|
Post by buster on Feb 14, 2009 23:05:13 GMT
I see PB only used 1 sub today and that with 5 mins to go, so no chance for an impact on the game. Yet Sills appeared to be fading.
Another possible player unrest looms with rumours of Green.
I`d be interested to know from those who watch the team regularly, should we be using our subs more?
I wonder if an injection of fresh legs and something different for the opposition to think about with 30 mins to go should be done more often. Rather than the standard last 5 mins change.
Do you also feel there may be a reason why he is reluctant to sub the senior players such as Sills & Hargreaves?
Using impact players in the last third of a game can be effective and also serves to keep more players fresh and interested.
buster
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 14, 2009 23:15:04 GMT
Buster my view would be as follows, I have started threads with titles like Buckle should not be afraid of change, I did so as I felt once he found a team that worked and got results, he was afraid to change it just in case the results then did not come.
Maybe its the same with making substitutions, afraid to make changes in case the game then turns as a result of the changes. It must be hard being a manager really, change a winning team and then get blamed it the team then loses, change players in a game you are wining and then end up losing, Bucks will get the blame again.
I do feel that bringing on fresh players with half and hour to go, can and often works, but in two games where Green went of and Benyon came on his place we then went and let in a goal, not Benyons fault I might add, but who can say the other team would have still scored if Green had not gone off.
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Feb 15, 2009 9:08:26 GMT
Another possible player unrest looms with rumours of Green.
I tend to keep my own counsel on matters at the club and come on to the forum to enjoy the light-hearted banter and opinions of like minded fans of Torquay United. But one thing that keeps cropping up is this persistent idea that PB’s man management skills are lacking because we see so-called 'player unrest' and assume that it is caused by the manager's failure to a) meet the demands of the said player or b) he somehow rubs the said player up the wrong way and then doesn't have the required ability to sort the problem out in the correct manner and therefore ending up with a player who is dissatisfied and shows this dissatisfaction. I don't pretend to know how skillful and successful football management works otherwise I'd be leading a team myself. But I think we can all agree that one of, if not the most, successful managers of all time in the game is Alex Ferguson. And there is one aspect of Ferguson's management that he shares with our own Paul Buckle. Neither take bulls**t from their players, and any player that tries to push the boat out, get his own way or tries to cause disharmony is soon put into the picture as to who is the boss. Fergie has had certain problems with players over the years, players who have been critical of his team selections (notably when that player has been left out), players who have blagged to their friends and/or the press because they didn't like the way they were being treated, players who had quiet words in the ears of their colleagues in the hope of causing a rift or two. The list is fairly long and all found to their cost that there was one man in charge, one man who called the shots and one man who had to show that he was in the right. What Fergie did was to rid the club of these players in a ruthless manner and nobody questioned his reasoning. To him the team was more important than the individual. Two names that keep cropping up at our club; Phillips and Rayner. Both were supposed to have gone because they fell out with, and didn't get on with, our manager. Who really knows but if true then in that case surely he did the right thing in shipping them out. If Mr. Ferguson had been the manager of our club he would've done the same and been applauded for it. It's not for the manager to show weakness, he has other players and staff to deal with. One or two of our players have tried the 'I'm hard done by route' and been told in no uncertain terms that was not an acceptable action to take, and after some thought have buckled down (no pun intended) and tried to make a go of it. Although we may all have mixed views on Roscoe's performances, he is a case in point. A player is supposed to have stormed away yesterday because he didn't believe the manager's selection was correct and word is there is disharmony. How would Fergie deal with it? Probably the same way as Paul Buckle will...
|
|
Enzo
TFF member
Posts: 283
|
Post by Enzo on Feb 15, 2009 11:35:43 GMT
Another possible player unrest looms with rumours of Green.I tend to keep my own counsel on matters at the club and come on to the forum to enjoy the light-hearted banter and opinions of like minded fans of Torquay United. But one thing that keeps cropping up is this persistent idea that PB’s man management skills are lacking because we see so-called 'player unrest' and assume that it is caused by the manager's failure to a) meet the demands of the said player or b) he somehow rubs the said player up the wrong way and then doesn't have the required ability to sort the problem out in the correct manner and therefore ending up with a player who is dissatisfied and shows this dissatisfaction. I don't pretend to know how skillful and successful football management works otherwise I'd be leading a team myself. But I think we can all agree that one of, if not the most, successful managers of all time in the game is Alex Ferguson. And there is one aspect of Ferguson's management that he shares with our own Paul Buckle. Neither take bulls**t from their players, and any player that tries to push the boat out, get his own way or tries to cause disharmony is soon put into the picture as to who is the boss. Fergie has had certain problems with players over the years, players who have been critical of his team selections (notably when that player has been left out), players who have blagged to their friends and/or the press because they didn't like the way they were being treated, players who had quiet words in the ears of their colleagues in the hope of causing a rift or two. The list is fairly long and all found to their cost that there was one man in charge, one man who called the shots and one man who had to show that he was in the right. What Fergie did was to rid the club of these players in a ruthless manner and nobody questioned his reasoning. To him the team was more important than the individual. Two names that keep cropping up at our club; Phillips and Rayner. Both were supposed to have gone because they fell out with, and didn't get on with, our manager. Who really knows but if true then in that case surely he did the right thing in shipping them out. If Mr. Ferguson had been the manager of our club he would've done the same and been applauded for it. It's not for the manager to show weakness, he has other players and staff to deal with. One or two of our players have tried the 'I'm hard done by route' and been told in no uncertain terms that was not an acceptable action to take, and after some thought have buckled down (no pun intended) and tried to make a go of it. Although we may all have mixed views on Roscoe's performances, he is a case in point. A player is supposed to have stormed away yesterday because he didn't believe the manager's selection was correct and word is there is disharmony. How would Fergie deal with it? Probably the same way as Paul Buckle will... As you quite rightly say, Ferguson is one of the most succesful managers of all time. With respect, Buckle is not.......yet anyway, no matter how much you listen to some. However, it is possible that Ferguson has learnt a thing or two in man management since his first two seasons. Just maybe Buckle has a bit to learn in this department too. I said at the start of the season, one of the main challenges for Buckle was keeping such a comparatively large group of players, who are all used to being regular starters for their previous clubs, all happy and pulling in the same direction. I fully supprt Buckle's stance if it contributes to the success of the side. Last year it didn't. These disputes are cropping up too often for PB to remain beyond question.........now with players that he himself has signed - we have been lectured in the past about the meticulous and professional manner in which PB brings players into the club. Seems pure rhetoric to me. IF Phillips temparament was suspect, I'd have hoped that Buckle would have picked up on that on his extensive time with him at Exeter and Weymouth - it was no secret Phillips has been a bit suspect when things went against him. Hopefully any potential dispute with Green will be sorted quickly. The failure to put the Rayner situation to bed quickly and decisisively cost us dear last year........and before people start jumping up and down defending PB, I don't care about the initial rights and wrongs - the aftermarth was a complete balls up. If it is true that Green stormed off yesterday then the player certainly needs to get a grip. However, if what has been written on here is true.............that the dispute started after Green refused to shake PB's hand on being subbed against Coventry then that is laughable and Buckle needs to stop taking himself and his ethos so seriously! A player is having the game of his life against a Championship team and, after a difficult few months, his game is at last coming together . No wonder he is gutted on being brought off - I'd be alarmed if he did not show any emotion! To let something more sinister develop form that is a complete failure on Buckle's part. Maybe I am being harsh - Maybe there is a lot more to this or maybe PB did try the arm around shoulder technique and it failed - who knows? That is the problem with all of these matters - most of us can only speculate and listen to rumours spread by people with vested interests. Throughout every incident there appears only one constant variable - Paul Buckle. To blindly absolve him from any blame is nieive in my opinion.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 15, 2009 11:56:46 GMT
Yes as BudleighGull has said Another possible player unrest looms with rumours of Green.
There are four players who now seem to have had problems with the manager Paul Buckle, the question is why? The answer is a simple one, each one of those players has been dropped from the team or substituted during a game and has responded in a way that the manager feels is not acceptable.
Running this forum means that I do get information from many different people, some comes from good people who are in the know, some is just the rumour mill pieces of information that has been heard around the ground or in some pub after the game.
I'm grateful for all the information, it helps me to decide what should get put on the forum, what is best to leave alone, one thing I try to avoid is anything that by having on this forum will serve no real purpose and as a result of it being discussed may end up doing more harm that good for the club.
While BudleighGull may liken Bucks to Alex Ferguson. the players Alex has to deal with are ones who are super stars and will have such bigger ego's than any player in the BSP, maybe there are some things similar in the way Alex has handled some players, but that is where it ends.
I would add Mark Ellis to the list as well, a young man who I know is unhappy at this time, to be fair to Mark he has not made a big fuss about it and as far as I know walked out of the club in any stroppy moods. It does seem to me that five players having problems in what is such a short space of time, begs the question is Bucks man management skills working as they should.
Merse has a wise old head and talks from his knowledge at the club, the problem is times have moved on and so has the way people need to be handled and also how people view and respond to any boss. The old attitude was that the boss was the boss and would let every know he was and while I feel any boss needs to be seem as the one in charge and making decisions etc, in today’s world he will get some respect by rights and the rest even he will have to earn.
When I think back to how things were when I was young and in work, it really is so different now, If you were called into see the boss, you were greeted by a man who wore a suit and you sensed his power and you called him sir, a man who was able to put fear into you and you sure knew where you stood in the order of things.
Maybe because as I have got older and felt that I have learnt my own worth’s in life is the reason that I have taken the view that no matter what job you do or how rich you may be, we are all equal and I never feel anyone is better than me, just because of their job or where they are in life.
You take my boss, he has had to change his attitudes to me over the years’ I have worked for him, he felt from the start that he had chosen me and that I somehow had to be grateful to him for giving me a job. Well yes he had 40 people after the job and I was selected, in the first few weeks when he felt the need to tell me, I was quick to say that I had five offers on the table and therefore I had made the choice really as far as I was concerned.
He also only ever saw me as just a driver, now six years on you will hear him say that I'm so much more than a driver and yes I am and I have made sure he is fully aware of those facts. My boss always felt those back in the company’s work place were the important ones, they did the repairs and I was just a person who drove a van and picked them up and delivered the repaired ones back.
How wrong could he be, I was the ambassador for our company, the only person ever seem by our customers, the one they would want to talk to face to face, after they felt they were unhappy with the outcomes of any contact via the telephone to those back at Toolfix and how many times did I have to go and talk customers back around after having phone calls to my boss that all went wrong, you see so much more than just a driver.
It all came to a head two years ago, a man wanted to buy into the tool company he was working for, he was refused and so he left and set up a rival company 300 yards away and went to work trying to steal all the customers of his now former boss. It was nothing to do with me and my only interest is to get work for my company where I can and so I called on both company’s looking to get tools in need of repair.
One Thursday I had a real bad day on the road, I do not get paid for all the extra hours I do, but as I said elsewhere on here, I have other things that I consider compensates that to my satisfaction, it was nearly ten hours after I left in the morning. I had only two more calls to do and went to the New Company first, he asked for a drill that had been promised would be returned that day, but I had nothing on my sheet or any drill with his name on the paper work. He was not happy, but I used my charm and then went to the other company where he once worked.
I had a drill for them, but guess what, it was not one they had sent for repair and when they looked on the paper work they could see, while it had their name on it, it was the hand writing of the man who set up the other company. I give job sheets to most customers who fill them out and have them ready for when I come, it just saves me time in some lay-by having to write them all out, well when the new company man had filled it out, he forget where he was working and put the old company name down, just a simple mistake but it turned out not to be simply to sort out.
The original company had got a bill from my company that very morning and we had made some big mistakes on it and over charged on it big time, but now due to the drill that had his name on it, he was claiming he was being charged for the other company’s repairs, that was not the case, but it took some time to get him to see that and that the mistake was just something else. Happy that I sorted him out I went back to the new company as the drill was his and I wanted to get it to him. I walked in and he saw the drill in my hand and shouted, I see you can't do your job properly, meaning I had the drill all along, I said to him that if he could remember where he worked then I would have a better chance of doing my job properly.
I got back to Toolfix and now I had worked nearly eleven hours, I started to tell my boss that I had now got the two customers happy and the problems were resolved, he turned to me and said, the customers should not be talking to you, you are just the driver. I threw the van keys at him and walked out, his wife ran after me and put her arms around me and said that Steve did not mean it the way it came out, but as far as I was concerned he said it and he would have to sort it out with me.
I carried on doing my job, but my boss was not prepared to climb down and so we ended up not speaking for over one month, no real problem for me as I'm not there all day and my working life is with the customers anyway. In the end it got to him and wanted to have a talk, it got sorted and since that day he has changed his whole view of the job I do and the big part I play in the company, It would never have changed if I had not fought to get the changes made.
We are now the very best of friends at work, joking and taking the piss out of each other and I am happy to go out on work do's with him, but that’s as far as I will go, my work is just that and I keep it separate from my life after my working day is done. He now fully understands my views, knows he will struggle to find anyone better to do the job and has at last started to appreciate his staff and the role they play in making his company a success, I would say he has had to learn some man management skills and his a better boss for it.
What was the point in writing all that? Well as Bucks is a young manager is he taking the view he is the boss, what he says goes and no one can question his way of management? If it’s true he dressed down Green in front of all the team, then I really would have to ask if that was the right thing to do, I do not believe that making anyone feel small and having it done in front of team mates can ever be the correct way to sort things out.
To me Bucks is trying to make sure everyone knows he is the boss and I would suggest that there has to be some reason why he feels the need to do that. Far better in my view to get the player on his own and have talks with him, explain the reasons why he was not picked and I do know one player who has claimed that he has tried to have talks with Bucks and that Bucks was simply not prepared to talk with him over his feelings.
I only have that from the player and as always there is two sides to any stories, but I care not what you do in life one thing that I feel is important is fair play and everyone being treated equally, is that what is happening with the players at TUFC.?
There well maybe a case for Bucks to learn better man management skills, some people are born leaders and have all they need, others have to learn how to handle people and get the best from them, while keeping them happy and feeling worthwhile. It is never easy and there will always be problems that happen, but a good manager in my view, is one who is not pig headed and feels he is somehow better, but one who is prepared to talk and listen and find the best way forward for the player and in the end the club.
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Feb 15, 2009 12:11:58 GMT
I wasn't questioning whether Bucks was as good a manager as Fergie, a ludicrous suggestion at this point in his career, or even if he was as comparible in any other field of coaching. What I was stating is that the way to deal with players with big ego's (and again ego's can be just as large in the BSP as the Premiership) is the same whether you are in one league or another lower one and if that way is good enough for Sir Alex then it is certainly the right way for Paul Buckle. The standard at which you are at is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Feb 15, 2009 12:14:33 GMT
And no, he wouldn't have necessarily known about Phillips's attitude at Exeter, he was in a different relationship with him then. Even so, what did Bucks do wrong here? He brought in a player who did a job for us but proved at the end of the year not to be the man for the following season and was sold. End of story... If anyone made anything of it it certainly wasn't Buckle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 12:17:08 GMT
BudleighGull
A quiet word in the ear of a collegue can also be the best way to heal a rift ..... rather than a public slagging off.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Sir Alex Buckle should show weakness but some are questioning whether he is showing excessive strength when dealing with some situations. Green was clearly wrong in not shaking hands when he was substituted but I can't help wondering if there wasn't a more tactful way of resolving the problem rather than a public dressing down & exile from the squad (as reported elsewhere).
None of us want a weak Manager who is dictated to by his players but the personel problems over these last couple of seasons do beg the question whether the first course of action is generally to use a sledgehammer to crack the nut when other methods just might yield more satisfactory results.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 15, 2009 12:30:41 GMT
And no, he wouldn't have necessarily known about Phillips's attitude at Exeter, he was in a different relationship with him then. Even so, what did Bucks do wrong here? He brought in a player who did a job for us but proved at the end of the year not to be the man for the following season and was sold. End of story... If anyone made anything of it it certainly wasn't Buckle. I really think that is a silly thing to say,Bucks was second in command and are you saying that he wold not know or be aware of the relationship between the manager and the player? do they not talk then, or is there some secret world that Bucks was not allowed to be part of. I agree that in the end and for what ever reasons it did not work out for Phillips and Bucks at Plainmoor and Phillips moved on, but I really can't buy this Bucks would not have known just who Phillips was as a person and how he responded as a player to the club management.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 12:45:37 GMT
I wonder to what extent these things are a reflection on the strength of our squad?
Here's who didn't start yesterday for whatever reason including loans outwards:
Poke (is he still with us?); Brough, Todd, Thompson, Hodges, Green, Carayol, Stevens, Rice, Ellis, Adams, Christie.
Some of these players hardly ever play but 23 into 12 is a difficult sum - and 23 into 16 isn't much easier. No wonder we only tend to spot certain players wandering around at away games or making the draw at half-time. That's simple mathematics, I suppose, just like the fact that somebody is going to win the league this year and another team will finish bottom - even if all the teams are brilliant or if they are all crap! We shouldn't be surprised by it really - the interest is who is in and out of the side at any one time.
The rub of the matter is that all of the named players would probably be able to find a contract somewhere in the BSP and many of them would be starters at the majority of clubs in this league. Given the choice I guess this is a state of affairs we would welcome?
As we're not offering any football outside of full first-team games there's bound to be players - given their calibre relative to the average standard in the league - who will unhappy. This isn't an attempt to make excuses for - or criticise - anyone and I'm at a loss to suggest how this can be successfully managed all the time. Loans out are both a solution and a possible cause of tension. Reserve games could be part of the answer - but only to an extent. Perhaps it's a fact of life that - for every two or three individuals who can accept the situation - there will be one who can't?
Or would life simply be easier with a weaker squad? Is that what we want? Can over-supply mess up rersource management? I've no idea....
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Feb 15, 2009 12:54:42 GMT
On a point of order, the "snub" by Green WAS in public whilst the alleged reprimand by Buckle was most certainly not.................it was in front of the work force. But then, who knows what went on once the Coventry game was done and dusted for sure. All we have on here is some here say that might have been garnered from some selective leaking from the training ground. Perhaps it is the players response and attitude since that is bothering the manager. Maybe the player is proving bloody hard work for the coaching staff on the training ground. Managers and coaches see players in all situations whilst supporters only see them in match situations. Some supporters might be unpleasantly shocked if they witnessed how their heroes behaved in the confines of the dressing room or training ground. Some supporters might be unpleasantly shocked if they were to see how thick and bloody stupid some players are in retaining information and adhering to team tactics, shape and general discipline. Just because a player has "gold" in his boots it doesn't mean that he has a great deal of grey matter between his ears. There isn't a single professional football club where every player is happy for every moment in time. There has rarely been a player who happily accepts being left out of the side, not too many who like being substituted and for certain any who aren't under the constant scrutiny of the manager. It's just life with the big boys I'm afraid and some of the little boys need to appreciate that...................it's called growing up.
|
|
tufc01
TFF member
Posts: 1,179
|
Post by tufc01 on Feb 15, 2009 13:02:16 GMT
And no, he wouldn't have necessarily known about Phillips's attitude at Exeter, he was in a different relationship with him then. Even so, what did Bucks do wrong here? He brought in a player who did a job for us but proved at the end of the year not to be the man for the following season and was sold. End of story... If anyone made anything of it it certainly wasn't Buckle. I really think that is a silly thing to say,Bucks was second in command and are you saying that he wold not know or be aware of the relationship between the manager and the player? do they not talk then, or is there some secret world that Bucks was not allowed to be part of. I agree that in the end and for what ever reasons it did not work out for Phillips and Bucks at Plainmoor and Phillips moved on, but I really can't buy this Bucks would not have known just who Phillips was as a person and how he responded as a player to the club management. I spoke with Phillips at Newton Abbot races just before the start of last season as the players had a day out together. One of the things i asked him was why he had moved from Exeter to Torquay. He said that it was because him and Bucks were best of mates and as soon as Bucks asked him to come, he was down there like a shot. He then spent a while saying how good their relationship was etc, So either Phillips was kidding himself about their 'friendship' or the move to Rushden was nothing more sinister than good business for all concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Feb 15, 2009 13:32:41 GMT
No, the friendship was there, but sometimes different situations mean the dynamics can change...
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Feb 15, 2009 13:47:30 GMT
Throughout every incident there appears only one constant variable - Paul Buckle.
Of course there's only one constant variable - Paul Buckle. He's the manager! There is only one of them so he's bound to be involved, doesn't make him a villain.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 15, 2009 13:55:38 GMT
Having worked 30 Min's on a post, it has gone? where I do not know, my parrot is shouting out for her dinner, so will have to redo later
|
|