No, hang on. YOU said that changing the team was a bad idea. And changing the team after losing - in your view - led to us losing again. So you're saying that when the team was losing, Olly should NOT have changed it. Now you're trying to say something else? Now you're saying that 'doing something different and expecting the same result' wasn't happening during our winning streak (it was, as we were not playing the same eleven players during that time). Talk about selective fact-picking.
If you're gonna post that kind of illogical wittering, at least be consistent. Or are you now trying something else, yet still expecting the same result?
We get it. You and Durbar don't like him. Fine. Just don't make stuff up to try and defend that view.
No... I said he shouldn't have undergone RADICAL changes while winning - which is what he did and continually did, while nobody could work out his team changes, his tactics or inability to get us back to winning ways. His strategy was not clear to his players (as they couldn't cope), his stakeholders (the fans, who were losing faith) or the professionals (pundits and commentators who could not understand his methods and said so weekly). Changes made during our winning spell were minor; the latter spell were radical - breaking up localised teams in defence, midfield and attack from game to game with no clear objective to anyone outside of the manager. There was no attempt for cohesion, or introducing players into a team to develop them - no it was radical changes when all was going well and a chance to build. I'm sure the players loved losing their bonuses while the Manager was trying to do something illogical. Many of the best team successes have come from teams who have used less first team players in a season than others.
Your 101 is to throw everything into radical change, allow yourself to get into trouble and keep doing the same radical changes and hope they get you out of trouble. Buddy, look back a little, the successful strategy was there before you threw the baby out with the bath water.
I was always saying Holloway had it wrong after the radical changes, that if he wanted to make changes to the team it should be in ones or twos, build people into a successful unit and see the success continue and build confidence in the team and manager. That's not what he did. The results back it up; the fans responses back it up.
In business if you have a winning recipe, stick to it; make small improvements by all means; but you don't throw everything out. If it isn't working you at least have the common sense to go back to your winning recipe - not continue making wholesale changes that keep bringing losing results every week, week after week until your in deep trouble. If I told my boss that after six successful results reporting, after a very under-performing previous periods of reporting that put the business in a critical position, I wanted to radically change how we do things and switch teams around, affect key employees futures (and his) affect stakeholders confidence, I'm sure he would be sure to tell me where to go.
Holloway wasn't a choice I would have made, but he's in position and I accept that. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does just because he played for us before. You clearly have great confidence in the man and his techniques - we'll see who is right by the end of the season. The truth is in the results. Key in business and definitely applied in football where it's all about the results.
Oh... and who's the Royal 'we' ?
