What makes a good Manager?

[Nosowicz]

After watching another disaterous performance by the team and manager yesterday, I have read many things about the players, the team spirirt and the managers approach and can see little more we can do this season other than relying on WBA and Sheff Utd to beat Southampton.

That said, my biggest disapointment is that after all the talk when we bought Holloway in on what a good bloke he was and how he raised the spirits of the players, he has not shown the basic attributes of a good manager (and this is any manager in any role), which is to make a positive influence from their time of appointment.

It maybe me, but Mr H has been here, 28 games and he has not improved anything, not changed much (other then personel - way to frequently) and has talked himself up so much that it is as if he is coaching another team, as we are now worse than when he arrived - fact !

As a football manager goes, a key skill is to make changes during the game that positively influnce your teams performance. Mr H seems to have no ability to clearly comminicate to the team and get them to change shape/formation/pace/performance.

This was clearly shown yesterday when 2 subs came on (Fryatt & DJ), both forward and were placed in midfield, whilst a centre half was pushed forward leaving 3 at the back.......

Surely, the change of Hayles for Mattock on the left, would ahve been more realistic, whilst replacing Howard with McAuley (as he wanted to push him up) and then maybe adding to the forward line, replacing Hume with Fryatt (but for me I would have replaced a midfield player)

So as a manager goes, basic errors and no influence on the team since his arrival.

Sorry Mr H, but I have been disapointed by the words you speak compaired with the job you have done, which leaves us at an all time low. I am sure there will be conversations when the season's over and views will be mixed on who maybe in charge next season, as I believe there will be coaching staff changes if we go down.

As for the playing staff, a wholesale clearout, the day after the Stoke game is required with a retention of only a few players and then buid from the back and create a team of perfroamnce players not just bthose collecting their over inflated wages to match their ego's

[DB11]

What is supposed to make Holloway is a good manager is his so called ability to motivate them.

In the second half we are always so shite - how exactly is he motivating them at half time?

[Nosowicz]

What is supposed to make Holloway is a good manager is his so called ability to motivate them.

In the second half we are always so shite - how exactly is he motivating them at half time?

I agree

Not only does he not motivate, he make's no influence on them at all

[Thracian]

I managed teams in different sports at various levels for over a decade and had various principles which seemed to stand the test of time:

a) Get the best players you could afford (assuming you were paying them) before the season started and set out to stick with them, improve them and show faith in them.

b) Get the players really fit - I mean fitter than they'd ever been before.

c) Develop a clan spirit. An unwavering all-for-one/one-for-all attitude. The clan spirit goes with a constant stream of positive thought that needs to run through every aspect and every situation the club and the players experience. It is what will help give you last minute wins or to come back from a two-goal deficit.

d) Gradually introduce and keep emphasising key principles so that they become second nature to the team in all situations. For instance players would eat/drink and sleep the idea of passing and moving.

e) Fill each position with a specialist and encourage him to do that particular job successfully above all others.

f) Specifically develop shadow players for all the first choice people and be sure they are party to the key principles and that they are as physically and as match-fit as the first choices.

g) Take particular time to develop the skills of each individual over the season and to regularly let each player know how much you value him and the particular reasons why.

h) Never criticise players in public for any reason. You cannot maintain a clan spirit if there is any flaw in the collective support for one another.

i) Dropping players should be an exception. It reflects badly on your own choice and your own preparation of the player. If someone underperforms the first question to ask is did you the manager somehow contribute through poor preparation in some way. If there is no choice but to drop someone they should be told priviately first and should know exactly why and exactly what they need to do to put things right.

j) Tactical changes are entirely different and all squad members should be helped to understand the thinking behind such changes.

k) Players should never feel they'll be pilloried for trying things or making a mistake. It breeds fear. Everyone makes mistakes and one of the worst things for the effectiveness of a team is if players start passing the buck to avoid risk. Psychologically subbing Hume after his penalty miss was a disgrace and it's not been the only example.

l) A manager needs few words if things are going right other than to reinforce principles, praise and be encouaging. When things are going wrong the players need to know and trust the manager to make decisions which improve the situation. In this aspect managers need to be speciific. Players need to be told quietly and without rancour what is causing their problems and how to deal with them. A faltering team needs to be given new direction and the reasons made clear. Communication is massive for a manager.

There are many, many more skills but you get the picture and, without wishing to rip Holloway apart to demonstrate my point, I just cannot see he Holloway ticks enough of the boxes. Never have done really, not from the time he rubbished some of his players in the media but there's been many more things since.

[Corky]

I managed teams in different sports at various levels for over a decade and had various principles which seemed to stand the test of time:

a) Get the best players you could afford (assuming you were paying them) before the season started and set out to stick with them, improve them and show faith in them.

b) Get the players really fit - I mean fitter than they'd ever been before.

c) Develop a clan spirit. An unwavering all-for-one/one-for-all attitude. The clan spirit goes with a constant stream of positive thought that needs to run through every aspect and every situation the club and the players experience. It is what will help give you last minute wins or to come back from a two-goal deficit.

d) Gradually introduce and keep emphasising key principles so that they become second nature to the team in all situations. For instance players would eat/drink and sleep the idea of passing and moving.

e) Fill each position with a specialist and encourage him to do that particular job successfully above all others.

f) Specifically develop shadow players for all the first choice people and be sure they are party to the key principles and that they are as physically and as match-fit as the first choices.

g) Take particular time to develop the skills of each individual over the season and to regularly let each player know how much you value him and the particular reasons why.

h) Never criticise players in public for any reason. You cannot maintain a clan spirit if there is any flaw in the collective support for one another.

i) Dropping players should be an exception. It reflects badly on your own choice and your own preparation of the player. If someone underperforms the first question to ask is did you the manager somehow contribute through poor preparation in some way. If there is no choice but to drop someone they should be told priviately first and should know exactly why and exactly what they need to do to put things right.

j) Tactical changes are entirely different and all squad members should be helped to understand the thinking behind such changes and to understand them.

k) Players should never feel they'll be pilloried for trying things or making a mistake. It breeds fear. Everyone makes mistakes and one of the worst things for the effectiveness of a team is if players start passing the buck to avoid risk. Psychologically subbing Hume after his penalty miss was a disgrace.

l) A manager needs few words if things are going right other than to reinforce principles, praise and be encouaging. When things are going wrong the players need to know and trust the manager to make decisions which improve the situation. In this aspect managers need to be speciific. Players need to be told quietly and without rancour what is causing their problems and how to deal with them. A faltering team needs to be given new direction and the reasons made clear. Communication is massive for a manager.

There are many, many more skills but you get the picture and, without wishing to rip Holloway apart to demonstrate my point, I just cannot see he Holloway ticks enough of the boxes. Never have done really, not from the time he rubbished some of his players in the media but there's been many more things since.

Yeah, I want to know why Hume was subbed. Anyone can miss a penalty, but he was terrifying their defence. His goal came from pressure on the defender, his presence around them unnerved them. Yet Howard, who did absolutely nothing yesterday, stayed on the pitch. Also, Hume is our biggest threat in front of goal, so Holloway nullified our attacking force by taking him off, making it less likely that an equaliser would come.

[Tilley]

Yeah, I want to know why Hume was subbed. Anyone can miss a penalty, but he was terrifying their defence. His goal came from pressure on the defender, his presence around them unnerved them. Yet Howard, who did absolutely nothing yesterday, stayed on the pitch. Also, Hume is our biggest threat in front of goal, so Holloway nullified our attacking force by taking him off, making it less likely that an equaliser would come.

But when Hume's head drops I don't think he is half the player he is when he is confident. As soon as he missed his penalty, his head dropped and starts trying 25 yard shots.

[Simi]

But when Hume's head drops I don't think he is half the player he is when he is confident. As soon as he missed his penalty, his head dropped and starts trying 25 yard shots.

Yeah.

He lost it in his head and I was glad he was subbed. Could tell his head wasn't in the game after the miss.

[breadandcheese]

Yeah, I want to know why Hume was subbed. Anyone can miss a penalty, but he was terrifying their defence. His goal came from pressure on the defender, his presence around them unnerved them. Yet Howard, who did absolutely nothing yesterday, stayed on the pitch. Also, Hume is our biggest threat in front of goal, so Holloway nullified our attacking force by taking him off, making it less likely that an equaliser would come.

I would have subbed Hume off before we got the penalty. He looked dead on his feet. I don't think it fair to criticise Holloway for subbing Hume. It is fair to pillorise him for a) moving Hume 2nd half to midfield when he was so effective up front; b) not subbing Howard who looked ineffective from start to finish; c) making substitutions so late in the game, why wait. d) moving a centre-back upfront and bringing two strikers on to play in midfield

[Corky]

But when Hume's head drops I don't think he is half the player he is when he is confident. As soon as he missed his penalty, his head dropped and starts trying 25 yard shots.

You are right to be fair. I was annoyed that Howard stayed on mostly. Hume's head did drop.

[Thracian]

But when Hume's head drops I don't think he is half the player he is when he is confident. As soon as he missed his penalty, his head dropped and starts trying 25 yard shots.

That's all down to the manager to sort.

How hard would it have been for Holloway to convey a message to the man within minutes of his miss....

"We love you Humey, chin up son, and if there's another penalty you're taking it."

[Tilley]

That's all down to the manager to sort.

How hard would it have been for Holloway to convey a message to the man within minutes of his miss....

"We love you Humey, chin up son, and if there's another penalty you're taking it."

Mr Holloway the motivator, no chance. But yeah I take your point. Personally if I was going to take one striker off it would've been Howard. Their defence coudn't cope with Humes pace, but as he began to tire they found it easier, if he had have thrown DJ on earlier on, I think we would have had a chance to get something out the game. But Holloway loves Steve Howard, & Holloway never makes substitutions before the 70th minute. & because of Holloways lack of man management & lack of motivation, I think Hume being substituted was probably the correct decision.

[Corky]

That's all down to the manager to sort.

How hard would it have been for Holloway to convey a message to the man within minutes of his miss....

"We love you Humey, chin up son, and if there's another penalty you're taking it."

If Howard had taken the penalty, you can guarantee Holloway would of said that. I really hope that people remember Hume for other things than the penalty miss.

[Tilley]

If Howard had taken the penalty, you can guarantee Holloway would of said that. I really hope that people remember Hume for other things than the penalty miss.

Yep. Holloway swears by experience, which in our current position I can understand but look at the Leicester team yesterday, our worst players.

Howard.

Clapham.

N'Gotty.

I would rather have Sappleton in than Howard.

I would rather have Mattock in that Clapham.

& N'Gotty, him being on the pitch was only because of Kisnorbo's injury. But at Stoke I would rather see Chambers RB & Stearman CB.

But thats not probably experienced enough for Holloway.

[breadandcheese]

I think Clapham's getting a raw deal. I'm not sure what is expected of him to have a good game. He plays in a peripheral position so is not going to see the ball all the time and did not have a winger in front of him, so could not bomb on up the line in the same way Stearman could on the right.

[Corky]

Yep. Holloway swears by experience, which in our current position I can understand but look at the Leicester team yesterday, our worst players.

Howard.

Clapham.

N'Gotty.

I would rather have Sappleton in than Howard.

I would rather have Mattock in that Clapham.

& N'Gotty, him being on the pitch was only because of Kisnorbo's injury. But at Stoke I would rather see Chambers RB & Stearman CB.

But thats not probably experienced enough for Holloway.

And our youngest player, little Jimbo, was getting stuck in and trying to create attacks.

[Tilley]

And our youngest player, little Jimbo, was getting stuck in and trying to create attacks.

Yeah, It was said in a previous post, but Hume & Weso were our best two players yesterday & one is from the academy & one is from Tranmere Rovers.

Also, Bell has been one of best players recently, & he's from Luton Town.

I would take up & coming players over our experienced shite.

But I don't agree with get Holloway out now & get Taggart in for Stoke game. All that is going to achieve is 'Getting Leicester Relegated' on Taggarts CV & not Holloways.

[renards]

Yeah, It was said in a previous post, but Hume & Weso were our best two players yesterday & one is from the academy & one is from Tranmere Rovers.

Also, Bell has been one of best players recently, & he's from Luton Town.

I would take up & coming players over our experienced shite.

But I don't agree with get Holloway out now & get Taggart in for Stoke game. All that is going to achieve is 'Getting Leicester Relegated' on Taggarts CV & not Holloways.

[/quote

I think the idea would be for Gerry to try to prevent us going down.

Hollow has failed consistantly to lift the team. infact has done the opposite on many occasions, I'd back GT for the Stoke game over the clown

Taggarts CV looks good enough to not worry about that, last chance saloon get rid now

[STUHILL]

The thing that baffles me about Holloway is his ability to talk sense, i.e he is always banging on about playing Square pegs, square holes etc, yet plays Barry Hayles Left midfield??? It's almost like he wants to mess with our heads, say one thing, yet do another!! Practice what you preach FFS!!!! Even in his post-match, he talked sense! He's either a liar or he just can't get through to the players what he wants! I don't know which is worse!

[filbertboy]

Yep. Holloway swears by experience, which in our current position I can understand but look at the Leicester team yesterday, our worst players.

Howard.

Clapham.

N'Gotty.

I would rather have Sappleton in than Howard.

I would rather have Mattock in that Clapham.

& N'Gotty, him being on the pitch was only because of Kisnorbo's injury. But at Stoke I would rather see Chambers RB & Stearman CB.

But thats not probably experienced enough for Holloway.

just dont understand the thinking behind Claphams selection. he is in my opinion crap.

[Chimp]

just dont understand the thinking behind Claphams selection. he is in my opinion crap.

What choice does Holloway have though? It's not like we have a comitted, talented, up and coming left back who plays for the England Under-21 squad is it?

[WetFlannel]

Easy. Personality.

Regardless of their managerial capabilities, if hes unlikeable (i.e Warnock) then the fans will not want him here. If he can crack a joke once in a while, for example Martin Allen or Ian Holloway, then they are instantly a good manager and fans want him to stay. Appears the only real answer after more extreme cases, such Avram Grant, seem to be fighting for their jobs despite pulling Chelsea back into the title race.

[Sniffer-Clarke]

Easy. Personality.

Regardless of their managerial capabilities, if hes unlikeable (i.e Warnock) then the fans will not want him here. If he can crack a joke once in a while, for example Martin Allen or Ian Holloway, then they are instantly a good manager and fans want him to stay. Appears the only real answer after more extreme cases, such Avram Grant, seem to be fighting for their jobs despite pulling Chelsea back into the title race.

Thats 100% spot on. And if the latter gets blown out of chelsea dont rule out MM wanting a word with him they are very close friends.

[Ultra]

Thats 100% spot on. And if the latter gets blown out of chelsea dont rule out MM wanting a word with him they are very close friends.

:crylaugh: :crylaugh:

That has to be a contender for dumbest post of the season.

There's more chance of me marrying Keira Knightley (with TPH as best man) than there is of Avram Grant taking over as manager of Leicester City.

[volpeazzurro]

I think Clapham's getting a raw deal. I'm not sure what is expected of him to have a good game. He plays in a peripheral position so is not going to see the ball all the time and did not have a winger in front of him, so could not bomb on up the line in the same way Stearman could on the right.

I agree mate, Clapam for me, whilst not a world beater, has been a quite solid left back. However, when 'the clown' picks either Hales or even Fryatt to play on the left wing/midfield, he has absolutly no support or cover. Not Claphams fault, just yet another example of Holloways poor judgement. Mattock would have been the obvious choice to bring on yesterday or in the past (rather like Bridges and Cole for England under McClaren until he was forced to picked Barry due to injuries). Whilst it may be not the best attacking option, at least it serves to nullify the oposition down that flank and gives a sense of proportion.

[Thracian]

I agree mate, Clapam for me, whilst not a world beater, has been a quite solid left back. However, when 'the clown' picks either Hales or even Fryatt to play on the left wing/midfield, he has absolutly no support or cover. Not Claphams fault, just yet another example of Holloways poor judgement. Mattock would have been the obvious choice to bring on yesterday or in the past (rather like Bridges and Cole for England under McClaren until he was forced to picked Barry due to injuries). Whilst it may be not the best attacking option, at least it serves to nullify the oposition down that flank and gives a sense of proportion.

You're right about the lack of support but I'd never see full-back as being a peripheral position other than physically.

Good full-backs are the launchpads for attacks.