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

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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.