spud
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2003
- 5,850
- 8,794
After the seemingly endless changes of manager we've had in the last few years, I was really hoping that Sherwood would be good. That he would get the best from the players at his disposal and 'take us on', building on the good work of Redknapp (in parts) and AVB (in parts) and make us better. I fear that not only is he not going to do that, but to stick with him will see us lose all the gains that we have made in recent years.
First, he doesn't seem to understand what he is seeing. He originated the generally-accepted opinion that we 'capitulated' at Stamford Bridge. We didn't. Trailing by one goal in an evenly-contested match, we were reduced to 10 men - and a 2-0 defecit - by a bullshit penalty. What followed was a creditable performance against the odds for most of the remaining time, only for two mistakes by players who had run their arses off against superior numbers and were out on their feet to give the scoreline an unflattering look.
Secondly, he blames his players. He blamed them for the so-called 'capitulation' and said that he could only rely on 'some of them' That may be how he feels, but he is running a team. A team should be stronger than the sum of its parts, and to achieve that you need teamwork - everybody involved has to fight for the cause. By 'throwing his players under the bus' he, at a stroke, undermined team spirit, and ensured that the rest of the season would be a search for scapegoats in any bad performance. His post-match interview at Chelsea should have praised his players for their efforts and criticised the cheating of Etoo and the gullibility of the ref. I ask you, seriously: have you ever heard of another manager of a successful team blaming his players for anything? No, neither have I.
While demanding 'gut' and a fight-to-the-death attitude from his players, he doesn't give it himself. In his Liverpool post-match interview he said (and I paraphrase) that he remained in the stand because the game was over at 2-0 and that he couldn't influence the match. So he had given up before half-time; done something that he had previously (and unfairly) slated his players for. I have some news for him: his fucking job is to influence the match. That is why managers have a 'technical area'; so they can gauge the flow of the game and make adjustments for the purpose of influencing it. He admitted in that interview that he can't do his job.
He appears to have little understanding of even basic tactics. Everybody should know by now that in order to play a pressing game, the back four has takes a high line and the rest of the players press the ball. Both factors have to be in operation. Against Liverpool, the back four pushed up with the midfield sitting just in front of them. Soldado tried to press the ball. Just Soldado. Alone against a back four and any midfielder dropping deep. It is no wonder that Gerrard and everybody else in a red shirt was pinging forty-yard passes: nobody tried to stop them. Perhaps Sherwood was aware of this. If so, perhaps he should've tried to influence the game.
If we give Sherwood the benefit of the doubt here, and he instructed the team to press properly, they obviously failed to do so. Why? Well one reason could be that the players he selected were incapable of doing it. Eriksen, for example, was played on the left (why, I don't know) and had the responsibility of supporting Rose and tracking the runs of Johnson. He is a very talented player, but is incapable of doing that job. Any manager should put his subordinates in a position where they can succeed. Sherwood seems to put his players in situations where they will fail. He then blames them for doing so. It is idiocy to instruct a team to play in a way that the players are incapable of carrying out. What we saw against Liverpool was idiocy.
Sherwood seems to be a passionate man, who genuinely wants the team to succeed. Unfortunately, he seems to me to fall short in just about every area that would enable him to be the architect of success. The title of the article may be a little over-the-top. You would have to be spectacularly incompetent to be the worst manager that we've had. The more that I see of Sherwood, however, the more that I think that he is in the running for the title.
First, he doesn't seem to understand what he is seeing. He originated the generally-accepted opinion that we 'capitulated' at Stamford Bridge. We didn't. Trailing by one goal in an evenly-contested match, we were reduced to 10 men - and a 2-0 defecit - by a bullshit penalty. What followed was a creditable performance against the odds for most of the remaining time, only for two mistakes by players who had run their arses off against superior numbers and were out on their feet to give the scoreline an unflattering look.
Secondly, he blames his players. He blamed them for the so-called 'capitulation' and said that he could only rely on 'some of them' That may be how he feels, but he is running a team. A team should be stronger than the sum of its parts, and to achieve that you need teamwork - everybody involved has to fight for the cause. By 'throwing his players under the bus' he, at a stroke, undermined team spirit, and ensured that the rest of the season would be a search for scapegoats in any bad performance. His post-match interview at Chelsea should have praised his players for their efforts and criticised the cheating of Etoo and the gullibility of the ref. I ask you, seriously: have you ever heard of another manager of a successful team blaming his players for anything? No, neither have I.
While demanding 'gut' and a fight-to-the-death attitude from his players, he doesn't give it himself. In his Liverpool post-match interview he said (and I paraphrase) that he remained in the stand because the game was over at 2-0 and that he couldn't influence the match. So he had given up before half-time; done something that he had previously (and unfairly) slated his players for. I have some news for him: his fucking job is to influence the match. That is why managers have a 'technical area'; so they can gauge the flow of the game and make adjustments for the purpose of influencing it. He admitted in that interview that he can't do his job.
He appears to have little understanding of even basic tactics. Everybody should know by now that in order to play a pressing game, the back four has takes a high line and the rest of the players press the ball. Both factors have to be in operation. Against Liverpool, the back four pushed up with the midfield sitting just in front of them. Soldado tried to press the ball. Just Soldado. Alone against a back four and any midfielder dropping deep. It is no wonder that Gerrard and everybody else in a red shirt was pinging forty-yard passes: nobody tried to stop them. Perhaps Sherwood was aware of this. If so, perhaps he should've tried to influence the game.
If we give Sherwood the benefit of the doubt here, and he instructed the team to press properly, they obviously failed to do so. Why? Well one reason could be that the players he selected were incapable of doing it. Eriksen, for example, was played on the left (why, I don't know) and had the responsibility of supporting Rose and tracking the runs of Johnson. He is a very talented player, but is incapable of doing that job. Any manager should put his subordinates in a position where they can succeed. Sherwood seems to put his players in situations where they will fail. He then blames them for doing so. It is idiocy to instruct a team to play in a way that the players are incapable of carrying out. What we saw against Liverpool was idiocy.
Sherwood seems to be a passionate man, who genuinely wants the team to succeed. Unfortunately, he seems to me to fall short in just about every area that would enable him to be the architect of success. The title of the article may be a little over-the-top. You would have to be spectacularly incompetent to be the worst manager that we've had. The more that I see of Sherwood, however, the more that I think that he is in the running for the title.
