Chansiri - The players are to blame. "On the pitch the manager can't do anything"

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

And we all know who’s been telling him THAT one

 

Without mentioning names, this backs up what I've been banging on about for a long time. Chansiri has been shafted big time by certain people. 

[Captain Scarlett]

Managers Team he puts out:

 

Managers Tactics he uses:

 

Managers Substitutions:

 

Managers instructions during play:

 

Managers Half-time team talk:

 

   

 

                         Yep,...............nothing to do with the manager.

[brando]

4 hours ago, Manwë said:

That was one of the things that I think Chansiri got more right than wrong.

 

Monk is responsible for setting tactics, that's clear.  The players are responsible for carrying out those instructions and performing at a level that their salary demands.  

 

Who is to blame for all the goals shipped at Rotherham?  Monk or Dawson?  There's nothing in Monk's tactics that say "give three goals away".   On the flip side, Monk is too negative and we never look like winning (even when winning), and that's because we seem happy as larry at 1-0 up defending for our lives.  That's tactics, and that's Monk's fault.

We keep monk..we go down..easy..ffs

[debram]

4 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

Today Chansiri said this about not sacking Monk

 

"It’s easy to sack the manager but sometimes it is not 100 per cent the manager’s fault.

For me on the pitch, it is more the fault of the players.

On the pitch, the manager can’t do anything"

Something that a few people agree with and post on a regular basis 

I've never really agreed 100% with that and feel that managers can definitely influence what goes on during games, but I'm not 100% confident in that view EITHER

What do you think? 

Can a manager do something about it if its going wrong on the pitch?

What about the time between games?

What about the initial tactics, team selection too?

Or is it the case that the players (as Chansiri has said today) just aren't good enough?

Knows nowt about football management

[catdog1121]

I want to be manager with DC as chairman....  If I win its cause im a great manager, if I lose its the players fault not mine.  

 

This is Monks team and Monks Staff and it seems like DC is allowing him to say its not his fault..  

 

 

[parajack]

4 hours ago, agentwalker said:

No I blame the manager fully. He sets the style of play he wants, he sets out the tactics.

 

If monk was training then all week to pass and move and build through midfield, then on match days the players just hoof it, then the players are to blame.

 

Monk is clearly telling them to go direct as l which is producing done shocking football.

Players dont have the ability in my view to 'pass and move'...playing out from the back was a disaster,and just saw teams pushing way further forward,to put us under trouble straight away,leading to panic,silly mistakes,& giving away fouls,penaltys,and goals...

 

SWFC Defence not good enough,GK not good enough...simple as in my view....So....bypass midfield, use the wings to get in cross;s as many as possible into the opponents final third.not play in our final third.

 

Problem? since Fletcher left we dont have the quality big target man to play off so we simply are not effective................

[parajack]

3 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Which begs the question, if they arnt good enough, who actually signed them? 

That for me is where the rub is,if it was monk,i would Q his judgement as how many are not being used?..Personally i think recruitment is still being done elsewhere,and if it is......

[torryowl]

was atkinson to blame when we won 1  and got  2 goals in the first 11 games the season we got relegated ,was  big jack culpable for only winning 5 games of  the first 26 in 78/79  in the 3rd division  ......both good managers but was it there fault or the players ?....the chairmen obviously blamed the players as they stuck with the managers who eventually brought them some success .....chansiri may well have point 

 

[parajack]

2 hours ago, McRightSide said:

One of the most common things I've read on here is how we need to look at the players and stop blaming the manager, up until last week that was pretty much the party line. 

?? I would say the opposite...perhaps the odd person has been consistent in their views,(i think i have warts & all) I have consistently said the Players are the ones on the pitch,making the errors and allegedly playing poorly,& that monk doesn't train them such....

 

The three bad loss'es brought a torrent of vitriol to monk,and by implication those still supporting him....

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by parajack

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, torryowl said:

was atkinson to blame when we won 1  and got  2 goals in the first 11 games the season we got relegated 

Yes - of course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, torryowl said:

was  big jack culpable for only winning 5 games of  the first 26 in 78/79  in the 3rd division  

Well YES of course he was

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, torryowl said:

 both good managers but was it there fault or the players ?

Well It has gone down in history as the managers fault hasn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, torryowl said:

 chansiri may well have point 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blatter]

Of course the manager can influence what goes on on the pitch. Why else would they stand right by the touch line. But hey, much of what he said today doesn’t bear scrutiny, that was just one of them.
Just a couple more

His comment about variable pricing instead of season tickets 

(Regardless of price, how many would be in Hillsborough on a wet November night after losing three on the trot without the season ticket holders).

 

Or not knowing he was paying debt interest after buying the club

( Did he not carry out due diligence)

 

I’m not surprised he rarely takes questions from fans and media. It always opens up more debate like this because he just seems to say whatever comes into his mind at that point in time.

[torryowl]

28 minutes ago, Blatter said:

37 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yes - of course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well YES of course he was

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well It has gone down in history as the managers fault hasn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

'll give you another one ....bob brown our greatest ever manager took him 6 years to get promoted and never finished above 8 th before he did ......the chairman obviously  had the foresight  to blame the players and just as well he did with what followed . .......i dont know who's fault it is .the chairman for running out of patience , the manager for not getting instant success are the or the fans who want it now . .....just for once i'd like to see a manager get to the end of his contract and see where we are in relation to where we where we he started ....wont happen of course 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, torryowl said:

 

 

'll give you another one ....bob brown our greatest ever manager took him 6 years to get promoted and never finished above 8 th before he did ......the chairman obviously  had the foresight  to blame the players and just as well he did with what followed . .......i dont know who's fault it is .the chairman for running out of patience , the manager for not getting instant success are the or the fans who want it now . .....just for once i'd like to see a manager get to the end of his contract and see where we are in relation to where we where we he started ....wont happen of course 

I'm 100% with you on that one mate

I know people will laugh at this suggestion but I honestly believe if you choose a manager clubs should be forced to do 1 full season with him and can only hire and fire during the closed season

[Emilianenko]

Monk has shown he is a poor manager, it’s that simple. A managers job is to get the best out of players, that’s what good managers do.

[OwlOnWheels]

4 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Monk has shown he is a poor manager, it’s that simple. A managers job is to get the best out of players, that’s what good managers do.

Very true, but it’s a two way street. Players controlled their actions on the pitch, so as much as the manager can instruct, if they don’t perform, an element of that under performing is on them.

[torryowl]

Just now, Emilianenko said:

Monk has shown he is a poor manager, it’s that simple. A managers job is to get the best out of players, that’s what good managers do.

maybe ...so you would have sacked charlton for 2 years of struggle while cleared out the crap  or atkinson for getting relegated ........i think when you get the players you have signed and you  cant be successful then yes bin him be if you inherit someone else's crap you deserve a bit of leeway 

[parajack]

59 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Monk has shown he is a poor manager, it’s that simple. A managers job is to get the best out of players, that’s what good managers do.

Usually best out of already decent players.you yourself have brought in......theirs the rub....discontent,those coming to the end of their contract,jaded,overpaid,injury prone aging players with alleged 'big ego's,points deduction, & potentially(we dont know?) not players he himself wanted,or recruited....

 

All for me puts a different prospective on an analysis....

[Vectile]

Little bit of both, Manager decides tactics, formations, subs ect... But if all the players don't turn up, not alot you can do in a managers shoes imo.

[trevdi9]

Monks fault , Monk bought them  Chansiri sanctioned them , monk oversees training and tactics , if on the other hand it is the players then why bring them in  as they would be no use to us if they do not want to perform , OR are they fed up of Monk .

[Emilianenko]

If managers weren’t important why do clubs chase the successful ones?

Unfortunately DC knows nowt and has hired a dud with no success at all.