|
Post by londonranger on Mar 12, 2009 22:24:25 GMT
when you change managers as much as we have the team starts to think that they are not doing their job and their heads drop. when meditteranean players keep coming in and out the players--all of them feel insecure that they will not be playing next week. Hardly ever playing the same team two games in a row makes the players work more difficult. Finally the fans are less appreciative and showing displeasure also makes them feel they are undeperforming. Regardless of who the players are, who bought them, these are the reasons that we are not doing as well as we were expected to. Two more things: The Camp affair added to their burden and the Owners firect involvement must lead to more tentativity and more like they are under surveillance which further adds to their losing confidence. Last but not least. The arrival and departure of Mediterraneans, the not playing people forlong periods of time makes them more cautious. The players will start to blame each other and start to think that sousa will go, then they can start to dislike each other. Curious how well Ramage was reported to have played against Donks, time off for him seemed to strengthen him, perhaps because he was away from all these pressures for a while?
|
|
dreamr
Gerry Francis
Posts: 88
|
Post by dreamr on Mar 12, 2009 23:04:18 GMT
I totally agree that not playing the "best" team and keeping chopping and changing is a bad thing. Also, I think some of the substitutions have been less than inspired. But I do think Sousa will cop on to that. The players don't look like they have much confidence at the moment.
Sunny country players seem to start the season really well and then go to shite. Robinho and Giovanni at Hull are two good examples. Poor old Ledesma is our Giovanni.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 13, 2009 0:15:36 GMT
Dreamer. Thanks for support. I think we are on to something.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 13, 2009 0:49:59 GMT
Also I think its critical that they make no managerial chages this year. Also I dont think we should buy any more players this year. Would be nice to restore some cofidence by end of season.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 13, 2009 11:36:26 GMT
Mr. Ingham seconded something in the first post here that the players will start to blame each other and not support each other. (Tony Ingham posted onthe 606 thread )
|
|
|
Post by grumpyolde on Mar 13, 2009 20:15:48 GMT
Must have been watching videos of the games
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 14, 2009 9:22:22 GMT
In my view, the title of this thread encapsulates the entire issue of confidence.
In football, the phrase 'confidence in their abilities' almost invariably emphasises the 'confidence' part. Whereas, to me at any rate, the whole point about 'confidence' is the abilities part.
If our team is confident that they can play like Stan Bowles, will their confidence enable them to do so? No, no more than my being confident I can turn in a good performance on the bassoon will make the slightest difference if I can't play the thing.
In football, we put too much emphasis on states of mind, in the 'mind over matter' sense. But a person who has learned to drive a car well will drive it well in all sorts of states of mind. Happy, fed up, bored, excited, anxious.
Because the skills he has learned have been absorbed, they are, as we say, 'second nature', which means they look natural, even though they're carefully developed through trial and error.
So if someone says a driver looks confident, the reason is not that he has psyched himself up to a point where he can perform 'above himself'. But that he has something to be confident IN. His skills.
I think there's a reason why we prefer to play down ability in favour of confidence. In football, everyone wants to win. But hardly anyone ever will. There simply isn't enough talent, know-how and experience to go round. Just two individuals have utterly dominated English football for the last 33 years or so, starting when Paisley squeezed past us at the death to take his first trophy.
But because everyone likes to win, and wants to win, the overwhelming likelihood of failure is unappealing. So various magic short cuts are devised, rather as people have their 'lucky tie' or lucky matchday ritual.
Nothing wrong with that, it's innocent. But it's harmful when the Club takes that sort of thing seriously and begins to spend tensof millions in borrowed money on wishful thinking.
Football is not like business. Business is a dream world where everyone is a winner in his own mind, because there is no actual league table, no points, no goals. It may be competitive, but it is not, in point of fact, a competition. Everyone decides for himself how well he is doing, and he's happy and tells the world he's a 'winner'.
In football, someone else decides. The ref, the authorities. Not on the basis of opinions, self-belief, or how motivated they think a team looks, but cold-bloodedly, based on wins, goals, points, down to the last decimal place. It's objective. There's only ever one winner, however big, rich, clever, talented all the others are. And there's a basic reason for that. Football is designed for losers. It takes 92 teams to produce one Manchester United. The FA Challenge Cup and the League were devised to give the losers competitive matches to play. And in the modern game, the Champions League has been redesigned to accommodate 3 losers to each actual 'Champion'. Success is so sweet because failure is so likely and so universal. That's why 76 was so astonishing. Or Ipswich's 1962 title success. Because that sort of thing virtually never happens.
Most of us believe, in our heart of hearts, that those things are pretty true indicators. We were unlucky in 1976, no doubt about it, but we went downwards pretty relentlessly from them on, whereas Liverpool went on to become the most successful British club ever.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 14, 2009 9:49:24 GMT
But there is a role confidence plays...How often does one go on long runs without a victory (or a defeat). You get that first victory - or defeat - and start surging or plummeting.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 14, 2009 14:34:39 GMT
But you cant help not agreeing with Mr. ingham about basic skills. Crossing the ball is a lost art on our team. The general skill level leaves much to be desired. But I do see what you are saying. Look at the times players have made a mistake and they cant recover from it rest of match. What year was it Mike that we were promoted and then got iinto a streak where we kept losing and losing and couldnt pull out of it and were relegated?
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 14, 2009 14:36:45 GMT
If you mean 68/69: That was confidence, bad luck - and not being good enough!
|
|