I read that waiting for the point. Maybe it comes in a future article. Horrendous writing.
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They were going down.
They had scored a grand total of zero league goals this year.
And their defense wasn't exactly solid that they could grind out 0-0s.
All the teams you mentioned were playing better than Leicester and had the hunger to fight for their lives too. Just watch the perfomance again at Swansea and you can see a team that looked set for the drop. And this was against a direct rival for the drop too.
I agree with that column. 'Not trying' really is an annoying trope. It's the sort of theory that fits every scenario and is very hard to falsify.
The point is all over the entire article.
That ' not trying' / 'no passion' is a bollocks excuse to explain poor performance.
Its just some nonsensical phrase that people love throwing around.
She even gave the perfect example of this: The England NT
She mentioned Chelsea too, but I kept thinking Moyes United. We've spent an entire season hearing about our players not trying and letting the manager down. As if the players just held a meeting and concluded "Right boys, let's finish 7th here, he'll get the sack and we can all sing viva la liberte".
To challenge a theory you need to actually counter it. It's a lot of flowery nonsense saying people are wrong without actually attempting at any time to show how they're wrong.
Exactly.
It's amazing how little the average football fan even considers the effect of things such as morale, tactics and good leadership on the perfomance of a group.
The Moyes example is a great one. As a player you might think of a certain way of playing will help you win, but you can't just go on to the field and defy the manager a instructions. That would just get you dropped.So you go follow the instructions given, but because you don't believe in them, things don't really work out. I'm sure after 50 crosses against Fulham, some of the United players must have thought: what the hell are we doing? But they kept whipping them in because that is what they were instructed to do.
I thought that was an unusual article, but a very good one.
But she does.
Her point being that the 'not trying' theory is all flowery nonsense. It's not based on anything but supposed feelings.
That is very hard to dispute. There is no metric to this 'not trying' belief. It's just one of those throw away terms that people use when they are other objective and verifiable reasons that could explain poor perfomance.
When? She just says it's a throwaway line for poor performance. She spends more time talking about Scientology than the causes of Leicester's demise. At no time does she offer up or actually discuss an alternative to the not trying belief.
Reading Danny Simpson's twitter feud with Carragher it's clear as day they got Ranieri sacked.
Neither are people who are saying the players have given up. That's the point. There is really no evidence that is ever the case. All they offer is intangible, flowery, nonsense.
They're simply no way this downing tools thing can be proven unless some players come out and say they did it.
I believe that she makes the point that even the "not trying theory" is never backed up with any hard facts. That sort of is the point, people accuse players of not trying, but can't really offer up any proof of it at all.
I think any of us who has ever worked under a terrible boss knows how it can affect the workplace and then what a relief it is when either you move on or the boss is moved on.
The fact that something is unfalsifiable indicates the weakness of the theory, not its strength.
I know. And she makes an article out of it while falling into the same trap. What she's doing is ridiculing an opinion while not actually offering one herself.
I got the same impression watching Schmeichel's interview with Geoff Shreeves. That's not to say that they weren't trying.
She kind of does. She says it's a tired cliche without actually talking about how it is or what the alternative is. She's accusing pundits of lazy analysis while providing none of her own. Just some garbage about Scientology machines.
Why? This is football not science. Football has a lot of intangibles that cannot be applied outside of sport.
I think players can be demoralized and demotivated and once that process starts it is hard to reverse. That goes for anyone doing any job tbh, not just footballers. Unless there is some sort of change, it is hard to reverse. I think people mistake what is a normal human reaction for some sort of evil masterplan by the players.
I don't think anyone at United was not trying because they wanted Moyes to be sacked for example. But imagine having worked under SAF and Wenger, you are RVP and having now to look for motivation and tactical advice from Moyes. Once things go wrong, whatever reservations you had become even stronger and even a small drop in confidence, belief, and motivation will show on the pitch. Would that mean RVP downed tools?
We can say they are professionals and they are paid lots of money all day long but they are humans and fall for the same mental pitfalls we all fall for. You can work for a manager for years and all it takes is a few wrong interactions with him to make the relationship irreparable.
All that to say that the same symptoms or proofs that people can use to say players downed tools are simply proofs that they have lost motivation, belief, or trust in their manager.
You should try applying some basic principles to any analysis.
Exactly.
That's fair enough. But if, as suggested, the players had no interest in embracing Ranieri's ideas and in turn half-arsed their application, there is a serious problem at that club and player power has run amok. We'll never know the full truth, but I don't think you're going to get full exposition by saying that they were demoralised and demotivated and ending it there.
New training sessions for the team?
Interesting way of looking at it.
Leicester certainly would not be the first football team to turn things around under a new manager, nor will they be the last. Provided of course they do actually turn things around.
I'm asking you how you quantify the intangibles of sport in a satisfactory manner. What metrics should be used and why would they be deemed correct?
we're not even the first this season, lets face it the Media loved Claudio as he was genial and a great quote, lets say that had been Pearson, they wouldn't be all this condemnation of what we did as the media know he's a cnut
You don't project conjecture into the gaps, you don't prefer a bad explanation to no explanation. That's a good start. Among competing hypothesis you pick the one with fewest assumptions. AlecHDR already provided a much simpler and much more believable explanation which I don't think I can improve upon, that doesn't involve nearly as many absurd assumptions as a collective decision to stop trying.
That goes against the point that earning a wage stipulates that you earn that wage through proficient performance. That goes for any field. A manager being an asshat is not grounds for turning in shitty work. You do your job regardless, or you quit and find another position. The difficulty of doing that in football is countered by the shit-tons of money modern footballers earn, so tough titties?
Using that to excuse players under Ranieri or Moyes for letting standards slip is a copout. If it is too much to expect champions of the league to put in performances better than the dross they have served up in the past few months then feck me.
Now, did they down tools, as the common phrase goes? There isn't enough evidence out there to confirm it. But I don't see why that lets the players off the hook.
In fairness that point is true if one or two individuals are providing less than proficient performances. If the entire collective is, then you have to look at the manager. That would be true in any profession.
I do agree footballers earn a lot of money and should be beyond your bloke who does a 9 to 5. But I can understand why it's not the case. I don't think the players should be let off, the ones who keep performing badly or cause trouble would be sold.
I'm always reluctant to buy into, "not trying" or "didn't want it enough," speculation. Football psychology is more complex than that. One element is that players have to simultaneously believe in multiple, sometimes contradictory things.
The easiest one is if you look at the typical winger role. The winger has to believe that he can attract the right pass, race the fullback, beat his man, put in the perfectly weighted ball or cut inside and score etc etc. However they also have to believe that passing to their fullback, who might not be nearly so technically capable, could be the right choice. Furthermore having taken that leap of faith and trust in their teammate, they may have to ignore that faith and trust, and drop back to cover the fact that his teammate's likely to lose the ball, and the team will need to defend.
Once anything upsets that balance between self-belief, trust in teammates, preparedness, and the acknowledgment of the need to play the percentages (whether to get a win from a draw, or to hold onto a draw) a team starts to fall apart. A bad couple of results, turns into a bad run, and all the things that worked become suspect - even the words of a manager who previously appeared to work miracles. We see it in the course of a game, where a bad mistake or a great move, or a refereeing decision, can change the whole mood of the crowd, never mind the players. There's nothing odd about a few incidents changing the flow of a season. The players are only human and so are their managers.
The easiest one is if you look at the typical winger role. The winger has to believe that he can attract the right pass, race the fullback, beat his man, put in the perfectly weighted ball or cut inside and score etc etc. However they also have to believe that passing to their fullback, who might not be nearly so technically capable, could be the right choice. Furthermore having taken that leap of faith and trust in their teammate, they may have to ignore that faith and trust, and drop back to cover the fact that his teammate's likely to lose the ball, and the team will need to defend.
Once anything upsets that balance between self-belief, trust in teammates, preparedness, and the acknowledgment of the need to play the percentages (whether to get a win from a draw, or to hold onto a draw) a team starts to fall apart. A bad couple of results, turns into a bad run, and all the things that worked become suspect - even the words of a manager who previously appeared to work miracles. We see it in the course of a game, where a bad mistake or a great move, or a refereeing decision, can change the whole mood of the crowd, never mind the players. There's nothing odd about a few incidents changing the flow of a season. The players are only human and so are their managers.
Bingo
A systemic breakdown in communication and trust is not one sided. Ranieri had a role to play and the easiest (not correct IMO) option was to let him go. I just don't understand the sudden tears being shed for the players, as if they had it so hard. They're human but we hold humans to standards all the time. I've not seen a reason why they should be treated different. And it's no coincidence that if you sample football opinions today, the Leicester players aren't being given much slack, compared to Raineri.
It's just about understanding how all of this, could have, and likely did happen, without superimposing contrivance as an explanation.
That's right. It's very complex and full of contingencies, which is why an individual thinking that he can produce such a particular overall outcome by just not trying, would be unpardonable stupidity and conceit. For one thing, if you're the only one doing it, chances are the only thing that's getting the sack is you yourself, and your stock falls in what's already an incredibly short career. To be sure that your whole team is gonna perform badly (which in itself is no guarantee that the manager would be fired) you'd need a full-scale conspiracy. It's a fantastic thing to imagine, yet offered as an explanation with some regularity.
It wasn't just the easiest option to let him go, it was the most realistic if the situation was already toxic. The club is hardly going to sack Vardy, Mahrez, Simpson etc if that was the just move. The protestations from the Leicester fans would be even more higher than it is right now for Ranieri.
I'm saying footballers shouldn't be treated differently no matter what they earn. The Leicester players aren't being shed many tears any way particularly as you say they've not gotten any slack. Just saying that if Ranieri loses the dressing room, you can understand why he was let go doesn't equate to the players becoming martyrs.
I coached a team a few years ago(youth), they won the league with three games to spare. The next season we were favourites to win the league with one main rival who had one very special player. I was also coaching that player in regional representative training and knew them very well.
I came up with a new approach to playing so we could deal with that player. Problem was I didnt sell it to the players well enough and they didnt fully embrace the approach. Some of them couldnt get their head around what i wanted them to do and werent fully committed to it. We lost horribly twice to that team and ended up 3rd. The next season I used the same approach but took more time to slowly change our play to the new way as well as fully explain and sell it to the players. The team won the league easily again the next season.
I do wonder about the downing tools expression, its not a great way of explaining what can happen with a team. If players dont fully understand or believe in a new tactical approach no matter how hard they try they wont completely master it and have confidence and belief to make it work.
The blame game is a simplistic approach to viewing situations like this, I doubt its simply a case of the players downing tools or having a bad attitude or actively trying to get Ranieri sacked.
I came up with a new approach to playing so we could deal with that player. Problem was I didnt sell it to the players well enough and they didnt fully embrace the approach. Some of them couldnt get their head around what i wanted them to do and werent fully committed to it. We lost horribly twice to that team and ended up 3rd. The next season I used the same approach but took more time to slowly change our play to the new way as well as fully explain and sell it to the players. The team won the league easily again the next season.
I do wonder about the downing tools expression, its not a great way of explaining what can happen with a team. If players dont fully understand or believe in a new tactical approach no matter how hard they try they wont completely master it and have confidence and belief to make it work.
The blame game is a simplistic approach to viewing situations like this, I doubt its simply a case of the players downing tools or having a bad attitude or actively trying to get Ranieri sacked.
Last edited:
Pure class - wish him all the best! 
for anyone wondering the person he was talking about that wanted to push him out is Jon Rudkin, our useless, self serving Director of Football