So Now We Know - It's Not The Manager

[WTFiGO!?!]

Psychopathy is traced to minimal activity in the frontal lobes of the brainbox. This is the area of the brain that deals with human-specific emotions such as empathy, sensitivity and compassion.

It's the one that made Ramsay not celebrate scoring against the team that play in red and base themselves in Cardiff. Or the attention-seeking bandwagon that Graham publicly stated he was going to jump on at Hull.

It does not necessarily mean people will express themselves through wild axe-swinging in residential homes for people with learning disabilities or arson in juvenile care establishments, just an abnormally low level of activity in them frontal lobes :-)

[chinapig]

The same thing happened when GJ came in and took over a dressing room resembling a AA unanimous meeting and having had their toys taken away, the players reacted like spoilt kids and it took until 3 of them got banged up before, the squad woke up and remembered they were professional footballers.

 

and saddest part of that sorry part of our recent history, was the evidence was there leading up to the 3 being arrested, there had been several close calls and several very young players had promising careers cut short by being dragged into the culture that existed.

 

I am in no way suggesting that that culture exists now, merely illustrating the point footballers do not like having their toys taken away.

I'm certainly not aware of any evidence it does but your final point stands. Seems to me the Managers who are most popular with players are those who give them an easy ride. Wilson did nothing about the culture you describe, Millen was the man the players wanted, and he presided over the growth of a "how much do you earn, have you seen my car?" arrogance. The problem is that with few exceptions players have more power than managers and will invariably make sure any manager who does indeed take their toys away loses his job while they get off Scot free.

[southvillekiddy]

Seems that our most successful recent manager was a bully but unfortunately was also a nepotist and it was the latter factor that brought about his downfall.

 

My reading of the Bristol City situation is given the colossal comfort zone/treacle-thick lethargy about the place, you are simply peeing in the wind appointing anybody average as Manager here. The players, like naughty school-kids, will take advantage.

 

You need to appoint an exceptional person for it to work at Bristol City. Someone who is hard enough, clever enough, knowledgeable enough about football and players. Someone who can blow away the Bristolian "can't do" bull**** .

 

I don't know much about AD but he must have had all these qualities.

 

You will have to pay well over the odds for this, especially at our Club in the modern game. I'm staggered that the fortune-accumulating financial geniuses on our "Board"can't work this out. They seem to be frittering  away 10s of Millions of quids getting it wrong regularly. We are told everyday in the News that you have to pay Chief Executives astronomical salaries and bonuses to attract the best person if you are to achieve results. Why not apply this principle to the Bristol City Managership?????With our potential fanbase the sky is the limit.

[Oxford Red]

The same thing happened when GJ came in and took over a dressing room resembling a AA unanimous meeting and having had their toys taken away, the players reacted like spoilt kids and it took until 3 of them got banged up before, the squad woke up and remembered they were professional footballers.

and saddest part of that sorry part of our recent history, was the evidence was there leading up to the 3 being arrested, there had been several close calls and several very young players had promising careers cut short by being dragged into the culture that existed.

I am in no way suggesting that that culture exists now, merely illustrating the point footballers do not like having their toys taken away.

That's a really good point actually.

I don't think we have a booze culture but we do have an issue of player entitlement - highlighted by a guy who thinks he can stroll around the pitch and do whatever he likes.

[MATT BCFC]

People who are saying that the poor performance was down to the players being upset that SOD left, why didnt they perform when he was here then?

[Strictly Obi]

People who are saying that the poor performance was down to the players being upset that SOD left, why didnt they perform when he was here then?

I think they did preform. It's just they were not very good at doing what they were instructed to do. Which wad to play the passing game. Sods plan was that eventually things would click in to place, and this young team would become another Doncaster. Adept at the passing game. Unfortunately he underestimated how long it would take this team to click. The players bought into his ideas! Now they have a new boss who wants to rip up the experiment, and start afresh! And we may still go down. If this happens anyway, then sacking sod, is going yo look pretty stupid in hindsight!

[Red-Robbo]

I think they did preform. It's just they were not very good at doing what they were instructed to do. Which wad to play the passing game. Sods plan was that eventually things would click in to place, and this young team would become another Doncaster. Adept at the passing game. Unfortunately he underestimated how long it would take this team to click. The players bought into his ideas! Now they have a new boss who wants to rip up the experiment, and start afresh! And we may still go down. If this happens anyway, then sacking sod, is going yo look pretty stupid in hindsight!

 

A) The Doncaster sides I saw at Ashton gate were not "adept at the passing game".

 

B) How do you know "the players bought into his ideas"? Are you a club employee? I don't think his "ideas" were very radical or unusual, at all. Indeed they were what most managers tell their team to do.

 

C) 'Rip up the experiment'! Cotterill sent out a SOD side v Rotherham and they played in a SOD style. Hence the lack of shots on goal. I saw nothing different alas, other than a willingness to change tack sooner, but that could change.

 

D) We went down under SOD. Does that mean sacking McInnes was "pretty stupid in hindsight".

[havanatopia]

The same thing happened when GJ came in and took over a dressing room resembling a AA unanimous meeting and having had their toys taken away, the players reacted like spoilt kids and it took until 3 of them got banged up before, the squad woke up and remembered they were professional footballers.

 

and saddest part of that sorry part of our recent history, was the evidence was there leading up to the 3 being arrested, there had been several close calls and several very young players had promising careers cut short by being dragged into the culture that existed.

 

I am in no way suggesting that that culture exists now, merely illustrating the point footballers do not like having their toys taken away.

 

One would think that with a completely new team such a culture has gone or does one or two existing bad eggs spread the disease again? I think we are looking for scapegoats that are not there. Of course there is not one single reason for failure in our results.

 

However much one agrees or disagrees with the Board's decisions one cannot move too far away from the two words that are overwhelmingly to blame for our demise; stability and confidence. The first is because the board makes a change, for good or for bad, and the second is the end result to the players. Perhaps if there is one thing that any football board do not seem to understand it is how causal a shattering of confidence is to a team. Just look at the evidence.

 

When there were the shoots of progress following a long drawn out process of a complete team rebuild the board decapitates it. When the beginnings of a new team were starting to gel the board does a volte face on the style of play in which, for months, the team have been trained to perform. I sincerely hope, and from all accounts I have read, that the first league match under Cotterill is a one off; the players are human and they will have been totally shattered and deflated with the untimely removal of Sean. 

 

Then there is the argument of some who say that this team is simply not good enough. This means that all previous managers who failed brought in the wrong players or a fair chunk of them. So the unveiling and lauding of the new managers arrival, whoever it is, simply augurs in another mass change in playing staff. Those two words crop up again then, stability and confidence. Perhaps this board thinks these words are overestimated; that they are to be cast aside because the players earn so much they should play to the maximum effect each and every week which, conversely, means a manager really is not so important. The consideration of something mechanical that has no brain or feeling would be appropriate in that case. The understanding of the human brain is, alas, a lot more complicated and elusive. So, when you take it down to the bare bones, its essentially a roll of the dice meaning why communication with those that matter is absolutely essential.

 

More to the point, the board has clearly underestimated the disappointment of many of the fans and perhaps, privately, that of the players as well. I think what we saw on Saturday was the combination of those two impacting and suppressing any 'bump' that one usually gets from a removal of a manager. This was an unusual dynamic, after all, in that we had a team clearly doing badly but with a significant number of people not wanting a change. It was not assisted, of course, by the silence and subsequent arrogance of the board and owner and it pains me to say that given my previously unswerving support of both. They misjudged their fear of not facing the public or the press, they should have faced both, they should admit that and not defend it because it just makes them look even worse; digging a bigger hole springs to mind.

 

So Cotts is under the hammer before the auction has even started. He has one heck of a job trying to keep us in this division as it is without what must be very clear knowledge that he is here with a lot of people very much against him. And even if those dissenting voices knuckle down there is a quiet psychology going on inside and out of the club that will still be a huge threat to his success. I hope for the sake of the club he has the bottle for it and that results on the pitch can be snatched from the face of defeat and if that means playing ugly ugly football then, sadly, that is what it will have to be. My criticism of the board ends here, at least for now.