"I would rather lose a tournament than break my word to a player"

Rolee said:
Like I said mate, your analogy is ridiculous.

You're comparing risking people's livelihoods through making business decisions to sticking by your principles in a game of football.
Click to expand...
TBH mate I see no difference as I approach everything in life the same way. If I'm going to do something I'll do it to the very best of my ability or not bother at all as i don't see the point in wasting time with half measures.

Like I said I had no issues (unlike many respondents to this thread) with Willy being in nets. My one and only issue is Manuel saying if it came to it, he'd rather lose the tournament than go back on his word to Willy and that's it.

That statement wouldn't have even entered my mind as I'd have told anyone in the press who asked 'I trust Willy and he plays', next question. The inference Manuel made was that he'd rather lose the chance of winning a domestic cup than swap Willy for Hart if that became the difference between winning and losing which is totally different to showing faith in a player you trust will perform and not let you down.

Whether Manuel meant what he said literally or not, for me it's not a statement I wanted to hear nor would personally have made either because if it came down to it I believe most fans would want the cup over all else.
 
fatbloke said:
So basically you're saying you'd go against your morals and values as a man to win?

To me that tells me more about you and your character than anything else, I'm glad I don't know you away from this forum in all honesty.
Click to expand...
This has got nothing to do with going against morals or values because in Manuel's position I'd have picked Willy and told any doubters to go swing for it as I've made my decision and that decision stands. I would NOT have followed it up with 'I'd rather lose than go back on my word', because all I'd have done is painted myself into a corner and made a rod for my own back.

I'm an alright dude, I think if we ever met we'd get on fine mate :-)
 
Dribble said:
TBH mate I see no difference as I approach everything in life the same way. If I'm going to do something I'll do it to the very best of my ability or not bother at all as i don't see the point in wasting time with half measures.

Like I said I had no issues (unlike many respondents to this thread) with Willy being in nets. My one and only issue is Manuel saying if it came to it, he'd rather lose the tournament than go back on his word to Willy and that's it.

That statement wouldn't have even entered my mind as I'd have told anyone in the press who asked 'I trust Willy and he plays', next question. The inference Manuel made was that he'd rather lose the chance of winning a domestic cup than swap Willy for Hart if that became the difference between winning and losing which is totally different to showing faith in a player you trust will perform and not let you down.

Whether Manuel meant what he said literally or not, for me it's not a statement I wanted to hear nor would personally have made either because if it came down to it I believe most fans would want the cup over all else.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, not that I agree.

Let me ask this, where do you stand on attacking philosophies in football?

The reason I ask is because this is another area where Manuel has his principles.

Do you think he's wrong to stick by his attacking philosophy if it means sometimes that philosophy will cost us?

Would you prefer the Mourinho style of do whatever it takes to win?
 
He would not have risked saying it or playing Willy if he was not 100% confident in him. He was confident but most of the fans were not, leading them to voice over the top insults and vulgarity. Who knows him best? Pelli was right and Willy was more than up to it for 120" and then the penalties.
It used to surprise me how incredibly nasty people are on here to our own players. Not any more.

Can't be much life left in this thread can there?
 
Dribble said:
This has got nothing to do with going against morals or values because in Manuel's position I'd have picked Willy and told any doubters to go swing for it as I've made my decision and that decision stands. I would NOT have followed it up with 'I'd rather lose than go back on my word', because all I'd have done is painted myself into a corner and made a rod for my own back.

I'm an alright dude, I think if we ever met we'd get on fine mate :-)
Click to expand...

Yes but you have to understand he's made that statement with the benefit of hindsight and as such it's not detrimental to anyone whether it's the club, management, players or fans. If we had lost I don't think he would have made the same statement.

By saying I'd rather lose than go against my word, he's actually enhancing his own reputation as trustworthy and as a human I think trust is absolutely essential in any business. You only have to look at what's happened at FIFA, whatever happens now no one will ever trust that organisation. If we want Willy Cabellero, Angus Gunn to stay next season or if we want to bring in another keeper then being able to look them in the eye and say whatever happens you'll be playing domestic cup competitions is vital.
 
mansour's tow ropes said:
As others have said there is no easy fix, but I would prefer they were given assurances that they will play around 10 games over the course of the season, with them being selected based on a mixture of fixture congestion/threat of physical and mental fatigue, stature of game/opposition, form, general rotation, intuition of the manager etc. After all, isn't that how it works with outfield players?

There should always be a caveat that means a player is not guaranteed to play in any game.
Click to expand...
So all he is coming for is a wage basically. You can offer that if you want, but can you be sure that any keeper worth his salt would want to accept that. I don't think there is a top class sportsman out there who doesn't aspire to win honours. The only people you would be able to attract on that basis would be people who would otherwise never be good enough for a team of our standard.
 
goalmole said:
So all he is coming for is a wage basically. You can offer that if you want, but can you be sure that any keeper worth his salt would want to accept that. I don't think there is a top class sportsman out there who doesn't aspire to win honours. The only people you would be able to attract on that basis would be people who would otherwise never be good enough for a team of our standard.
Click to expand...
Richard Wright you mean :)
 
Football fans are great aren't they??

If Willy hadn't have got near their pens and we'd have lost..... the forum would have gone into meltdown and everybody would be baying for Pellers blood if he'd have said that afterwards

But then again I suspect he'd have had the good sense not to have admitted it if it had of all gone Pete Tongue !!!
 
Neville Kneville said:
I wasn't convinced a better keeper wouldn't have kept out some of Everton's goals tbh, but it's all irrelevant for n
Click to expand...
mansour's tow ropes said:
Thats fair enough, but they have to show they are good enough for me to have faith in them. In the same way I didn't have faith in Jo when he was playing upfront.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And I believe contrary to the often hyperbolic fan based opinion, Willy was performing. This by the way is relative. In his sib role for City against Southampton he made 7 save, 3 of which were Hart-esque. But in the aftermath of the game, all moat wanted to talk about was how he could never keep a clean sheet. As if clean sheets were strictly down to the keeper.

The coach's on the other hand judge him on actual concrete metric s. Sure I don't know what those are, as I'm not a City coach, but I'm absolutely certain it not based on the 'for me, Hart would have saved that' metric most fans subscribe to.
 
chaddblue said:
Football fans are great aren't they??

If Willy hadn't have got near their pens and we'd have lost..... the forum would have gone into meltdown and everybody would be baying for Pellers blood if he'd have said that afterwards

But then again I suspect he'd have had the good sense not to have admitted it if it had of all gone Pete Tongue !!!
Click to expand...

I think your'e right, but also I think some of this is combining different factors.
Caballero had a poor day against Chelsea, but there is no suggestion that he's in bad form and that it would immediately recur.
Keepers very rarely get dropped for having a shocker. If Caballero was that far out of form that he couldn't be trusted if Hart gets injured in the warm-up, he'd not have been on the bench for matches either.
 
goalmole said:
So all he is coming for is a wage basically. You can offer that if you want, but can you be sure that any keeper worth his salt would want to accept that. I don't think there is a top class sportsman out there who doesn't aspire to win honours. The only people you would be able to attract on that basis would be people who would otherwise never be good enough for a team of our standard.
Click to expand...
I never said anything of the sort - no one should be guaranteed cup finals
 
mansour's tow ropes said:
I never said anything of the sort - no one should be guaranteed cup finals
Click to expand...
So you think it's the right thing to to do in terms of maintaining team morale and discipline to play a goalkeeper in every round of a cup competition and then replace him for the final. What do you think the rest of his team mates would feel about that and what do you think would be the effect on their mentality for that game. What do you think would be the effect on the mind of the goalkeeper he was replaced by, who would know what the rest of his team mates were thinking. IMO opinion their sympathies would be with the original goalkeeper and it would affect how they approached that game. Players while being professional sportsmen are also human beings with emotions allegiances and friendships within the squad and club, knock these and you diminish the playing capacity of the whole team.
The leadership of men isn't a science. It cannot be taught. It is something that is innate to certain people. It involves loyalty and trust and it involves doing the right thing by your colleagues and underlings and not necessarily taking the most expedient route. This is why history is littered with battles that have been won against obviously overwhelming odds and leaders that have risen to rule vast empires by leading nomads and peasants to destroy the biggest and most well equipped armies.
Back to football. This is the reason that certain managers have the knack of taking mediocre players and making them perform like world beaters. It is done by carrying people with you and making them believe that they are valued and have a stake in the enterprise at hand. Not shitting on them at the first opportunity for some perceived short term benefit.
We have seen both approaches in action, the 2013 FA Cup final where Pantillimon was replaced by Hart for the final and the 2016 League Cup final where a better man manager stuck to his principles and did the right thing by one of his players.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
 
goalmole said:
So you think it's the right thing to to do in terms of maintaining team morale and discipline to play a goalkeeper in every round of a cup competition and then replace him for the final. What do you think the rest of his team mates would feel about that and what do you think would be the effect on their mentality for that game. What do you think would be the effect on the mind of the goalkeeper he was replaced by, who would know what the rest of his team mates were thinking. IMO opinion their sympathies would be with the original goalkeeper and it would affect how they approached that game. Players while being professional sportsmen are also human beings with emotions allegiances and friendships within the squad and club, knock these and you diminish the playing capacity of the whole team.
The leadership of men isn't a science. It cannot be taught. It is something that is innate to certain people. It involves loyalty and trust and it involves doing the right thing by your colleagues and underlings and not necessarily taking the most expedient route. This is why history is littered with battles that have been won against obviously overwhelming odds and leaders that have risen to rule vast empires by leading nomads and peasants to destroy the biggest and most well equipped armies.
Back to football. This is the reason that certain managers have the knack of taking mediocre players and making them perform like world beaters. It is done by carrying people with you and making them believe that they are valued and have a stake in the enterprise at hand. Not shitting on them at the first opportunity for some perceived short term benefit.
We have seen both approaches in action, the 2013 FA Cup final where Pantillimon was replaced by Hart for the final and the 2016 League Cup final where a better man manager stuck to his principles and did the right thing by one of his players.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time talking intelligently about this subject to some of these. They aren't equipped to "get it".
 
goalmole said:
So you think it's the right thing to to do in terms of maintaining team morale and discipline to play a goalkeeper in every round of a cup competition and then replace him for the final. What do you think the rest of his team mates would feel about that and what do you think would be the effect on their mentality for that game. What do you think would be the effect on the mind of the goalkeeper he was replaced by, who would know what the rest of his team mates were thinking. IMO opinion their sympathies would be with the original goalkeeper and it would affect how they approached that game. Players while being professional sportsmen are also human beings with emotions allegiances and friendships within the squad and club, knock these and you diminish the playing capacity of the whole team.
The leadership of men isn't a science. It cannot be taught. It is something that is innate to certain people. It involves loyalty and trust and it involves doing the right thing by your colleagues and underlings and not necessarily taking the most expedient route. This is why history is littered with battles that have been won against obviously overwhelming odds and leaders that have risen to rule vast empires by leading nomads and peasants to destroy the biggest and most well equipped armies.
Back to football. This is the reason that certain managers have the knack of taking mediocre players and making them perform like world beaters. It is done by carrying people with you and making them believe that they are valued and have a stake in the enterprise at hand. Not shitting on them at the first opportunity for some perceived short term benefit.
We have seen both approaches in action, the 2013 FA Cup final where Pantillimon was replaced by Hart for the final and the 2016 League Cup final where a better man manager stuck to his principles and did the right thing by one of his players.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Bang on. The manager was right. If some of the stuff spouted on here was posted in the MEN or Mirror there would a 1000 page thread on it by now. Again, our manager was right, and still would have been right if we'd lost.
 
I'd forgotten about pantimilion against Wigan, but I now understand why Pellegrini's comments have hurt some of Bobby's biggest hankerers. Haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top