Topic: Why do coaches get sacked over poor performance of players? (Read 759 times)

Coaches tenure are not well secured, not even in any league. You might bring your team into a championship and win. But if in the next season the team fail, the thing one who are going to take the blame is the coach himself. So I'm not surprised by it, I'm not saying that it is a practice, but usually that's what is happening in any league. First, they are the leader, they are the one who bring this player into unison and just focus on one goal and that is winning. If he fails then the management will have to find a new one as the players are not responding to him. Second, if ever he brings the team into a champion, and then the next year he failed, then his system is no longer working and maybe the management will also find him liable so he will get sacked despite what he brings into the table the previous year.

From my point of view, coaches and players both need each other. Because in the field of sports, it less harmonious, sometimes coaches force their players too hard, things that are difficult make communication between players and coaches less good and this creates an unfavorable gap on both sides. criticizing each other about each other's shortcomings is actually a normal thing because coaches and players have personalities that cannot possibly be the same. In football, it is actually the coach's responsibility to take care of which players he will choose for the match and it depends on the education that is applied so if the performance bad players, coaches can be affected.

A coach tries his best to shape the team's squad but it is not unusual for the coach to feel bad if any player in this squad performs poorly. If a football squad is lined up in a 4-3-3 format, any player performing poorly in any one of the formations can definitely lead to a lack of performance in the squad. In that situation, there must be extra pressure on the coach and the coach has to perform extra responsibility to change and expand the squad. So for now I will not neglect the responsibility of the coach according to the team instructions to allow any negative influence on the coaching of the coach.

regarding the Mourinho case, I hope you don't read from one source but look for the most confirmed source.
when a club has a problem, especially if the problem is with a star player or a popular coach, many media outlets will exaggerate the problem by changing the true story.
and in my opinion Mourinho case of leaving Roma is because he is no longer able to handle a team that cannot get the players that Mourinho wants so improving the team's performance will be very difficult. on one hand, Roma financial condition is in a slightly bad condition so Mourinho is not there allow to bring in players at high prices.
If the players really didn't like Mourinho, he should have been fired from that time, but in fact Roma's performance last season was still fine without any problems.

the dismissal of a coach cannot be predicted whether it is because the players don't like the coach or the management doesn't like the way the coach works, but what is certain is that as long as a team doesn't make any progress, management will definitely fire the coach to save time to immediately find a new coach who is capable. to improve the team's performance.

You know, I noticed this situation specifically with clubs where Mourinier was the manager. At first I noticed this trend in Chelsea, when the team played many games in a draw, often 0:0, it looked like sabotage, later I saw the same thing when he was the coach of Manchester United, but there the situation with conflicts between players and the coach was even more tense. I haven't heard any talk about Mourinho's problems at Roma, but if you're talking about it and he really feels it's from the players, then he should look for the reason in himself.

That's true because a team's success in winning a match depends on how the coach or manager manages his players by placing them in the appropriate place. If the coach cannot do this, his team will have difficulty winning the match, and perhaps his team will not be able to win the competition. If there is a player who cannot perform optimally, the coach should already know, so he will replace the player with another player so that he can maintain the performance of his team and even improve his team's performance.

This cannot be separated from the supervision of the coach to find suitable players to compete in each match. That's why the coach must know how each player is performing so that the coach can choose suitable players to compete and perform well for their team. When his team cannot perform well, the coach must immediately know about it and change his playing strategy to return to a good performance.

I'm going to speak on football for this because it's the team sports I follow the most, followed by basketball.
One thing I can say in football is that, if a club gets a good coach they've solved at least 50% of their problems. A lot boils down to the coach. If you watch a team for 90 minutes you can tell if they have a good coach, an average coach or a bad coach. I'm going to list out things you should be looking out for.

1. The first thing you look out for to spot a good coach is how that team press. When they lose the ball, how eager are they to win it back? Do the players just relax and allow their opponents hold the ball and play for a long time even though that opponent is not too better than them? If they do then it's the fault of the coach. It's the coach that'll make sure his players always wants to win the ball back, don't let your opponent get comfortable on the ball. The only time a team shouldn't press much is if they're a man down due to red card.

2. How many chances does the team creates. A team that hardly creates chances find it very hard to win games. If you don't create chances you won't score, if you don't score you won't win. It's that simple. Now the players may not be good enough to score these chances or score goals out of hard chances but if they create the chances then they have a good coach and there's nothing more he can do when the players don't score. It's his tactics that will determine if they'll create chances

3. How's the confidence level of the players?
Do they play with fear? Do they play like they respect the opponents? Do they trust themselves? Can they see a player when they're in a tight spot and comfortable give the ball to him, trusting him to make good use of it? Do the players panic on the field? These are things that the coach instills on his players. The coach brings out the best in these players.
Let's take Pep and Klopp for example, see how Man City and Liverpool play with so much confidence. They do not believe you're better than them. Stones can give the ball to Ederson when an opposing striker is running at him and they won't panic, that's trust. The players don't like the coach? Why?

There are other points, but just watch out for these few.
A coach to me is the most important part of a team. I'll take a good coach over a star player at his peak.
Ask a Barcelona fan which they'll take between peak Messi and peak Pep and any Barcelona fan that understands football would take Pep over Messi right now.
So when the team is not performing well, it boils down to the coach.
Sometimes a team might be good the previous season and are average the next, it still boils down to the coach. Maybe the players have lost confidence, trust or they're fatigued. A coach should understand how to keep his players fit and rotate them. The role of a coach is more complicated than just setting formations and making substitutions. Pep understands this and that's why he's the best coach in the world currently.

A lot of people believe having good players equals being a good coach. That's so false. We've seen coach's fail in PSG, Barcelona and even Madrid when they had a very good squad. And we've also seen coaches with average players do exploit. See what Alonso is doing with Leverkusen? Are the players in Bayer Leverkusen better than the players in Bayern Munich?

There are off the pitch factors you can be looking at too, but since you might not see those players of the pitch, I won't mention but the team spirit off the pitch is a factor.
Argentina for the 2022 world cup has a very good team spirit off the pitch. They believed they were winner, they had trust in themselves and their coaches. I don't believe this is the best Argentine team if we're talking about individual, but this is the best Argentine team as a team. They lost the first game and they still believed they'd win. Lautaro flopped and got replaced with Alvarez yet he didn't make a fuss, he just came on whenever called upon and gave his best, that's what a good manager does to a team. 

Even if it's not fair, that is how it works everywhere and not only in the sports industry. A coach or a manager is held accountable for mistakes that are made by players because they are the ones choosing those players for the games or even to stay within the club. If a player isn't doing well or making issues for personal reasons, they have all the rights to transfer them or sell them to another club and buy other players to improve the quality of their team and club.

This happens in every sport, not just football. If the players perform well, the captain and the coaches are praised that they are doing a great job, but when the team plays poorly and loses easy matches, the blame goes to the captain and the management instead of the players for performing badly. However, the players are often changed for such behaviour regardless of the decisions taken at the managerial level.

That's indeed a stupid move because they are mostly the ones who will get sacked and not their coach, but some won't care. They will mostly leave so that they won't be stressed seeing the people they hate.

For those who still want to continue their career, they will only think of other safe ways to revenge on their coach. That's great if a club owner can monitor their personnel but they should do it more closely and they can install voice recorders if CCTV's can't record their conversations, to know each detail that is going inside, as there might be other anomalies that can happen other than our subject here and their reputation can get affected with it.

And thats the purpose of having a coach on which he would really be the ones responsible on what are those training regime and other correlated things into it. There might be some player individual problems that might rise but this is something that could really be handled out rather than on having a team but have lesser that kind of strategic plans or routines or trainings which this is
really that on coach job on how he would really be able to handle up such team.This is why you cant blame out those masses or fans on having those kind of blaming on the time that they would really
be having those kind of impressions towards coaches whenever they have seen that there are some lacking thing on the team that they do like or favorite on.

Ultimately poor performance reflects badly on individual players, but it is specifically the job of a manager to figure out how to make the team cohesive. If a manager is unable to do that, by any number of means - like changing training, combining players who work well together, coaching them in a certain way or building incentives, then they are failing at their particular job. Sometimes managers are pushed around by club owners for no reason, take Wayne Rooney who was shoehorned in to Birmingham City a little while ago - not because he has a great or skillful track record as a manager - but because "celebrity appeal" outweighed that fact. They actually shoved off a perfectly good manager and Rooney did not last long anyway.

Alright, so in regards to the question you just asked above, I'm here to say that a coach has 4 distinct duties, namely; to assess, to select, and to draw the game plan.

In details:
1). TO ASSESS: Because it is the duty of a coach to assess the strength and weaknesses of his/her opponent team or club whenever they have an intended game to play, so as to enable him determine the degree of training he is likely to undergo so as to enable him win the match..

2. TO SELECT: Because it is the duty of the coach to select players suitable to play a match depending on the degree of the strength or weakness of its opponent, weather to start from its best players or not, so as to enable them to win a match.

3. TO DRAW THE GAME PLAN: Because it is the duty of the coach to draw the game plan for the team to enable them to win a match, depending on what strategy he thinks is likely to work best for him.

E.t.c...

But in a general scenario, if a club fails to perform well, everybody blames the coach for his inability to foresee and select the right players for the right kind of match, and nothing more.

             -  I often see that situation in basketball: two in 1 position but on one duty. And you are also right in what you said, that when the performance of the coach is not good, the performance of the players is really affected.

It means that it depends on the coach whether the players he handles will win. Because if the performance that the coach gives to his players is good, the coach also boosts their trust or confidence that they will improve their performances even more.

When a coach is signed to a contract, of course there are several targets they give and a vision for the club in the future. If it doesn't meet the target, of course the coach will be kicked.
Players won't be stupid enough to fight the coach, even if they have to fight, maybe only 1-2 players will rebel. But in a club, good synergy is needed between players, coaches and staff.
Every match result is the coach's full responsibility as head. If a player underperforms, of course the coach will park him for several matches.

It's true. Also, part of the coach's job is to participate in the selection process of players who will be hired for the team. So, if the wrong players were picked to play for the team, it's part of his responsability as well, therefore when the club or national team is performing poorly, they have to fire this coach in order to bring another one who will help building a new team's configuration.

Technically, when a coach is replaced, some players are also replaced by the new coach, maybe due to their poor performance, or maybe due to them not fitting the new plans for the team. In some cases it can also be a financial decision, as some expensive players might not be worthing the price the team is spending with them, when compared to their performances. So this money can be invested in cheaper players, but who will averagely bring more consistent results for the team along the matches.

That is something well known.Before Mourinho I forgot which great player was at Bayern Munchen that got sacked by the players as they didn't want him as a coach so they intentionally lost games until he was fired.Players are very important pieces of the team and they decide a lot nowadays,if they are not happy with the coach then most likely it won't work for that team.I don't know if at Mourinho was the same situation but where I live now it is a common happening that players lose games consistently if they are not happy with the coach and I think this should be common procedure in man soccer leagues.

Firstly, even if you are right and the players are not on good terms with the coach, it is easier to change one coach than several players. Secondly, it rarely happens that players have a bad relationship with the coach for no reason, something must have happened. Regarding Mourinho, I recommend that you read his book, there are many points that show that he does not have a simple character and sometimes players can be understood.
It’s also worth noting that often we don’t know everything that’s going on inside the club.

This is not a case of mistake it is a case of having a poor run by a team. Of course, the coach is always blamed and they are right to sack a coach for players poor performance. If sheep are scattered all over the place who do you blame? The shepherd. This is likened to the football business. Coaches are always giving support to sign players they need to increase the performance of their team and after the support who do you blame for poor performance? It is the coach. The coach's inability to coordinate players and instil a good philosophy capable of improving the team`s performance is certainly a failure on the part of the coach.

Let us understand that a coach is employed to improve team performance and when the coach is not fulfilling this responsibility he will have to go to give way for another person who can lead and bring results to the team. In addition, players' performance are reflection of the coach's effectiveness. When the team is performing well, the coach takes glory and vice versa.

As a coach, you are hired/ your duty is to manage and put a team in order and that's why you are paid for and failure to do so, all blame will be put on you regardless if the players are performing so poor or not because it is still in your duty to feature and not feature a player in a given match, furthermore, it's still in your responsibilities to sell and buy a player of your choice should a player is no longer doing fine; Therefore, I don't see reasons why at the end of a game the manager won't be blamed for the poor performance of his team when it is a job his paid to do and have agreed in the beginning to handle.

It all depends.  Coaching absolutely matters in terms of player performance.  I've seen it time and time again no matter the sport that the same team with different coaches performs differently.  For me one of the key attributes to coaching is not individual performance but getting your team to play together and identifying and utilizing the strengths of the cohesive unit.  And not that it should be like this at the professional level but being able to motivate each player is on the coach to enhance as well.  So yeah if players don't play well sometimes it's on the coach.