If The Players Finally Pull Their Fingers Out......

[playon]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-before-sacking/story-e6frexnr-1226094937067
A Bulldogs insider told me a number of players had approached board members - and that the coach had lost the dressing room.

He (moore) was unaware that at least three players had been to directors to complain about his coaching, poor results and poor communication.

Yesterday afternoon, just half an hour before the team was due to train, Moore rang Greenberg at the Crowne Plaza. "I'm outta here," he said. "There's no point in continuing."

Greenberg insists it was Moore's decision to go immediately. It's understood he discovered he'd lost the senior players. That was enough. His time was up.

 

[B-Train]

My theory is that the players didnt agree with Moore nor did they agree with the way he chose certain players.

Moore plays favourites and is far from fair on many occasions. Why for example is Mickey Paea not back in the side and Warburton called up? Why is Hodgson consistently in the side despite proving nothing? Players like Paea and Sam Kasiano have to play far better than Hodgson and Warburton to even warrant a mention.

If the players want to get rid of a coach its simple, don't perform on the field and get the coach sacked. It's the coach's job to instil confidence and faith in his players and its the coach's job to prevent this form of mutiny, our performances have been laughable to the point it seems obvious they want to lose.

Moore exhibited stubbornness, inability to respond to change and persisted with more of the same of his outdated tactics and the players responded by dishing up the same performances week in week out. It seems unlikely Moore even listened to his players bar a select few. I have never seen our team play like they should bar the Parra game where they decided to throw the game plan out the window and throw the ball around every given chance

Again, that's the point. If we have a bunch of players who tried to get their coach sacked by "not performing" and who "seem like they want to lose" then don't we have massive problems with this group of players? Even if the players didn't want him as a coach and were fed up, to basically tank the middle third of the season is completely disrespecting the game and the fans.

 

[Rodzilla]

i agree with btrain, it would be an insult to moore if the players dominate the game and play how moore actually intended for them to play

he would be feeling betrayed

 

[Abdul..]

Of course KM would feel betrayed if the team suddenly performs. Having said that, what did KM do to stop the rot? Certainly didn't motivate them and prepare them correctly week in week out.

 

[bert]

Your point is not valid. The very best sportsman, individual or teams, have coaches. Because humans are not machines and need to be motivated to achieve their best. Some require intrinsic motivation, others extrinsic.

The best coaches like Bennett & Gibson knew this and were able to connect with their players to get the best from each one.

Likewise a coach can also have a demotivating effect on his players and team.

This !

 

[bert]

Of course KM would feel betrayed if the team suddenly performs. Having said that, what did KM do to stop the rot? Certainly didn't motivate them and prepare them correctly week in week out.

This !

 

[dogkat]

As nearly every group of players does once there is a coaching change in any sport in any competition anywhere in the world, well then wouldn't that be the ultimate slap in the face to the fans and just show how we have the wrong culture and set of players at our club for allowing things to get so bad in the first place?

As stupid as this sounds, it'd almost be a better sign for the club if the performances were similar to what they have been for a few weeks. Because there is no way on earth Dymock's coaching could have any impact in less than a week. So should we win this week and start a winning streak from this point, then that'd be even more concerning for me. It'd just confirm my suspicions that we have a group of players who are like too many pro athletes everywhere else. They just coast week in week out just to get a pay check and don't actually take any pride in their own performance and effort or take losing seriously enough.

And I don't think I'm alone in thinking we have quite a few of those players at this club. So, again as stupid as this sounds, I'd take it as even more of an insult and be even more angered if we all of a sudden started realising our potential and playing brilliantly, because then we'd know for sure the players have just been taking the piss.

I agree with you btrain. It would potentially suggest that some players could do better but had chosen not to. One day under Dymock would not make any change at all to their style of play.

The coach has done the 'proper' thing and resigned (not that he wanted to). If things don't improve, will the players do the 'proper' thing and ask to be put in to park footy??? Of course not, that never happens.

 

[B-Train]

What decent player with a shred of pride or self respect would need a coach to motivate them to win?

Moore's tactics were poor and he didn't have the 17 players playing anywhere near a team but to suggest that one of the main jobs as a coach is to motivate the players to want to win and try hard is ludicrous.

 

[B-Train]

I agree with you btrain. It would potentially suggest that some players could do better but had chosen not to. One day under Dymock would not make any change at all to their style of play.

The coach has done the 'proper' thing and resigned (not that he wanted to). If things don't improve, will the players do the 'proper' thing and ask to be put in to park footy??? Of course not, that never happens.

Exactly right! Well put. "They could have done better but had chosen not to". That would mean that players were virtually sabotaging games by consciously not performing or putting in the required effort.

 

[Rodzilla]

What decent player with a shred of pride or self respect would need a coach to motivate them to win?

absolutely, there should be automatic 100% effort

its like if there is a fight on the field making the team fire up and wake up (sort of like the parramatta game), then you should ask where was the effort before the fight

in conclusion, the team should always play like the coach has been fired or the team have just been in a punch up

 

[Rodzilla]

Exactly right! Well put. "They could have done better but had chosen not to". That would mean that players were virtually sabotaging games by consciously not performing or putting in the required effort.

i dont think its a chosen thing, but a lazy unconscious thing

 

[Kratos]

Well there are no excuses tonight, they either perform or it wasn't the coach. Very interested to see how the players respond

 

[B-Train]

absolutely, there should be automatic 100% effort

its like if there is a fight on the field making the team fire up and wake up (sort of like the parramatta game), then you should ask where was the effort before the fight

Yeah exactly. You can understand lapses here and there and the odd poor game but for this to happen for the majority of two seasons then of course the coach is a problem but the players should be held accountable to a large degree also.

i dont think its a chosen thing, but a lazy unconscious thing

Either way, it isn't acceptable when it's happened for two years. These players should be ashamed. Again, I think Moore's time was up, but now the players have no scapegoat and no one else to blame. One of Moore's biggest flaws was not putting the players on notice enough and allowing them to get away with murder by not lambasting them. But in saying that, the players shouldn't be like a bunch of school kids trying to push the limits and see just how much they can get away with. Either they want to do everything they can to help the team win and themselves be part of a victory or they don't. Obviously we have a lot of players who don't.

 

[suiker]

I really don't know what to expect from the boys tonight.

If true about senior players trying to get rid of Moore, then I expect them to play well. Then again... if Ennis doesn't play? I really don't know. We're directionless without him.

Add the unpredictability of the Warriors and this game is just a giant question mark.

 

[Abdul..]

We all live in nirvana and put in 100% all the time. As I am right now. Whilst I am meant to be working for my employer.

 

[B-Train]

We all live in nirvana and put in 100% all the time. As I am right now. Whilst I am meant to be working for my employer.

No, what you're saying is that there is no onus on the players in regards to effort and it is up to the coach to motivate the player to try and want to win.

 

[Abdul..]

Are you serious? Of course a coach has an effect on confidence and motivation.

Where exactly did I state that there is no onus on the player?

I will repeat. A coach has an effect on confidence and motivation. Effect, not solely responsible.

 

[w00t]

Again, that's the point. If we have a bunch of players who tried to get their coach sacked by "not performing" and who "seem like they want to lose" then don't we have massive problems with this group of players? Even if the players didn't want him as a coach and were fed up, to basically tank the middle third of the season is completely disrespecting the game and the fans.

Yes its true but there's always two sides of this. The players can't very well tell the board to sack the coach for no reason, looking at Moore at every post match conference as well as his questionable selection policy its entirely understandable why the players would want him gone

If they performed a heap of credit would be given to Moore and his position would be secure, if they didn't it'd heap a lot of pressure on Moore and eventually force him out. I don't always think it'd cause massive problems, better this than have what Mason and SBW did and force us into the Wooden Spoon in 2008, our best players fed up with the coach decided to just leave themselves leaving a gaping hole in the club.

It's not the best method but it probably is the only method that would've worked.

 

[w00t]

Exactly right! Well put. "They could have done better but had chosen not to". That would mean that players were virtually sabotaging games by consciously not performing or putting in the required effort.

The player's voice is in performance in a game...

What else could the players have done if they wanted Moore gone? Moore definitely had attitude problems and a great deal of stubbornness. Now im definitely not agreeing with this way of voicing it, but if the team did perform adequately and Moore maintained his attitude the situation would've eventually worsened

 

[w00t]

What decent player with a shred of pride or self respect would need a coach to motivate them to win?

Moore's tactics were poor and he didn't have the 17 players playing anywhere near a team but to suggest that one of the main jobs as a coach is to motivate the players to want to win and try hard is ludicrous.

Thing is certain players did try and others eventually got fed up like Morris due to lack of the footy going towards them. Our backs a lot of the time were out there catching a cold because our forwards provided no second phase play while Hodkinson and Keating decided to ball hog 90% of the time