Luck

[seventwo]

I think one if the golfing greats said the more I practice the luckier I get.
Luck rarely plays a part, its down to poor management, tactics, training and individual errors.
Luck is often just an excuse in sport and every day life.

[AucklandRover]

I think you are both misunderstanding what I'm saying, (and I strongly object to the allegation that I don't answer points).
I reckon you are both guilty of saying - as with the Bristol game - if he makes changes and we win, he's got it right; if we don't, he's got it wrong.
I have asked you several times to look at the team that started against Wigan, and point out what changes he should have (or should not have) made. Not from the perspective of what happened afterwards, but in terms of what it looked like before the game.
This was it:
Walton, Nyambe, Lenihan, Williams, Downing, Travis, Evans, Armstrong, Dack, Rothwell, Graham.
I saw that team and thought it was just about the best available - with Tosin injured. Do you disagree?
The fact is we played badly, especially for the first hour.
The team should have been high on confidence, given the run it was on.
Champs - are you seriously saying the poor performance which followed was down to the fact that the players were p*ssed off with Mowbray because of changes to the team? Come on - that is obvious nonsense!
And Seventwo, you say there's no such thing as luck!
If Team A has has 20 shots, four of which hit the woodwork and six of which are saved brilliantly, while Team B scores the only goal of the game from a deflection, are you saying that Team B won because they had a better manager?
Once a game starts, the next ninety-odd minutes do NOT follow a pattern dictated by one factor and one factor alone - the input of the manager before the game.
You have both played team-games. You know there is far more to it than that.
If the bad run continues, Mowbray will go, and I have no problem with that, but trying to pin every single negative on him is an attempt to provide a simple solution to a very complex problem.
Fine, if you want, let's swing the revolving-door again to see who pops out.
Let's look at how this "solution" has worked in recent years:
Ince, Allardyce, Kean, Berg, Appleton, Bowyer, Lambert, Coyle, Mowbray.

That gives me 100% confidence that whoever gets flung out of the door this time will be a "winner"!
If you want a change because you're bored with Mowbray, that's OK too, but I believe it's naive to have faith in the idea that everything will come up roses because some new manager is plucked out of the air.
Every interview I read with the players suggests that they regard Mowbray with respect and affection. The idea that he has "lost the dressing room" is just another of the cliches that gets trotted out whenever a team is on a bad run.

[robinrover]

Well tosin injury aside he took bell,Johnson,holtby,brereton and Gallagher out of the side that won at Bristol city.
Very strange decision and as pointed out gave mixed messages to bell,Gallagher and brereton.
After dacks performance against Swansea,what gave him the privilege to stroll back in the team?and who knows if he hadn't would the injury of taken place?of course its ifs,buts and maybes however it was needless tinkering especially with such a crowded festive period coming up.

[champs95]

I think you are both misunderstanding what I'm saying, (and I strongly object to the allegation that I don't answer points).
I reckon you are both guilty of saying - as with the Bristol game - if he makes changes and we win, he's got it right; if we don't, he's got it wrong.
I have asked you several times to look at the team that started against Wigan, and point out what changes he should have (or should not have) made. Not from the perspective of what happened afterwards, but in terms of what it looked like before the game.
This was it:
Walton, Nyambe, Lenihan, Williams, Downing, Travis, Evans, Armstrong, Dack, Rothwell, Graham.
I saw that team and thought it was just about the best available - with Tosin injured. Do you disagree?
The fact is we played badly, especially for the first hour.
The team should have been high on confidence, given the run it was on.
Champs - are you seriously saying the poor performance which followed was down to the fact that the players were p*ssed off with Mowbray because of changes to the team? Come on - that is obvious nonsense!
And Seventwo, you say there's no such thing as luck!
If Team A has has 20 shots, four of which hit the woodwork and six of which are saved brilliantly, while Team B scores the only goal of the game from a deflection, are you saying that Team B won because they had a better manager?
Once a game starts, the next ninety-odd minutes do NOT follow a pattern dictated by one factor and one factor alone - the input of the manager before the game.
You have both played team-games. You know there is far more to it than that.
If the bad run continues, Mowbray will go, and I have no problem with that, but trying to pin every single negative on him is an attempt to provide a simple solution to a very complex problem.
Fine, if you want, let's swing the revolving-door again to see who pops out.
Let's look at how this "solution" has worked in recent years:
Ince, Allardyce, Kean, Berg, Appleton, Bowyer, Lambert, Coyle, Mowbray.

That gives me 100% confidence that whoever gets flung out of the door this time will be a "winner"!
If you want a change because you're bored with Mowbray, that's OK too, but I believe it's naive to have faith in the idea that everything will come up roses because some new manager is plucked out of the air.
Every interview I read with the players suggests that they regard Mowbray with respect and affection. The idea that he has "lost the dressing room" is just another of the cliches that gets trotted out whenever a team is on a bad run.

Come on then? Why do you think we are so poor one week. And ok for a while, then poor again? What's your view on why this is happening?

[champs95]

Well tosin injury aside he took bell,Johnson,holtby,brereton and Gallagher out of the side that won at Bristol city.
Very strange decision and as pointed out gave mixed messages to bell,Gallagher and brereton.
After dacks performance against Swansea,what gave him the privilege to stroll back in the team?and who knows if he hadn't would the injury of taken place?of course its ifs,buts and maybes however it was needless tinkering especially with such a crowded festive period coming up.

Exactly. There is a time and place to make wholesale changes to a side. Bristol off the back of 4 tough Sat-midweek games, then Swansea a few days before. We looked s bit jaded. And it warranted a change of players. Every week? It's not working. Not so sure this formation suits our players. But like most Eliott Bennett, we are stuck with it like it or not.

[champs95]

Football has and always will be a case of once your 7/10 managers words are no longer getting through to the players, you swap to the next 7/10 manager until his words are no longer getting through ti the players. Some are slightly better than others. But what happens with these people eventually is their players simply need a new voice. Of course the players like Mowbray. They get well paid, well looked after and they have no pressure. We are scared of going up. It's easier to sit and middle out. Still get paid the same. Its all very easy, very stale at this club. And has a general feeling of going absolutely nowhere.

[seventwo]

Aucks, it is you who does not listen and who puts your words into others mouths

I know for certain that Robin and I have stated that the squad was full of confidence for the Bristol City match and that's why we played well irrespective of changes. Subsequent erratic changes eroded that confidence and TM returned to type.

Team selection for the Wigan game, as always, is down to the manager. We cannot know what's going on behind the scenes so can only speculate.

There are only two types of attempt on goal - goals and misses, all else is 100% irrelevant and luck does not play a part.

A manager, and only the manager, picks the team, adopts the tactics and trains the players. Everything that happens on the field, or in the office, is his sole responsibility.

Many of your rants on here originate from you reading other sites, why not keep those off here instead of assuming we are the same?

I don't recall you commenting on team changes and players out of position?
You just cite several unrelated and irrelevant incidents and incorrectly roll them into one bundle in an attempt to suit you theory about luck.
Football fans are passionate creatures and always will be.

[AucklandRover]

Seventwo, I have no problem with passion but it shouldn't overrule common sense.
You ask what my explanation is for erratic performances, and then say I don't listen.
I have made it absolutely clear many times that I don't think there is one simple explanation.
The results are erratic every match-day. Just look at them.
How do YOU explain that? And if confidence was high for the Bristol City, which we won despite all the changes, why on earth doesn't the same argument apply for the following match? There is absolutely no logic in saying Mowbray ruined the team's confidence in the intervening nine days!
Surely, if there are "good" and "bad" managers, and managers have total responsibility for results (which is what you argue above), the teams managed by the "good" ones would win every week!
I just cannot believe you are saying nothing else counts.
I just take games week by week and I try to avoid generalised theories as much as possible because I honestly admit I don't know why the form-levels and performances of individuals and teams vary so much. What I do know is that it's complicated (and one of the things that makes football fascinating). For sure, though, this simplistic thing of saying "It's the manager, of course" just doesn't meet the case. If it did, the same men would be successful every season, wherever they went, and this is blatantly not what happens.
And Champs, you seem to be saying, "Let's ship out one mediocre manager and get another one in - just in case it works."
I actually don't care if that happens, as I hold no particular brief for Mowbray.
What I object to is twisting everything that happens to make it reflect badly on the manager, in order to be able to put the argument that he is the only obstacle to success.

[AucklandRover]

"Come on then? Why do you think we are so poor one week. And ok for a while, then poor again? What's your view on why this is happening? "

Champs - see my reply to Seventwo. I have no simple explanation. If there was one, don't you think EVERY manager would apply it EVERY week?!
I keep saying this: football is complex. All of the following (and more!) are factors in every game:
The managers. (BOTH of them, in each match).
The match-officials.
Injuries.
Form.
Confidence.
Conditions.
Formations.
The intentions of the other team.
Talent.
The way a team "clicks" on the day.
The fact that the opposition make-up suits your team some days, but not others.
The luck of the bounce and the break of the loose ball.
Etc.

Once the game is underway, many of those factors are beyond managerial control. Also, I think that fans often talk as if the opposition isn't there at all! In reality, of course, both managers and both teams are trying to achieve the same thing.

None of that excuses the manager's overall responsibility. Carrying the can is part of what the role entails, and everybody knows that. I just happen to believe that the identity of the man in charge actually matters far less than the media and most fans argue.
No-one here or on other sites has EVER given me a convincing explanation of how there CAN be any such thing as a generically "good" manager when the same man can appear brilliant with one club, but be a dismal failure with another. (Or sometimes, have drastically different seasons with the same club!).
As far as I can see, you - personally - seem to be saying, "Let's just have a change because it's time for one."
Fair enough - it's as good as any other reason, but please don't try to pretend there is convincing football logic behind it.

[champs95]

Aucks, it is you who does not listen and who puts your words into others mouths

I know for certain that Robin and I have stated that the squad was full of confidence for the Bristol City match and that's why we played well irrespective of changes. Subsequent erratic changes eroded that confidence and TM returned to type.

Team selection for the Wigan game, as always, is down to the manager. We cannot know what's going on behind the scenes so can only speculate.

There are only two types of attempt on goal - goals and misses, all else is 100% irrelevant and luck does not play a part.

A manager, and only the manager, picks the team, adopts the tactics and trains the players. Everything that happens on the field, or in the office, is his sole responsibility.

Many of your rants on here originate from you reading other sites, why not keep those off here instead of assuming we are the same?

I don't recall you commenting on team changes and players out of position?
You just cite several unrelated and irrelevant incidents and incorrectly roll them into one bundle in an attempt to suit you theory about luck.
Football fans are passionate creatures and always will be.

I do get the feeling I am put into a category and words put into my mouth at times.
All the idiots who post nonsensical stuff on places like LET which I don't even read or take part in are often put into my mouth. And I don't hold that opinion. Aucks will amalgamate all the posts from all the posters and suggest these are things being said here. I want to distance myself from that *******s.