw a line under the debacle that our championship adventure has been.