ChrisBlade
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 1,713
One thing that I feel may not have been properly discussed so far when analyzing the squad and our current performances is the human element of allegiances fostered over several years.
What I mean by that is this: Both players and managers, as any worker in any walk of life, bring a history with them and gravitate towards people who share common traits. Now I would rate Adkins as a manager who likes to do things by way of fostering a community spirit of positivity, of blowing cobwebs from corners, of trying to do the same things in new ways, often for the sake of it. This is what some on here call the "emperor's new clothes" approach.
In my work experience, that works best with either insecure and disenfranchized people who struggled in a dog eat dog world or with new arrivals. In a work place where a lot of people belong to the old era and may not have seen all that much wrong with Clough's ways, it can quickly back-fire and get exposed as blowing hot air up people's arses and rocking the boat where the old boys, after a honey-moon period, suddenly start to feel collectively "we know better, leave us be. Who are you, Mr. Charlatan?"
In my view, we probably were two games away from bossing this division. Not through class or skill, but through coincidence and circumstance when everybody was buying into Positive Nigel's ways early on. I believe that we would haven been up and away had we beaten Bury and Colchester and gone top at that stage...
That wasn't to be, the postponement being a particular iffy call. Our "internationals" aren't players we desperately need. Our squad is much of a muchness. And we started squad selection by dart board round about that time, anyway. That's when the geese flock started going out of position... And when the rather large contingent of Clough geese probably started thinking "fuck this dropping out of position to nurse old ugly ducklings previously bombed out by Clough or the new duds brought in." And everybody just went their own ways.
After all, even the fans were split. Most of us probably rated Clough as slightly misfiring, but worthy of one more year because at least "those were his men" and he offered continuity. We only bought into Adkins because of his vastly superior c.v. As fans that is fine and entirely reasonable...
As players, it quickly gets personal and daily... I would have to admit that even though I am pretty good at what I do, I sometimes struggle with positivity merchants at work. I am self-motivitated, very quick but independent and like space and responsibility. I love team-work but I can feel alienated when everybody gets roped into this often artificial "all on the same trail together" bubble when I prefer clearer responsibilities or even hierarchies...
Now many of our players are probably certified Clough men, which strengthens the above effect. They have been with him in several clubs. They will not feel that Adkins' ways are naturally superior. They will need convincing or yearn for what they have always done.
When everybody now tries to retroactively denigrate Clough as a poor judge of players and as an accumulator of very poor players, they may have a point only in so far as the balance of player types and what Bergen Blade always calls "attributes" is wrong. If they say he mishandled players on a personal level, I also have my doubts that is generally true. Brayford, Freeman, Coutts and others will be invested in and comfortable with the Clough way for years. Otherwise, they would not have come. The Scottish lads have dislodged from up there to move here and form another natural clique for whom things initially went swimmingly...
I think these are the inner workings that people disregard when just saying "drop X and play Y". Once seven or eight players say under their breath "fuck this, should have kept Cloughy, this man's a baffoon" it is a minor stop towards "oh well, who knows where I'll be next June."
Bad results, constant changes, fan pressure, a perceived weakness of the new arrivals as not being any better than your mates who you played with in two cup semis in the last two years, and you are half-way to the complete mess that we are.
Solution? I have none, beyond the clear mission statement that if Adkins is sacked because he cannot overcome these divisions and no longer reaches anyone in the dressing room, the board must be clear that these very same player feelings will not change with whoever comes in next. In other words, if Adkins goes, as many of this squad as we can possibly shift must go with him. None of the "clean slate" approach. None of the "they all like Morgs who is one of their mates". Break the cycle and accept that the Clough legacy did not end with Clough getting sacked.
A lot of our players have the skill to compete at the top end of League 1. A lot also have shown loyalty to their old boss Clough throughout their careers. All of them have shown a total dereliction of duty in the past six weeks. Skill and loyalty or not, that dereliction of duty must cost them their job and cannot only be pinned on Nigel Adkins...
What I mean by that is this: Both players and managers, as any worker in any walk of life, bring a history with them and gravitate towards people who share common traits. Now I would rate Adkins as a manager who likes to do things by way of fostering a community spirit of positivity, of blowing cobwebs from corners, of trying to do the same things in new ways, often for the sake of it. This is what some on here call the "emperor's new clothes" approach.
In my work experience, that works best with either insecure and disenfranchized people who struggled in a dog eat dog world or with new arrivals. In a work place where a lot of people belong to the old era and may not have seen all that much wrong with Clough's ways, it can quickly back-fire and get exposed as blowing hot air up people's arses and rocking the boat where the old boys, after a honey-moon period, suddenly start to feel collectively "we know better, leave us be. Who are you, Mr. Charlatan?"
In my view, we probably were two games away from bossing this division. Not through class or skill, but through coincidence and circumstance when everybody was buying into Positive Nigel's ways early on. I believe that we would haven been up and away had we beaten Bury and Colchester and gone top at that stage...
That wasn't to be, the postponement being a particular iffy call. Our "internationals" aren't players we desperately need. Our squad is much of a muchness. And we started squad selection by dart board round about that time, anyway. That's when the geese flock started going out of position... And when the rather large contingent of Clough geese probably started thinking "fuck this dropping out of position to nurse old ugly ducklings previously bombed out by Clough or the new duds brought in." And everybody just went their own ways.
After all, even the fans were split. Most of us probably rated Clough as slightly misfiring, but worthy of one more year because at least "those were his men" and he offered continuity. We only bought into Adkins because of his vastly superior c.v. As fans that is fine and entirely reasonable...
As players, it quickly gets personal and daily... I would have to admit that even though I am pretty good at what I do, I sometimes struggle with positivity merchants at work. I am self-motivitated, very quick but independent and like space and responsibility. I love team-work but I can feel alienated when everybody gets roped into this often artificial "all on the same trail together" bubble when I prefer clearer responsibilities or even hierarchies...
Now many of our players are probably certified Clough men, which strengthens the above effect. They have been with him in several clubs. They will not feel that Adkins' ways are naturally superior. They will need convincing or yearn for what they have always done.
When everybody now tries to retroactively denigrate Clough as a poor judge of players and as an accumulator of very poor players, they may have a point only in so far as the balance of player types and what Bergen Blade always calls "attributes" is wrong. If they say he mishandled players on a personal level, I also have my doubts that is generally true. Brayford, Freeman, Coutts and others will be invested in and comfortable with the Clough way for years. Otherwise, they would not have come. The Scottish lads have dislodged from up there to move here and form another natural clique for whom things initially went swimmingly...
I think these are the inner workings that people disregard when just saying "drop X and play Y". Once seven or eight players say under their breath "fuck this, should have kept Cloughy, this man's a baffoon" it is a minor stop towards "oh well, who knows where I'll be next June."
Bad results, constant changes, fan pressure, a perceived weakness of the new arrivals as not being any better than your mates who you played with in two cup semis in the last two years, and you are half-way to the complete mess that we are.
Solution? I have none, beyond the clear mission statement that if Adkins is sacked because he cannot overcome these divisions and no longer reaches anyone in the dressing room, the board must be clear that these very same player feelings will not change with whoever comes in next. In other words, if Adkins goes, as many of this squad as we can possibly shift must go with him. None of the "clean slate" approach. None of the "they all like Morgs who is one of their mates". Break the cycle and accept that the Clough legacy did not end with Clough getting sacked.
A lot of our players have the skill to compete at the top end of League 1. A lot also have shown loyalty to their old boss Clough throughout their careers. All of them have shown a total dereliction of duty in the past six weeks. Skill and loyalty or not, that dereliction of duty must cost them their job and cannot only be pinned on Nigel Adkins...
