Comparing City defensive duo being out, to a 'mainstream' business

[highlandcityfan]

I'm not sure if this is worthy of it's own thread, though since I don't post often and I've a vast amount of respect for the posters on this board, plus invest a lot of time reading others' comments with enthusiasm, I hope I'll be humoured / spared!

 

Two key players being out today triggered my thoughts. If we think about for example, a sales team, an office team, production, ANother - 18% of your 'usual' workforce being unavailable would surely create a big gap. Especially when considering how crucial team work, and familiarity with roles and responsibilities are.

 

When I worked in Honda for example, we couldn't operate with a far smaller % out, and would simply have to stop production for a day. Even if a tiny fraction of the staff were off sick and production could continue, supervisors etc could step in to cover, though weren't quite as proficient as the people who did the roles all day every day and production slowed. 

 

In my current business, I work as half of a duo as part of a wider team. I know that if I'm tied up doing one thing, my buddy will pull out the stops with the other stuff we need to get done, and vice versa. If one of us is out, we have help to call upon, but it's apples and oranges due to the team ethic and understanding the two of us have built. 

 

Can football be compared to 'mainstream' business? In some respects no - customer loyalty for example is incomparable.

On the other hand, human beings, emotions, knowing you can completely trust the person to the left or right of you to do their role - unequivocally. 

 

Additionally, if we think about a production or sales environment - sometimes we have a rush on, or an extreme week, and really pull one out of the bag. This isn't a sign that people can keep that up every day on an ongoing basis, it's simply not feasible, and can easily result in burnout after a while. 

 

I'm not saying that we smashed Blackburn as a result of players running themselves into the ground (given the opposition errors) thus should be allowed an off day today. That said, all human performance is surely peaks and troughs impacted by anything and everything. And 18% off the workforce out is bound to have a large impact /upset the equilibrium.

 

Naturally another difference between 'normal' business and football is that in football there is a team in front of you directly trying to stop you achieve your goals, and Huddersfield were playing for their lives, as to be honest, we were expecting blackburn to. 

 

Why am I posing this? I suppose to try to give (and possible foster) a little understanding to the quite different experience for fans over the last two games. Also, no, I'm not Bristol sport

 

My word, what an essay. Thank you for reading. Any thoughts welcome. Have another apology (I'm sorry). And a potato (those who know, will know). 

 

Cheers all, have a good Saturday night. 

Tom 

[Nescot]

7 minutes ago, highlandcityfan said:

I'm not sure if this is worthy of it's own thread, though since I don't post often and I've a vast amount of respect for the posters on this board, plus invest a lot of time reading others' comments with enthusiasm, I hope I'll be humoured / spared!

 

Two key players being out today triggered my thoughts. If we think about for example, a sales team, an office team, production, ANother - 18% of your 'usual' workforce being unavailable would surely create a big gap. Especially when considering how crucial team work, and familiarity with roles and responsibilities are.

 

When I worked in Honda for example, we couldn't operate with a far smaller % out, and would simply have to stop production for a day. Even if a tiny fraction of the staff were off sick and production could continue, supervisors etc could step in to cover, though weren't quite as proficient as the people who did the roles all day every day and production slowed. 

 

In my current business, I work as half of a duo as part of a wider team. I know that if I'm tied up doing one thing, my buddy will pull out the stops with the other stuff we need to get done, and vice versa. If one of us is out, we have help to call upon, but it's apples and oranges due to the team ethic and understanding the two of us have built. 

 

Can football be compared to 'mainstream' business? In some respects no - customer loyalty for example is incomparable.

On the other hand, human beings, emotions, knowing you can completely trust the person to the left or right of you to do their role - unequivocally. 

 

Additionally, if we think about a production or sales environment - sometimes we have a rush on, or an extreme week, and really pull one out of the bag. This isn't a sign that people can keep that up every day on an ongoing basis, it's simply not feasible, and can easily result in burnout after a while. 

 

I'm not saying that we smashed Blackburn as a result of players running themselves into the ground (given the opposition errors) thus should be allowed an off day today. That said, all human performance is surely peaks and troughs impacted by anything and everything. And 18% off the workforce out is bound to have a large impact /upset the equilibrium.

 

Naturally another difference between 'normal' business and football is that in football there is a team in front of you directly trying to stop you achieve your goals, and Huddersfield were playing for their lives, as to be honest, we were expecting blackburn to. 

 

Why am I posing this? I suppose to try to give (and possible foster) a little understanding to the quite different experience for fans over the last two games. Also, no, I'm not Bristol sport

 

My word, what an essay. Thank you for reading. Any thoughts welcome. Have another apology (I'm sorry). And a potato (those who know, will know). 

 

Cheers all, have a good Saturday night. 

Tom 

Sometimes teams play well and sometimes they don’t, missing or gaining players impacts on that. Huddersfield played decent, Blackburn didn’t. It’s the story of the championship, anything can happen. Key is getting points even if you don’t play well and we did that today - ignore the negativity - would hate to be a glass half empty person.

[Davefevs]

I’m guessing Honda doesn’t carry a workforce twice the size required to run the line to cover illness, etc.  don’t think it’s comparable imho.

+++++

Part of the reason I’m chilled about today is that pre-match I said it was a makeshift defence, and I think that had an impact.

Sorry to take us back to pre-Manning, but I used similar as mitigation for Nige in those 3 games leading up to his sacking, when he had injury issues….so happy to be consistent.

 

[steveybadger]

28 minutes ago, highlandcityfan said:

I'm not sure if this is worthy of it's own thread, though since I don't post often and I've a vast amount of respect for the posters on this board, plus invest a lot of time reading others' comments with enthusiasm, I hope I'll be humoured / spared!

 

Two key players being out today triggered my thoughts. If we think about for example, a sales team, an office team, production, ANother - 18% of your 'usual' workforce being unavailable would surely create a big gap. Especially when considering how crucial team work, and familiarity with roles and responsibilities are.

 

When I worked in Honda for example, we couldn't operate with a far smaller % out, and would simply have to stop production for a day. Even if a tiny fraction of the staff were off sick and production could continue, supervisors etc could step in to cover, though weren't quite as proficient as the people who did the roles all day every day and production slowed. 

 

In my current business, I work as half of a duo as part of a wider team. I know that if I'm tied up doing one thing, my buddy will pull out the stops with the other stuff we need to get done, and vice versa. If one of us is out, we have help to call upon, but it's apples and oranges due to the team ethic and understanding the two of us have built. 

 

Can football be compared to 'mainstream' business? In some respects no - customer loyalty for example is incomparable.

On the other hand, human beings, emotions, knowing you can completely trust the person to the left or right of you to do their role - unequivocally. 

 

Additionally, if we think about a production or sales environment - sometimes we have a rush on, or an extreme week, and really pull one out of the bag. This isn't a sign that people can keep that up every day on an ongoing basis, it's simply not feasible, and can easily result in burnout after a while. 

 

I'm not saying that we smashed Blackburn as a result of players running themselves into the ground (given the opposition errors) thus should be allowed an off day today. That said, all human performance is surely peaks and troughs impacted by anything and everything. And 18% off the workforce out is bound to have a large impact /upset the equilibrium.

 

Naturally another difference between 'normal' business and football is that in football there is a team in front of you directly trying to stop you achieve your goals, and Huddersfield were playing for their lives, as to be honest, we were expecting blackburn to. 

 

Why am I posing this? I suppose to try to give (and possible foster) a little understanding to the quite different experience for fans over the last two games. Also, no, I'm not Bristol sport

 

My word, what an essay. Thank you for reading. Any thoughts welcome. Have another apology (I'm sorry). And a potato (those who know, will know). 

 

Cheers all, have a good Saturday night. 

Tom 

Not completely sure I agree but certainly an interesting post

[highlandcityfan]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m guessing Honda doesn’t carry a workforce twice the size required to run the line to cover illness, etc.  don’t think it’s comparable imho.

+++++

Part of the reason I’m chilled about today is that pre-match I said it was a makeshift defence, and I think that had an impact.

Sorry to take us back to pre-Manning, but I used similar as mitigation for Nige in those 3 games leading up to his sacking, when he had injury issues….so happy to be consistent.

 

Ahhh, Dave, you make a great point! Hands up, hadn't thought of it that way! 

Ohhh dont get me started on the Pearson sacking debacle - I imagine our thoughts are reasonably aligned! 

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m guessing Honda doesn’t carry a workforce twice the size required to run the line to cover illness, etc.  don’t think it’s comparable imho.

+++++

Part of the reason I’m chilled about today is that pre-match I said it was a makeshift defence, and I think that had an impact.

Sorry to take us back to pre-Manning, but I used similar as mitigation for Nige in those 3 games leading up to his sacking, when he had injury issues….so happy to be consistent.

 

Funnily enough Niges last game against Cardiff came into my head as I was leaving the stadium today. In that game he had the “testicular fortitude” to play Joseph James and also bring on Jamie Knight Lebel for a debut. The rejigs needed were necessary that day, and he had the courage to involve people who hadn’t been anywhere near the first team.

This is where I think I have more of a problem than you with today, while fully acknowledging it’s better to play a “youngster” if they have experience next to them. But we had a natural defender who’s been good enough to be on the bench for 25 odd games (so more experience than Nige had available) and chose not to use him - instead doing multiple positional moves which stifled how we played - and weren’t needed.

Injuries or not, there was a tactical decision made - and it was the wrong one (and that isn’t benefit of hindsight).

If I’m Jamie Knight-Lebel, and I have no idea if he would have played well or not, I’m spitting bloody feathers tonight and wondering if it’s worth it. The decisions made today have likely disillusioned the only academy player (that wasn’t involved regularly before) who has got anywhere near the first team consistently under Liam. It was a really, really bad call on so many levels - injuries or not.

[Nescot]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Funnily enough Niges last game against Cardiff came into my head as I was leaving the stadium today. In that game he had the “testicular fortitude” to play Joseph James and also bring on Jamie Knight Lebel for a debut. The rejigs needed were necessary that day, and he had the courage to involve people who hadn’t been anywhere near the first team.

This is where I think I have more of a problem than you with today, while fully acknowledging it’s better to play a “youngster” if they have experience next to them. But we had a natural defender who’s been good enough to be on the bench for 25 odd games (so more experience than Nige had available) and chose not to use him - instead doing multiple positional moves which stifled how we played - and weren’t needed.

Injuries or not, there was a tactical decision made - and it was the wrong one (and that isn’t benefit of hindsight).

If I’m Jamie Knight-Lebel, and I have no idea if he would have played well or not, I’m spitting bloody feathers tonight and wondering if it’s worth it. The decisions made today have likely disillusioned the only academy player (that wasn’t involved regularly before) who has got anywhere near the first team consistently under Liam. It was a really, really bad call on so many levels - injuries or not.

You really do type some bollocks - a 1000 variables that you ignore as per.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Nescot said:

You really do type some bollocks - a 1000 variables that you ignore as per.

Cheers Lez, always good to hear from you.

[Nescot]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

Cheers Lez, always good to hear from you.

You have a real ability to chat absolute nonsense and come across like you genuinely believe what you’re typing. Fair play. 

[George Rs]

12 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Funnily enough Niges last game against Cardiff came into my head as I was leaving the stadium today. In that game he had the “testicular fortitude” to play Joseph James and also bring on Jamie Knight Lebel for a debut. The rejigs needed were necessary that day, and he had the courage to involve people who hadn’t been anywhere near the first team.

This is where I think I have more of a problem than you with today, while fully acknowledging it’s better to play a “youngster” if they have experience next to them. But we had a natural defender who’s been good enough to be on the bench for 25 odd games (so more experience than Nige had available) and chose not to use him - instead doing multiple positional moves which stifled how we played - and weren’t needed.

Injuries or not, there was a tactical decision made - and it was the wrong one (and that isn’t benefit of hindsight).

If I’m Jamie Knight-Lebel, and I have no idea if he would have played well or not, I’m spitting bloody feathers tonight and wondering if it’s worth it. The decisions made today have likely disillusioned the only academy player (that wasn’t involved regularly before) who has got anywhere near the first team consistently under Liam. It was a really, really bad call on so many levels - injuries or not.

I would’ve liked JKL to get more game time this season as well don’t get me wrong.

But there’s an obvious difference between the cardiff game in october and today. One we lost 2-0 and the other we drew 1-1. 

Obviously there are various other factors, on paper Cardiff probably have a better team, Huddersfield have a lot more to play for etc. But to call it the wrong decision in comparison to a game where we lost doesn’t make any sense to me? 

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, George Rs said:

I would’ve liked JKL to get more game time this season as well don’t get me wrong.

But there’s an obvious difference between the cardiff game in october and today. One we lost 2-0 and the other we drew 1-1. 

Obviously there are various other factors, on paper Cardiff probably have a better team, Huddersfield have a lot more to play for etc. But to call it the wrong decision in comparison to a game where we lost doesn’t make any sense to me? 

Fair comment.

It probably comes down to short term va long term thinking - I think the overarching point is this; we’ve been on a good run (and results wise we still are) - and there have been positive signs of “intent” on how we want to play next season. With nothing on the game (for us) it was an ideal opportunity both to see JKL (or what’s the point in him being in the squad) and to help the players get used to their roles in the current system - in essence we have the opportunity for an extended pre season / time on the grass.

What we instead did is put players in positions they haven’t been playing (and are unlikely to play under normal circumstances) and consequently lost a lot of rhythm and shape. We also lost the opportunity to see if our current “first sub” centre back can play at this level - and it’s unlikely we’ll get another opportunity.

We ultimately got out of jail with a 1-1 draw. But we prioritised “today” (which ultimately means nothing) over longer term development, and took a step down in performance. So, arguable that “right” decision in terms of result - and nobody knows how well we would have played if we had not shifted things around - but for me, wrong decision both in the message to young players, and moreso for the overall development of the team.
 

 

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, highlandcityfan said:

Ahhh, Dave, you make a great point! Hands up, hadn't thought of it that way! 

Ohhh dont get me started on the Pearson sacking debacle - I imagine our thoughts are reasonably aligned! 

I believe LM is into his Kaizen though!

35 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Funnily enough Niges last game against Cardiff came into my head as I was leaving the stadium today. In that game he had the “testicular fortitude” to play Joseph James and also bring on Jamie Knight Lebel for a debut. The rejigs needed were necessary that day, and he had the courage to involve people who hadn’t been anywhere near the first team.

This is where I think I have more of a problem than you with today, while fully acknowledging it’s better to play a “youngster” if they have experience next to them. But we had a natural defender who’s been good enough to be on the bench for 25 odd games (so more experience than Nige had available) and chose not to use him - instead doing multiple positional moves which stifled how we played - and weren’t needed.

Injuries or not, there was a tactical decision made - and it was the wrong one (and that isn’t benefit of hindsight).

If I’m Jamie Knight-Lebel, and I have no idea if he would have played well or not, I’m spitting bloody feathers tonight and wondering if it’s worth it. The decisions made today have likely disillusioned the only academy player (that wasn’t involved regularly before) who has got anywhere near the first team consistently under Liam. It was a really, really bad call on so many levels - injuries or not.

And fair response back.  Definitely “testicles” on one v the other!!!

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Fair comment.

It probably comes down to short term va long term thinking - I think the overarching point is this; we’ve been on a good run (and results wise we still are) - and there have been positive signs of “intent” on how we want to play next season. With nothing on the game (for us) it was an ideal opportunity both to see JKL (or what’s the point in him being in the squad) and to help the players get used to their roles in the current system - in essence we have the opportunity for an extended pre season / time on the grass.

What we instead did is put players in positions they haven’t been playing (and are unlikely to play under normal circumstances) and consequently lost a lot of rhythm and shape. We also lost the opportunity to see if our current “first sub” centre back can play at this level - and it’s unlikely we’ll get another opportunity.

We ultimately got out of jail with a 1-1 draw. But we prioritised “today” (which ultimately means nothing) over longer term development, and took a step down in performance. So, arguable that “right” decision in terms of result - and nobody knows how well we would have played if we had not shifted things around - but for me, wrong decision both in the message to young players, and moreso for the overall development of the team.
 

 

I can only assume “us” means us fans, because I’m pretty sure this wasn’t a nothing game for LM.  Despite beating Leicester, Plymouth and Blackburn he still thinks he needs to finish strongly…that “mythical / ridiculous” 60 points to achieve.

Of course a missed opportunity to reward (not give away cheap mins) JKL, but TC spent half a season on the bench for 76 mins in 21/22 having played 1250 mins in 20/21.  It’s always harder to bring on defenders.  All I can hope is that when he gets a proper chance he realises the opportunity to keep it.

I do think 9 subs has a lot to answer for, it’s so unnecessary, should never need 4 extra options.

[GrahamC]

44 minutes ago, George Rs said:

I would’ve liked JKL to get more game time this season as well don’t get me wrong.

But there’s an obvious difference between the cardiff game in october and today. One we lost 2-0 and the other we drew 1-1. 

Obviously there are various other factors, on paper Cardiff probably have a better team, Huddersfield have a lot more to play for etc. But to call it the wrong decision in comparison to a game where we lost doesn’t make any sense to me? 

I’ll also add that today’s game was massive for them.

Reckon if we’d faced already relegated Rotherham today Knight-Lebel would have started.