Topic: Why do coaches get sacked over poor performance of players? - page 4. (Read 759 times)

The reasons are, they are the ones who know a player's fitness and capabilities and how to feature them in a match and their best played-in position.
2. They ought to know the performance of a player, whether they will fit in a match or be kept on a bench.
3. They are the ones who give out the formation to use to play against any team and the changes of players. So, they take full responsibility of the club and report to the owners of the club on which player to be signed or sold out because of performance

Coaches are hired to train, monitor and create strategies utilizing the ability of the player.  Often important calls are made by the coach by selecting who to get in and out of the game, especially in crucial moments. So if the team performs poorly, it is the coach who is reprimanded because he failed to utilize the best strategy for the team or missed important calls that are needed to keep the team going.

This article[1] explains the responsibilities of a coach and might help us understand why the coach get sacked when his team performs poorly.

---

[1] WHAT DOES A COACH DO?

Coach is not just a word,it was the emotion to the team which made the trophy because of the Coach.In many team the coach was the captain of the ship,they know the complete behaviour of the team.So he decided to take the decision of which player use to play on the particular day.But the negative one was he was also blamed if the team had loss the game because of the loss of team game.


Actually it’s not the work of the coach,but he should take responsibility to check each player in the good chemistry.Specially if the player was in the different options,he should give the rest to one person and keep the other to play the game.If two was in good chemistry,it was essential for the coach to available slot for both the player in that game to get the desired output.

It happens to every coach, especially when a coach is in charge, when the coach's students perform poorly, the entire blame is placed on the coach. Brazil's defeat in the last World Cup was entirely blamed on the coach. This forced the Brazilian coach to resign later. Moreover, every coach wants his team to perform well under him and his team to survive in the competition, so it is not uncommon for the coach to feel bad if a student performs poorly in the game.

Yes, we have found many stories so far, such as what happened to Mourinho, the wishes and targets of club management that cannot be fulfilled by the team often become a problem that ends in dismissal, I think the team's poor performance is not entirely the coach fault, but we certainly know that The coach is the main person responsible for the team, because the coach is paid to form the team framework, determine the main squad, develop strategies, training patterns and even the coach has control over player transfer, so that when management has met all the coach needs but does not achieve maximum results, of course he will be fired and that be the end of the coach journey in clubs, but I think,  of all the reasons for dismissals in football most of these dismissals actually occur due to disharmony between management and coaches and players, so that in the end the coach will be the victim, just like Mourinho who did not get full support from the club owner so that in the end he was fired aside from Roma declining performance so far.

Totally lots of factors would be considered out if ever a coach is being fired and we know that these things could be having an exemption specially if their coach is the owner of such team of course on which there's no way that it could be fire but if they are just that those someone who has been hired then of course if the management or owner itself does sees that the current coach
didnt give out that considerable overall performance of the team then high chances that it would really be fired out. Yes, it isnt always be taking out the blame into the coach
but we know that when it comes to planning and other things on which the coach do hold up those crucial things on which it is something that a main
factor for a team to win up.

Well, what you must know is that there are usually top people who form a club and also invest in the club because they also expect good benefits from their club, and the good benefits they expect will only come when their club performances are usually good in different fixtures and when the coach of the club is able to train and make up good players, win different games and becomes relevant enough in their position.

The coach of every football club did not just become a coach based on their own powers. They were appointed as coaches by the club owners, and catches don't just get sacked unnecessarily; before they are sacked, they must have either had repeated failures or poor performances in matches.

Take, for example, if you have a company and some employees working for you and they are not doing their job properly, then there would be a need to sack them. Players alone cannot really cause a coach to be sacked, because it may not be possible unless there is really any good reason for such a thing to commence.

It's understandable why do coaches get replaced when players start performing poorly, and it's only possible for the players to unite and risk their career to lose the reputation of coach which will affect the clubs profits so for a owner building a new team with that coach or just changing the coach retaining their star players then the later option is easier so they simply chose the second one and let the coaches hang in dry even if they didn't do anything wrong.

This sounds like an interesting question I must confess. But if you reason the matter very well, you will understand that the answer to your question is not far fetched. I will try to use the second paragraph of this post to try and explain something to you concerning your question, but I don't know if it will make sense to you.

Take the coach of a team as a bus driver and take the players as the passengers. It is the coach that is responsible for driving the bus to the desired destination and not the passengers. If any passenger misbehaves, the coach as the power to alight that passenger and continue his journey. This is the reason why the driver is fired when the bus miss route and not the passengers.

Whenever you see that a new coach has been signed, you should know that there is a contract and that contract is full of conditions that must be fulfilled if the coach want to remain in that club. Some contract can come with having at least a domestic league trophy to be able to remain in a club, winning atleast Champions league for the club within two season of your contract, winning other top Europa League trophies and many more, so don't get caught by the drama between clubs and players or coach in particular when you see they have been sack or relieved from their jobs.

Mourinho is a legend with many trophies won for many clubs but since he joined Roma in 2021, he hasn't win anything for that club and it might be the reason why the club was upset and sack him. It might also be possible that his was about to be sent off but because of his performance last season, he was given another chance this season and after they see no green light, they fired him immediately, these are just my theory, there could be more than what is not release to the public.

I don't think it happens, especially in the bigger leagues, because besides the coach being fired when the team performs poorly, the players also get a lot of rage, criticism and have their values as players evaluated in a negative way by the industry. Nobody wants a saboteur player in their teams. It's anti-ethical, anti-professional and anti-sporty. Players know about it, and will try avoiding getting this bad reputation as much as possible, so I definitely don't think they would play intentionally poorly to prejudice a coach they dislike.

At same time, a coach being fired doesn't mean the end of his career. Maybe it just means he didn't fit well the team he was hired to lead, but could work very efficiently with another team, composed by another players who match his workstyle and even his personality as leader. People to work together have to have connection in order to succeed and make the final results satisfactory.

I believe it makes sense to fire the coach if the performance of the whole team is need bad and there is no excuse for him to continue to train them, though the whole performance of the team is not the same as individual performance of some player who as an spike on the shoulder against the coach. It should not be possible for the coach to be blamed or fired over the bad attitude of one or two players, it is kind of the behavior we would expect from spoiled children instead grown up adults and sport professionals.
On the other hand, if the whole team underperformed and declared to the owners of the club about the trainer/coach not being good enough for the job, then that would be acceptable. I have always had the perception coaches are part of the team as well, they are like an invisible player during the matches, still present, though.

On the case of the point of view of fans of football, it is easier to blame coaches than their favorite players, though, obviously a fan blaming a coach won't cause the resignation or the coach being fired. Otherwise, coaches would rotate pretty often for all teams. 

Coaches have control over the team- they are the master of techniques and plans in which every member of the team must follow. They also control on how each member of the team will play their respective role and position during the game. Additionally, coaches have the responsibility to control each of the members of the team and assign them a respective position in which the players should follow.

If a coach also cannot handle the players and the expectation on the team that they are handling, naturally, the blame will be on them. Sure, there may be other factors that play a role on it (e.g. poor performance of the players, etc.) but if the coach does not live to his responsibility, the ultimate fault will be on him no matter how fortunate the situation may be.

Personally, I do think that firing a coach outright is not ideal. There should be some sort of metric system in order to determine if the said coach has been underperforming or not.

The main problem will be how to prove that the players intentionally underperformed because they want the coach to be sacked. Except you have concrete evidence, maybe from discussions or videos it will be difficult to determine when players are intentionally not giving their best.

Anyway, when players gang up against a coach it is very difficult for that coach to survive except remedial measures are put in place. It is usually easier to sack coaches and to send prayers packing and some players are too powerful that club management will prefer them to remain than for the coach to stay. Players like Ronaldo, Mbappé, Messi, Osimhen, etc can easily dictate to management the kind of coach they want in the club.

In the case of Jose Mourinho, he is always making excuses for his failure. Each time he loses a match he would blame the referee and players. And he would always have someone to play for his sack. He is a human and not above failure, he has to learn to accept his fate in good faith and move on with his legendary coaching career.

i have played a bit of local football during my stay in high school and so I have a little experience on the role of coaches in a team. If the coach isn't able to coordinate the players well, it will affect the outcome of the game seriously.

Their are several instances when we will even play against a stronger team but because we know the kind of coach we have and how he will discipline us if we perform below his expectation, everyone will bring out the best in his game and give it a fair fight till the end of the game. But that being said, the players are the ones that do the main job on the field of play and if the loose, it's suppose to be normal for that they get the blame but the reality is that if they consistently loose in consecutive matches the coach gets the sack in most cases.

The thing is that the dimension of punishment given to the players and the coaches are different. If a player continuously played below expecion, he can be placed on the bench and a replacement court out for immediately. But what happens when a coach isn't meeting up with the contract requirement? Do you place him on the bench and allow the players train themselves or sack him and bring someone you feel can blend well with the players?

There's a saying that players win games coaches lose them and that's what the management follows on the theory of team management, the coaches are responsible for motivating their players and giving them specific roles and what to do, if the coaches fail to do they usually are the first to get sacked but there are players who are also get sacked or traded because of their performance, but if the overall performance of the team the coaches are the one who gets the ax.

I believe that both parties should be blamed for their poor performance, but the management will always see the potential and skill of the players more than the technical know-how of the coaches, which is why they get all the blame, for the team getting better and perform to the highest level they should have equal responsibility and duty to the management that pay their salary.

This ending of Mourinho's Roma stint raises questions about professional sports culture. Dismissing a coach seems like a bandage to a greater problem. Blaming the navigator for the ship's improper turn ignores the crew's steering. It seems flawed to solve team difficulties this way.

Im surprised players would risk their careers to fire a coach. This idea questions my beliefs about professional honesty and sports competition. Is coach hatred so strong that it drowns out ambition and team loyalty? Such a breakdown in the player-coach connection is worrying. It affects not only the players but also the sport's integrity.

Unjust to make the coach fully responsible in such cases. The complicated relationships, motivations, and obligations of a team are ignored. I believe great leadership demands both respect and effort to navigate these issues. Firing coaches as a first option undermines this principle and promotes blame rather than responsibility and growth.

I'm actually not a fan of As Roma so I don't pay much attention to information about them, but I know that Mourinho is a great coach and has a lot of experience, therefore if he fails as a coach it won't be possible, unless the players are difficult to manage and don't play well. I don't think that a player can betray the coach and deliberately lose every match, it seems unreasonable how they can do that when they have to show the quality of their club in front of all their supporters, if it was intentional it sounds a bit strange in my opinion.

I didn't read the news completely. If Mourinho felt betrayed by his players, it's clear that it's not Mourinho who feels aggrieved, but the club. If the defeat was intentional, of course they would definitely be embarrassed by their fans. I think this might just be an ordinary failure. In fact, there's no need to change the coach. if perhaps he feels like he has failed with bad results, Mourinho should be able to accept it even though it hurts because he was fired as coach of As Roma. BTW, don't just because As Roma won the match in the last few matches, people speculate that there was an accident on the part of the players, even though it was As Roma. against a bottom club which is easy for them to beat, their next test will be against Inter Milan.

The coach is in charge of the team, and this is why when the players performance is that bad, coaches will be blamed for it. If players can decide to put in a poor performance so that the coach can get sacked is something that must be looked into. One thing that I understand is that when you no longer have a good relationship with the players anymore, it can lead to such.

It is the work of the coach to see that the players are in a good relationship with each other, and with him the coach, so that whatever he tells them, they will listen to him and they will try to do everything withing their capacity to make sure that they make him proud. It is the same with a player that is not in a good form, he will be sold out from the club.

If the players play to lose intentionally just to get the coach voted out, then all players who are involved in that deserve to be punished, but whereas there has been an underperformance in the game due to how the coach placed the players and suggestions for reformation have been made, yet the coach decides to keep doing what he thinks is best for the club and it gives the team a negative result, then I see no bad thing in getting the coach out of the team.
 
Some clubs can be filled with good players whose potential is yet to be discovered due to how the coach of the club has been biassed in decision-making. For such a club or team to flourish, they will need to get the coach out. There have been a few occasions where a club starts seeing green light and immediately gets their coach replaced.