Tisdale - So what happens now FFS!

[bootesful]

Every single team in every division could talk of where they have been robbed by a ref, should have got a free kick or a pen, had a goal dissallowed that shouldn't have been etc etc. We have had no more bad luck than anyone else. In fact with our leading scorer OG hitting the net most weeks you could say that without OG we would be deep in the ****.

Your argument is completely flawed.

But that's not my argument.

It's simply that so few technical differences remains between the majority of teams, that luck, good and bad, now plays a huge part. The point is that the 'it all evens out over the season' isn't true. Try tossing a coin a 100x, you'd be surprised how many heads or tails in a row you end up with; also, teams aren't coins! Teams have great runs and it raises confidence and generally they play better. Some injuries, poor decisions and suddenly you've lost loads and there's little any other manager could have done.

 

[Shabba]

But that's not my argument.

It's simply that so few technical differences remains between the majority of teams, that luck, good and bad, now plays a huge part. The point is that the 'it all evens out over the season' isn't true. Try tossing a coin a 100x, you'd be surprised how many heads or tails in a row you end up with; also, teams aren't coins! Teams have great runs and it raises confidence and generally they play better. Some injuries, poor decisions and suddenly you've lost loads and there's little any other manager could have done.

We haven't had any major injuries to result in playing player's out of position though! It's just that Tis is rubbish at buy decent player's on a tight budget or utilising the loan market to his benefit! Also, it his him that decides the tactics. So bad luck has nowt to do with it! You make your own luck!

 

[Bittners a Legend]

But that's not my argument.

It's simply that so few technical differences remains between the majority of teams, that luck, good and bad, now plays a huge part. The point is that the 'it all evens out over the season' isn't true. Try tossing a coin a 100x, you'd be surprised how many heads or tails in a row you end up with; also, teams aren't coins! Teams have great runs and it raises confidence and generally they play better. Some injuries, poor decisions and suddenly you've lost loads and there's little any other manager could have done.

We've had plenty of luck. Deflected goals, late goals, own goals. Loads of them. Sercombe's shot going wide in the last minute that hit Wheeler and went in vs Portsmouth. Sercombe deflected goal v Argyle. The terrible mistake from the Dagenham goalie in the last minute to get us a draw. We've had more luck than most if anything...the Morecambe game is really the only significant moment of bad luck you can point to.

If you were to analyse little bits of every game every team could make a similar argument...eg: Fleetwood at 1-0 down on Saturday went through one on one and were only denied by Krysiak and some good defending by JMT. If that game had gone to 1-1 who knows what would have happened.

As for injuries...we've hardly had any all season. Even with a fully fit squad Tisdale played a centre back at right back and a centre mid at left mid a few weeks ago.

 

[John William]

As for injuries...we've hardly had any all season. Even with a fully fit squad Tisdale played a centre back at right back and a centre mid at left mid a few weeks ago.

Agreed. This season, since Butterfield arrived (end Sept, when we were 9th with W4 D2 L2) we have at least two specialist / qualified players in each position and I can't think of a game where we had to play a player out of position. In every case it has been the Manager's decision to play players out-of-position. I respect that it is his judgement in doing so, he sees the players every day in training and clearly has decided views on what he wants, though personally having seen his performances for the U21s I would have I would have given more opportunities to Dawson at RB and might have give Gosling a try when we were playing so badly in the middle period.

 

[bootesful]

We've had plenty of luck. Deflected goals, late goals, own goals. Loads of them. Sercombe's shot going wide in the last minute that hit Wheeler and went in vs Portsmouth. Sercombe deflected goal v Argyle. The terrible mistake from the Dagenham goalie in the last minute to get us a draw. We've had more luck than most if anything...the Morecambe game is really the only significant moment of bad luck you can point to.

If you were to analyse little bits of every game every team could make a similar argument...eg: Fleetwood at 1-0 down on Saturday went through one on one and were only denied by Krysiak and some good defending by JMT. If that game had gone to 1-1 who knows what would have happened.

Again, I understand this. As pointed out in the first post, it's not a Sliding Doors thing. What I'm saying is that the criteria between success and failure is so small (the point about things out of a manager's control on the pitch), that it's not just one or two controllable factors that make the difference anymore. All clubs are run in roughly the same fashion, and it those that aren't who usually the ones who feel it (e.g., us in 2003). Managers all need accreditation, as do their staff. The playing fields have been levelled (sometimes literally). Lower league teams are led by men who now micro-manage, spending their time juggling limited financial resources and the demands of their players.

As for injuries...we've hardly had any all season. Even with a fully fit squad Tisdale played a centre back at right back and a centre mid at left mid a few weeks ago.

We can't buy players, so it comes to his abilities with free signings, loans and perceived faults in tactics. So it mainly falls down to tactics, especially now. It then becomes the idea that you or I understand the team and how to play them, better than him. So why would he play players out of position? He's not daft, so maybe there were reasons? If none visible, it's just bloody guess-work.

Changing manager may help (I'm not Tisdale's agent), but unless he's lost the dressing room, it usually won't. What does help us is money. In the long term, plotting success v income shows that a rare few managers magnificently outperform others (Clough), but most (Ferguson) achieve what is predicted by that bloody awful phrase, revenue streams. Bringing in a new guy will cost us money that could be spent on a better team, which is really what my argument for steady heads is based on.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

That's an interesting post bootesful and I agree with elements of what you say. Money is certainly a restriction but the points I would make to consider are:

i.) if we are accepting money as a limitation then should we be paying a significant amount for a manager if he ISN'T able to overturn the success v income which I agree is a reasonable point? If we are to believe what those who were on the Trust board said re: his salary then I'd argue it's possible we could get a decent manager on half of Tisdale's alleged wage and free up somewhere around £60k a year extra for the playing budget.

ii.) although our budget may be on the lower side (I assume it is this year) the difference between most sides is negligible

iii.) the entertainment factor has been very low and that is the responsibility of the manager. You don't necessarily need the best players in the division to play attacking or attractive football.

Having said that one thing I DO have sympathy with, although others disagree, is that our location is a factor. It is easier for the likes of Dagenham to pick players up. However, we seem to do very little scouting and I find that baffling. We should be making contact with Premier League youth managers and going to the exit trials. Those guys are released from Prem clubs and generally desperate for deals anywhere (eg: James Dunne).

I think Tisdale has done lots of good things for us but he seems to be very stubborn and he has some major flaws. The major flaws aren't an issue if you are willing to acknowledge them and work at them. Does Tisdale do this? The same "issues" and complaints now are ones that have cropped up four or five years ago.

The question of whether a new manager will make a difference is a fair one but I would argue familiarity has very much bred contempt and the lack of attractive football means we will struggle to get higher attendances and therefore higher income unless Tisdale is willing to change or we somehow storm the league next season.

The final thing that concerns me is the extent to which the club appears incapable of receiving any kind of criticism. It risks producing a very paranoid and complacent culture. I worry that there is a lack of leadership to challenge this.

Some will love Tisdale no matter what, some will want him gone no matter what...I've supported him for a long time but I think many of the complaints raised towards him are reasonable ones and that a change of manager might be good for both the club and Tisdale.

 

[Shabba]

Again, I understand this. As pointed out in the first post, it's not a Sliding Doors thing. What I'm saying is that the criteria between success and failure is so small (the point about things out of a manager's control on the pitch), that it's not just one or two controllable factors that make the difference anymore. All clubs are run in roughly the same fashion, and it those that aren't who usually the ones who feel it (e.g., us in 2003). Managers all need accreditation, as do their staff. The playing fields have been levelled (sometimes literally). Lower league teams are led by men who now micro-manage, spending their time juggling limited financial resources and the demands of their players.



We can't buy players, so it comes to his abilities with free signings, loans and perceived faults in tactics. So it mainly falls down to tactics, especially now. It then becomes the idea that you or I understand the team and how to play them, better than him. So why would he play players out of position? He's not daft, so maybe there were reasons? If none visible, it's just bloody guess-work.

Changing manager may help (I'm not Tisdale's agent), but unless he's lost the dressing room, it usually won't. What does help us is money. In the long term, plotting success v income shows that a rare few managers magnificently outperform others (Clough), but most (Ferguson) achieve what is predicted by that bloody awful phrase, revenue streams. Bringing in a new guy will cost us money that could be spent on a better team, which is really what my argument for steady heads is based on.

Yeovil got promoted on a small budget. What's their excuse?

They utilised the loan market and actually brought in players that would make a difference, not ones that are ready for scrapped yard.

 

[Antony Moxey]

Yeovil got promoted on a small budget. What's their excuse?

They utilised the loan market and actually brought in players that would make a difference, not ones that are ready for scrapped yard.

How do you define 'small', and how does their budget compare to ours? How much did it cost them to bring in these ready made players and could we have afforded them?

 

[Jason H]

They also channelled pretty much ALL on-pitch funding into their first XI, scrapping their youth scheme and generally shafting, as a result, any local lads who might have had a dream of playing for their local club when they grow up.

 

[malcolms]

They also channelled pretty much ALL on-pitch funding into their first XI, scrapping their youth scheme and generally shafting, as a result, any local lads who might have had a dream of playing for their local club when they grow up.

If those "local lads" harbour any real ambition and ability to play football professionally, then there are plenty of options locally....

Yeovil operate their club in a different way and who can deny it's been successful ?