Mowbray’s Future

[Mattyblue]

It’s you with the sweeping statements, no problem with them having an input, however deciding on how we are set up as a team - as his quote says, seems risky.

[BlackburnEnd75]

9 hours ago, Biz said:

What’s wrong with that? 

The bit that worries me where he's says it worked, it didn't.

[JBiz]

Just now, BlackburnEnd75 said:

The bit that worries me where he's says it worked, it didn't.

From what I saw the change of tactics changed the game. First 20 minutes was dreadful, after that and second half a different proposition.

 

[BlackburnEnd75]

Just now, Biz said:

From what I saw the change of tactics changed the game. First 20 minutes was dreadful, after that and second half a different proposition.

 

Sorry I've misread the initial quote. Your right we were better when we pushed up a bit more. We still weren't good though despite the last 30 mins being an entertaining watch.

The tactics at the start of the game were rubbish, you just know we were never going to touch the ball in the final third let alone score it just invites pressure

Only read that extract, but thats quite worrying quote from Mowbray, I wonder if the main imput from the players was from Mulgrew. He's the captain after all and he was dreadful vs Boro with the ball over the top. You look at the rest of that back 4 (Bell, Rodwell, Nyambe), they're all mobile. Strikes me of trying to protect Mulgrews sharply declining lack of pace. If they can't cope with their target man 40 yards from goal then he's going to be a bigger threat closer to the goal, sounds like they were more scared of Adams.

[Roverthechimp]

5 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

If he's the only one who has admitted to it how do you know other managers do it? 

Having been present at a number of team meetings during the last 25 years. 

They are not all about table tennis and donuts ?

[speeeeeeedie]

7 hours ago, Stuart said:

Maybe it’s an old fashioned way of thinking but put personally I thought it was a manager’s job to manage, not let players dictate. Not much point in Mowbray being in the touch line, much less holding his head in his hands when it’s going wrong.

If his way of working isn’t successful in achieving the owners objectives, the board replace him.

If he doesn’t know what needs to be done and/or cannot manage the players to deliver them he isn’t up to the task.

Do they also get to decide who starts?

I have no problem with him soliciting players advice. Mowbray is managing by allowing his players input.

They play the game, they understand it. If they feel empowered they are more likely to play for the manager. If he gets the right balance performances will improve.

I've worked at places were employee feedback schemes were prominent. Management often asked for ideas on how to improve. It made working easier.

I've also worked for managers who did it all alone. Those types often got frustrated.

[HowieFive0]

2 minutes ago, speeeeeeedie said:

I have no problem with him soliciting players advice. Mowbray is managing by allowing his players input.

They play the game, they understand it. If they feel empowered they are more likely to play for the manager. If he gets the right balance performances will improve.

I've worked at places were employee feedback schemes were prominent. Management often asked for ideas on how to improve. It made working easier.

I've also worked for managers who did it all alone. Those types often got frustrated.

As long as the managers decision is final ive no qualms with input. Last thing we need is a Sarri /Kepa situation !

[The Axe]

6 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Fortunately, the owners have a different view and like many fans have faith in him, without being blind to his faults, but believe he is exactly the right man for this club at this point in our history.

And your evidence to support the fact that Venky's are not blind to his faults is?

[blueboy3333]

6 hours ago, Biz said:

From what I saw the change of tactics changed the game. First 20 minutes was dreadful, after that and second half a different proposition.

 

So by 'delegating' responsibility, instead of managing, the team suffered.

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

So by 'delegating' responsibility, instead of managing, the team suffered.

I’d suggest this approach isn’t something that we’ve only used once, infact I’d say most games under TM will have included input from key players - particularly the more experienced.

There is no magic wand or special formula to get the best out of 11 or more players for 90 minutes once or twice a week. I personally found the comments on this refreshing - a more professional and modern way to run a business. If I had any criticism for the quotes, it’s perhaps an “over-honesty”..!

[blueboy3333]

55 minutes ago, Biz said:

I’d suggest this approach isn’t something that we’ve only used once, infact I’d say most games under TM will have included input from key players - particularly the more experienced.

There is no magic wand or special formula to get the best out of 11 or more players for 90 minutes once or twice a week. I personally found the comments on this refreshing - a more professional and modern way to run a business. If I had any criticism for the quotes, it’s perhaps an “over-honesty”..!

He isn't running a business. He is a qualified coach who is letting non-qualified personnel tell him what to do. There is nothing refreshing about that.

 

[JBiz]

45 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

He isn't running a business. He is a qualified coach who is letting non-qualified personnel tell him what to do. There is nothing refreshing about that.

 

In your opinion of course, we shall have to disagree. I still think the qualified and experienced coach is in a much better position to judge the value and impact of delegating some tactical responsibility to the first team.

[tomphil]

Souness had a pecking order with Flitcroft running the dressing room and Short being the players PFA man or something, both could relay things back and forth without the need for confrontation between manager and players and also make sure each side didn't need to be bothered with certain stuff.

Nothing wrong with senior players having a bit of responsibility and carry a bit of clout but a real danger if the manager isn't a strong sort or doesn't keep a tight reign on it. Players deciding to change team tactics mid game is a new one though and could explain why we end up at sixes and sevens on occasion taking whoopings.

Surely team meetings are enough for that kind of thing.

[DaveyB]

14 hours ago, tomphil said:

Souness had a pecking order with Flitcroft running the dressing room and Short being the players PFA man or something, both could relay things back and forth without the need for confrontation between manager and players and also make sure each side didn't need to be bothered with certain stuff.

Nothing wrong with senior players having a bit of responsibility and carry a bit of clout but a real danger if the manager isn't a strong sort or doesn't keep a tight reign on it. Players deciding to change team tactics mid game is a new one though and could explain why we end up at sixes and sevens on occasion taking whoopings.

Surely team meetings are enough for that kind of thing.

That isn't what he said happened though. The players voiced an opinion (pre-game) on tactics that they thought would give them a better chance of being solid and competing. Mowbray listened and agreed to give them a go. When he saw that they weren't working, after about 20mins, he told the players to revert back to the gameplan and tactics that he has been coaching them in for the past 18 months.

Seems like decent man-management to me - suppose he had not listened to the players and just insisted that he was right and they had to play his way. Particularly given that we are not a great run of form at the moment, I'm not sure the players would have fully bought into that - plus if we had then ended getting beat, it perhaps further undermines Mowbray in the dressing room. Better this way, that the players can see that a) they are allowed some input and b) that the managers tactics actually do give them the best chance to compete.

 

And for those saying that no other manager allows this kind of thing - I seem to remember a documentary about Italia 90 where it was said that Lineker and some other senior players went to Bobby Robson after the first game against Ireland, and asked him to let them play the sweeper system, which allowed them to give Gazza a more free-role in the midfield. It worked out pretty well for them (that semi-final is still one of my most upsetting football memories) and Robson didn't do too bad in football management either - when you hear ex-players,  like Lineker, Shearer, Gascoigne etc talk about him, it is obvious how much they liked, respected and wanted to work for him - perhaps that wouldn't have been the case if he had had a more dictatorial approach, who know

[Blue blood]

Really not comfortable with this at all - it sounds like the players have too much influence. 

Also if it's that common why is it rarely mentioned by managers? That it's been raised at all at best seems a bit of buck passing by TM which is worrying in and of itself. 

[oldjamfan1]

On 28/02/2019 at 12:54, DaveyB said:

That isn't what he said happened though. The players voiced an opinion (pre-game) on tactics that they thought would give them a better chance of being solid and competing. Mowbray listened and agreed to give them a go. When he saw that they weren't working, after about 20mins, he told the players to revert back to the gameplan and tactics that he has been coaching them in for the past 18 months.

Seems like decent man-management to me - suppose he had not listened to the players and just insisted that he was right and they had to play his way. Particularly given that we are not a great run of form at the moment, I'm not sure the players would have fully bought into that - plus if we had then ended getting beat, it perhaps further undermines Mowbray in the dressing room. Better this way, that the players can see that a) they are allowed some input and b) that the managers tactics actually do give them the best chance to compete.

 

And for those saying that no other manager allows this kind of thing - I seem to remember a documentary about Italia 90 where it was said that Lineker and some other senior players went to Bobby Robson after the first game against Ireland, and asked him to let them play the sweeper system, which allowed them to give Gazza a more free-role in the midfield. It worked out pretty well for them (that semi-final is still one of my most upsetting football memories) and Robson didn't do too bad in football management either - when you hear ex-players,  like Lineker, Shearer, Gascoigne etc talk about him, it is obvious how much they liked, respected and wanted to work for him - perhaps that wouldn't have been the case if he had had a more dictatorial approach, who know

Spot on. Terrific post.

[Husky]

On radio Lancs they just said since we went down from the Prem only Steve Kean has ever had us in the top six in The Championship. Holy crap! It sounds really bad when you put it that way and just goes to show what a procession of showers we've had under the Venktards. ?

[Stuart]

10 minutes ago, Husky said:

On radio Lancs they just said since we went down from the Prem only Steve Kean has ever had us in the top six in The Championship. Holy crap! It sounds really bad when you put it that way and just goes to show what a procession of showers we've had under the Venktards. ?

That’s a roundabout way that’s saying Kean is a better manager than Mowbray!

In truth, it shows just how badly our squad has been dismantled while so many others have grown stronger.

And yet there are some teams in this division that are punching above their weight more than us, but due to lack of managerial nouse, loss of fitness and absence of a well organised defence we are currently lagging behind. Mowbray and his coaching staff need to do far, far better - especially if they are relying on the players for ideas.

[blueboy3333]

On ‎28‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 12:54, DaveyB said:

That isn't what he said happened though. The players voiced an opinion (pre-game) on tactics that they thought would give them a better chance of being solid and competing. Mowbray listened and agreed to give them a go. When he saw that they weren't working, after about 20mins, he told the players to revert back to the gameplan and tactics that he has been coaching them in for the past 18 months.

Or...….the players had lost faith with his tactics after a season of away hammerings so begged him to try something else. He relented because after a season of away hammerings he's run out of ideas. The game starts and the usual away hammering is looking likely. Tony reverts to the system that has resulted in a season of away hammerings and we get a draw. Tony takes credit for reverting to a system that has been unsuccessful all season away from home. 

[tomphil]

Means sod all where Kean had us we were about to begin a losing streak when he was potted and basically he still had a Premier league squad although a very pale imitation of the one who he back stabbed his way into taking over.

I'm utterly convinced we'd have ended up doing the double drop that season had he stayed, there'd have been no 1 season bounce back either !

Edited March 1, 2019 by tomphil

[old darwen blue]

He wasn’t potted he quit like a coward. 

[philipl]

4 hours ago, old darwen blue said:

He wasn’t potted he quit like a coward. 

All that matters is he is gone!

[DeeCee]

13 minutes ago, philipl said:

All that matters is he is gone!

No, he's still alive ?

 

[tomphil]

6 hours ago, old darwen blue said:

He wasn’t potted he quit like a coward. 

It was the best thing he ever did and i'm pretty sure he didn't walk away from a potential pay off. My guess is Shebby was about to spill the beans on him so he took what was on offer and the old option to resign and scarpered.

Kean hung on in the face o fierce abuse and threats just for the money and he would probably have left at any time for more money.

[arbitro]

17 minutes ago, tomphil said:

It was the best thing he ever did and i'm pretty sure he didn't walk away from a potential pay off. My guess is Shebby was about to spill the beans on him so he took what was on offer and the old option to resign and scarpered.

Kean hung on in the face o fierce abuse and threats just for the money and he would probably have left at any time for more money.

I thought he resigned and took Rovers to an independent tribunal for constructive dismissal citing interference by Singh. Again my understanding is that Rovers settled out of court. Purely speculation on my part but the LMA would have supported him legally and financially in his case.

What a bleak period in our history. Another reason to thank our owners.