Jump to content

Obstinacy so often the downfall of managers

Port Said Red

Recommended Posts

Whether it's a need to appear strong "my way or the highway" or whether it is sheer bloody mindedness it often seems that managers go when they prove themselves unable to accept that things have to change. 

Bill Shankly once said that you either change the players or change the manager and he was a manager for a long time. 

With SC it seems that his plan was "shock and awe", we were going to come into this league and go for teams and surprise them with our attacking intent. We were to score more goals than the opposition and entertain. Fair enough, this would be a great plan if you were at a club with no ambition and no expectation, the fans would be happy with mid table as long as we were being entertained. That's not the case here though, we and the board expected us to be looking to kick on, to do that (as I think Preston are proving) is to be resilient and make the defence the focus of your first season. Someone (I think it was Jack Daw) asked the question when the Clough bid was made, whether we should be spending money up front when the defence appears to be the issue and I have to wonder the same. It might be that the individuals are OK, but the formation doesn't work in the Championship, either way it was up to the Manager to correct this, but little or no effort was made.

On the pitch, persisting with Freeman, not using his limited resources to freshen things up, either during a game or week to week appears to be down to the fact that he only wanted to play "his players", what a waste of resources either from within the club (Burns and Reid) or proven/talented professionals (like Cox).

Few managers in any line of business get long term success without showing some flexibility, perhaps SC will bear this in mind in his next role.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with this. It's like we, or Cotts, was as much over-ambitious as obstinate. If he had got just one of the many exciting forwards he tried to sign, we would at least have finished more of the many chances we have created (Charlton at home, for eg) and surely collected more points. Taking your chances at one end can take some of the pressure off at the other. Maybe that's how Cotts wanted to address the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...