Belief (or lack of)

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

"Problem is though I don’t think the Manager thinks we can and that transfers to the players"

There's more than a bit of truth in that statement.

Our manager ticks a lot of boxes in that he's a good fit for the business model at RUFC, he's predictable, steady and doesn't demand huge transfer budgets. He gets on with the Chairman and as a general rule the fans love him.

But there are negative points.

1. He's a nice guy in the tough world of football. It's a nasty sometimes cheating game where niceness gets crushed

2. He develops "a great bunch of lads" with a family ethic. This sounds good but players can get too relaxed knowing that the manager will give then a smooth ride and there's little chance they will be shown the door

3. The niceness also works itself onto the pitch, there will never be a place for a "Gerry Gow" in a Warne team nor a place for a Branston

4. Loyalty to players is stretched too far with long standing squad members playing when performances don't warrant it

5. Tactics and team selections are "safe" concentrating on not losing. Our best periods of play have been when Warne's kick off choices have had to be changed to rescue a result. They weren't chosen they were forced on him

6. It's still clear that the bulk of the training concentrates on fitness and physicality. If set piece routines are practiced there's very little evidence that it's effective

7. The nice family, no bad eggs, ethic can also have odd comebacks. We lost Richard Wood during an international break period with the mysterious "hammy" injury. This injury being days after him completing a 100km charity bike ride. I can think of many managers that would have said "no way Jose" to the suggestion that a player takes part in such an event

8. To keep the "good bunch of lads" happy the manager chops and changes the team selections, particularly the forwards, nobody gets a steady run of games to get fully match fit. To us supporters it looks as though the manager doesn't know what his best line up is. Plus whoever is chosen the team will play a variation of 4-5-1 ending up with square peg in round hole performances


Going back to PW being a good fit from the Chairman's point of view and as such we admit to ourselves that PW is safe regardless of results then why not employ experienced coaches to the management team? Somebody to bring new ideas not somebody that's just going to carry out the usual Warne plan?

We have become predictable, we are a nice team, we have some decent players that fail to impress, we should do better.

We've got to break that pattern, play more than one up front, get more aggressive and pressure teams from the kick off and not just when we are chasing a lost cause.

I think we have the players, the management team though I'm not so sure they are getting the best from them.

[MillersTime]

Grist

1. Agreed
2. Agreed. We have sleepwalked into stagnation.
3. Agreed
4. The issue at the moment is not many really warrant it. Long standing or not there is no flow, I have no idea who will play each game, good to a point but due to a lack of clear direction rather than it being tactically fluent I fear.
5. If I could know one thing it would be whats said before a game. Surely surely surely surely he doesnt tell them to go out there and stand off, be passive, we want to win but dont want to concede (not so subtle we will take a point) type stuff. Surely that doesnt happen?! I dont know however, what I would be intrigued by though. I like to think, maybe naively, that the players just arent showing the intensity early thats wanted because otherwise we have a deeper issue.
6. HUGE letdown. Vanished overnight. Alternatively, on a positive spin (bare with me), if / when we get it working again it will add to our threat immeasurably. Definitely missing that with crossing a big factor
7. Agree. Poor decision seemingly
8. I think we have agreed over the last few days that we should play two up front to lead the press and link up so once again I agree with you. In particular ladapo has to play for me. He can be frustrating but say he has 4 chances and scores 1. Not great BUT others in the same game would (or wouldnt) get into positions to have say 0 or 1 chance. Likelihood is off that one they wont score so ladapo is better statistically in likelihood to score. The moneyball approach. Have I made sense there?! Haha