Good post bomber and some interesting points raised!
Ultimately, the buck must stop at the manager as it is their job to get the best out of all available resources. A good manager supports and inspires but also sets expectations and parameters. Nonetheless, it is hard not to argue that the players themselves, both individually and collectively, must shoulder a not inconsiderable portion of the blame for poor performances and, particularly, any lack of desire. I'm in complete agreement with Roy that a pre-requisite for any professional footballer must be character/ attitude. If players do not show consistent competitiveness (the importance of which Corberan always emphasised ) they should not be on the pitch.
Of course, given the lengthy run of poor results (despite some often decent performances) this will naturally lead to a degree of despondency and heads beginning to drop. This is when leaders need to step up. Most important of all of course is the leadership of the manager but key players themselves certainly have their part to play. As regards demonstrating passion and determination several players (e.g. Wallace, Bielik, Styles, Molumby, Grant, Mikey) have shown that they can do this in the past and they now need to put the shambles of Tuesday behind them, reset and, at the very least, demonstrate renewed grit and desire against Derby.
As for the players being allowed too much leeway under Mason and trying to govern themselves, I am less convinced. Over quite a few matches, players showed that they could play for both each other and the manager. They demonstrated that they could show the "togetherness" demanded by Mason and also play for him. Despite some decent performances, it seems to me that Mason failed to pick up points through a combination of sometimes bizarre selections (Wildsmith over Griffiths eg), tactics (sitting back on leads rather than killing games) and an inability to instil the defensive discipline that may well have prevented us conceding so many late goals.
I don't doubt that Mason did not adopt the head-masterly approach of Corberan but dont necessarily see this as being the main driver in his ultimate failure to succeed. It is true that the break down in discipline that led to the stupid and costly action by Molumby at Coventry, for example, may arguably not have happened under Corberan but, equally, we did start to play more attacking football under Mason which is something we saw scant evidence of under Corberan's later time with us. Perhaps Corberan was too rigid (Roy seemed to hint at this during his brief tenure with us last season) while Mason was not rigid enough? I have a feeling that, if nothing else, Ramsay may be more strict than Mason in terms of discipline but improved results will depend on more than that!





Reply With Quote