Re: City v. St.Albans

by comrade powell Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:54 pm

And yet Saturday's attendance was the 2nd highest for a league game this season. I wasn't expecting that, especially as St Albans didn't bring many. Perhaps fans like Eddie, who had intended to stay away, responded to the club's request to get behind the team...

by Eddie Hitler Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:59 pm

comrade powell wrote:...Perhaps fans like Eddie, who had intended to stay away, responded to the club's request to get behind the team...

I did go, and in response to the Board's statement that things would be reviewed, and a lot of cajoling from others.

by Marc Monitor Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:38 pm

2weirdtown wrote:I don't give a monkey's who is 'in charge'.

While I don't disagree with most of your post, I have to address this. For a start, the players will "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'" and, if the lines of communication are muddled due to too many chiefs, this could have an influence on the team. It could also explain some of odder player choices, acquisitions, formations and subsequent results.

Also, while you may not "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'", a lot of supporters do and part of a managers job is to explain to the supporters and media - not, notice, to say he doesn't know what is going on and blaming the players.

by comrade powell Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:28 pm

While there will be numerous views on these issues, the one thing every single supporter I've spoken to seems to agree on is that this farcical arrangement re the management has to be sorted and communicated to supporters (and as Marc suggests, to the players as well). If the directors only achieve this one thing in their grand sounding review of the whole club structure, then it will have been worthwhile.

by Dusty Lynfield Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:26 pm

I think Comrade sums it up....we need to be clear who's calling the shots in the dug out.

by BenE Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:44 pm

Dusty Lynfield wrote:I think Comrade sums it up....we need to be clear who's calling the shots in the dug out.

I don't think the supporters need to know who's calling the shots. But clearly, for effective management, the players do. We don't actually know whether the players do know what the heirachy is. But if the management is all singing from the same hymn sheet it doesn't matter. I personally have no reason to doubt that all the coaching staff are in agreement.

However the board can decide at any time that they don't like how the set up is working. Or not. They may conclude, after suitable deliberation, it is the best arrangement.

That's the result I'm expecting.

by 2weirdtown Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:53 pm

Marc Monitor wrote:
2weirdtown wrote:I don't give a monkey's who is 'in charge'.

While I don't disagree with most of your post, I have to address this. For a start, the players will "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'" and, if the lines of communication are muddled due to too many chiefs, this could have an influence on the team. It could also explain some of odder player choices, acquisitions, formations and subsequent results.

Also, while you may not "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'", a lot of supporters do and part of a managers job is to explain to the supporters and media - not, notice, to say he doesn't know what is going on and blaming the players.

I suppose my point is that supporters seem to have decided to blame any bad results/form on a supposed lack of management structure (as they see it).
As far as I'm aware there has been nothing said by any players to back this point of view. To blame bad results on 'muddled communications' may be a tad patronising of the players.
I do agree though that it would be helpful if the management were to issue some sort of 'clear the air' statement on the subject in order to stop all the conjecture.

by comrade powell Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:28 pm

BenE wrote:
Dusty Lynfield wrote:I think Comrade sums it up....we need to be clear who's calling the shots in the dug out.

I don't think the supporters need to know who's calling the shots. But clearly, for effective management, the players do. We don't actually know whether the players do know what the heirachy is. But if the management is all singing from the same hymn sheet it doesn't matter. I personally have no reason to doubt that all the coaching staff are in agreement.

However the board can decide at any time that they don't like how the set up is working. Or not. They may conclude, after suitable deliberation, it is the best arrangement.

That's the result I'm expecting.

I don't think most understanding supporters are that bothered who's calling the shots, but the present arrangement gives plenty of ammunition to the club's critics. As they are the ones no longer attending matches, I think it's vital this unnecessary confusion is dealt with.

by BenE Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am

Are people really not coming because they don't know who is in charge?

by comrade powell Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:27 am

I speak to supporters who are very critical of team matters - the present arrangement is always mentioned.

by Eddie Hitler Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:55 am

In my view every organisation needs a clear and obvious structure. If not, when thing's go wrong, who takes responsibility?

by BenE Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:20 pm

When I drag along occasional fans they always want to know why Stearn isn't playing.

by BenE Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:32 pm

Eddie Hitler wrote:In my view every organisation needs a clear and obvious structure. If not, when thing's go wrong, who takes responsibility?

I have always felt that we would eventually arrive at this situation. When it was announced that Adie had become director of football and Archie was head coach it was clear to everyone that, despite concerns all round and especially from fans drifting away, nothing was changing. Since then gates have continued to fall because the fudge did nothing to address the underlying problem.

Personally I think the underlying problem is much more than whether Adie or Archie picks the team.

I am somewhat concerned that despite an ideal marketing opportunity our 125 year has so far yielded nothing. I don't doubt that the 125 committee is working hard, but the club is mysteriously keeping its powder dry.

by yuffie Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:31 pm

2weirdtown wrote:
Marc Monitor wrote:
2weirdtown wrote:I don't give a monkey's who is 'in charge'.

While I don't disagree with most of your post, I have to address this. For a start, the players will "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'" and, if the lines of communication are muddled due to too many chiefs, this could have an influence on the team. It could also explain some of odder player choices, acquisitions, formations and subsequent results.

Also, while you may not "give a monkey's who is 'in charge'", a lot of supporters do and part of a managers job is to explain to the supporters and media - not, notice, to say he doesn't know what is going on and blaming the players.

I suppose my point is that supporters seem to have decided to blame any bad results/form on a supposed lack of management structure (as they see it).
As far as I'm aware there has been nothing said by any players to back this point of view. To blame bad results on 'muddled communications' may be a tad patronising of the players.

Spot on.

by Marc Monitor Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:12 pm

To be fair, I am not sure that the falling attendances can be blamed directly on the management structure. No-one goes along to matches saying "Oh, I am looking forward to seeing clear communication and a strong management model". Indeed, most supporters don't go along expecting to see wins every week (otherwise, most of the clubs in this country would be out of business). However, when results go disastrously wrong, people may vote with their feet if it appears that nothing is being done by the club to arrest this situation whether this be changing formation, changing manager or, in this case, what seems easiest and quickest an issue to remedy, clarifying to all who is responsible for what. Everyone pointing their fingers at the players is ridiculous as when, as happened on Saturday, the team does well, people are going to happily ask "Was that success down to the players as well? In which case, why have we got a director of football, a first team coach and two coaches. To be honest, aside from Jim Rollo, I have no idea what three of them do.

by yuffie Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:58 pm

I still think it is perfectly reasonable to point the finger of blame squarely at the players for the Thurrock result.

By contrast the majority of praise for the St Albans game must also go to the players, but the management team (Howells, Britton, Rollo and Freegard) also played a part in that result.

The Jim Rollo situation is an interesting one. He certainly fills the role of shouting on the touchline that some people have been crying out for. I still have my doubts if this has any effect on the game - the most common shout on Saturday was 'get tight' or 'close them down' both which you'd hope they'd be doing anyway (especially after the Thurrock game) - but if it keeps a few supporters happy then it's a means to an end.

by bonzodog Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:48 pm

yuffie wrote:I still think it is perfectly reasonable to point the finger of blame squarely at the players for the Thurrock result.but the management team (Howells, Britton, Rollo and Freegard) also played a part in that result.

by Peteboa Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:05 pm

Clearly, responsibility is shared between management and players! When the team collectively puts in a shocking performance though, and appear to be playing without fight then obviously the management will have questions to answer for. These questions are more pertinent when there appears to be a real lack of leadership from the sidelines during games. Fairly straightforward really

by comrade powell Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:56 pm

yuffie wrote:I still think it is perfectly reasonable to point the finger of blame squarely at the players for the Thurrock result.

By contrast the majority of praise for the St Albans game must also go to the players, but the management team (Howells, Britton, Rollo and Freegard) also played a part in that result.

You've lost me there. Aren't you the one usually criticising posters for blaming the management for poor performances, yet praising the players when we do well? How did the management contribute to Saturday's win, yet they should escape any criticism for the cup debacle?

by yuffie Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:09 pm

Because there was nothing to suggest pre-match or for 30 or so minutes that the team, formation and tactics selected against Thurrock wasn't going to work. From then on individual and/or team mistakes led to the final outcome. Even the attempts to change things - bringing Stearn on - was undermined by conceding two more avoidable goals either side of his introduction.

To turn things around like we did against - an admittedly pretty poor - St Albans side showed great character from the players but also some credit must go to the management - whoever that might be - for the team changes and, you would hope, work done in training and any discussions in the aftermath of Thurrock.

by comrade powell Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:52 am

You truly are the king of spin! So there wasn't just a hint of the team being unprepared and not up for the cup tie, as was the case in the 1st games in the previous rounds? The fact that we were so dominant in the replays suggests to me that a difference in the preparation. What about the lack of urgency in those opening 30 minutes at Thurrock? - a feature of 1st halves in so many games this season.

by Colin Voutt Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:13 am

CP 2 Y 0

by stillmanjunior Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:42 am

Took me about a minute to work that out, Colin. How come you think so? Just seems a bit flippant whereas the others have added more.

by Marc Monitor Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:52 am

comrade powell wrote:You truly are the king of spin! So there wasn't just a hint of the team being unprepared and not up for the cup tie, as was the case in the 1st games in the previous rounds? The fact that we were so dominant in the replays suggests to me that a difference in the preparation.

...or just that we had already played the teams once at home and knew their strengths and weaknesses. We only had the one game against Thurrock away. I wonder what our record is against teams that we haven't played before.

by yuffie Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:59 am

comrade powell wrote:You truly are the king of spin! So there wasn't just a hint of the team being unprepared and not up for the cup tie, as was the case in the 1st games in the previous rounds? The fact that we were so dominant in the replays suggests to me that a difference in the preparation. What about the lack of urgency in those opening 30 minutes at Thurrock? - a feature of 1st halves in so many games this season.

I accept in hindsight it is easy to say we were unprepared and not up for the game, but I don't think any City fan would have expressed that view after 30 minutes, and especially not two minutes later as Dan Ball was running across the pitch celebrating.

I think in the first games in each round we have looked to contain the lower league opponent during the opening stages. It worked against Poole - after their bright start we largely controlled the game and should have been out of sight long before they equalised. Shortwood, we were the better side until they scored from their first attack. And against Thurrock it was fine until the moment Mellor appeared to let a shot go straight through him.

So, whilst not realising we were trying to score points off each other, if Colin has given you goals based on this reasoning I think a Bromley-esq linesman's flag should be ruling at least one out. Wink

by Sponsored content