A bit of a general update on the state of affairs at the Blues at the moment, and how I feel about things- hence the broadness of the title.
What sparked this was several things that kind of follow on from each other; firstly, on Saturday I went to watch us play Huddersfield at home and another lacklustre performance (one of many from the games I've seen) saw us lose 1-0. I'll pour into the scrutiny of the dreaded detail on that game later.
The performance from the players against Huddersfield led me to think about Lee Clark's position at the club. What worries me about him is that the players don't look motivated to play for him, not nearly as much so as Hughton, he doesn't seem to know his best team and he's very inexperienced. Any reasonable board of directors would seriously consider his position.
The subtle italication of the word 'reasonable' is done for an effect. At the moment, the financial situation at the club is very unstable- to say the least. Surely the main responsibility of the board, is a) to be prepared to invest money into the club and b) to let the fans know everything that's happening around the club, rather than just leaving them in the dark. Today I read an article on the Birmingham mail website (link) saying that it's now a question of when, and not if, the club will be sold to a consortium.
To be honest, I'm not sure quite what the source for the article was, because you'd think Pannu would be quoted if it was actually from an interview/press conference with him, so I think there's definately some investigation to be done and I'm annoyed that none of the owners have let the fans know what is happening off the pitch at the club.
I went into Saturdays' game feeling relatively confident. The team must surely have gotten over the horrific 5-0 home defeat to Barnsley, because the week afterwards we went to league leaders (as they were at the time) Brighton and won 1-0, plus keeping a clean sheet, and on Tuesday we lost narrowly 2-1 at Cardiff, with apparently a better performance than the one against Brighton according to some. We must have turned a corner.
Thinking that, inside the first minute, Huddersfield nearly scored. Curtis Davies was dragged out of position and James Vaughan, think it was Vaughan, turned Caldwell easily and slot wide when 1-on-1 with Butland. It was no better than the Barnsley game. Just same old stuff- you'd have thought we'd learnt to keep shape.
Despite having two good shots from Redmond, one hitting the post the other cleared off the line, we still hadn't learnt our mistakes at the back and a one-two counterattacking move from Huddersfield between Vaughan and Beckford allowed Beckford to tuck the ball past Butland with a simple finish from Vaughan's cross. The slightly worrying thing for me about that goal was that it didn't come to me as a shock- I half expected them to score. I could have forgiven Clark and the players much more easily if we were near the play-offs, put our heart and soul into this game and just had one of those days but it didn't really feel like that.
Jack Butland was forced to make two or three really good saves towards the end of the first half, from shots that originated from sloppy play from our point of view and just idly giving the ball away. It really wasn't good enough but it also wasn't the first time, from the matches I've seen this season, that we'd played as poorly as we did.
Quite early in the second half, Zigic got himself sent off after coming on as a sub at half-time. My, if you like, memory of opinion on that tackle was that it looked more mistimed than malicious, I certainly don't think he went out to intentionally hurt the Huddersfield player, it was just that how tall Zigic is meant that it takes him longer mentally to move his foot away. Then again, when you go into a challenge with your studs up you're always gonna be in trouble and he took that risk.
To be fair to the team, even with 10 men we didn't throw in the towel, and Wade Elliott's header right at the end nearly earnt as a point, but ultimately we only had ourselves to blame. If you don't concentrate and defend, and do the simple things well (like passing the ball) for the full 90 minutes, you will occassionally get punished. There were too many times on Saturday where the player with the ball didn't have options around him in space, as his teammates were almost- dare I say it- hiding behind their markers. It's just not a confidence instilling environment and the players didn't seem to want the ball, the player with the ball would be closed down too easily and we would lose it. I don't know how we expect to improve in this league if we can't pass the ball to each other, and like I say, this isn't the first time this season I've seen us play this badly.
This makes me really think about how much Clark deserves this opportunity to manage the club. Before I analyse things further, I have to say, generally speaking I'm anti-panic-button-manager-sacking. I think any manager normally needs at least a year to get to know the squad, work with them, bring in his own ideas, and having a manager in place for the long-term creates an ethos, a positive atmosphere, of trust and loyalty.
You only have to look at the most successful, well-regarded managers and a lot of them have been the ones who have had the most time: Ferguson, Wenger, Moyes. I'd even be inclined to argue that Roberto Mancini has taken three seasons to win the title at Manchester City- that's taken a bit of stability in conjunction with the club's financial power. In none of these cases were the clubs particularly great when the manager took over, but the time they had been given allowed the manager to achieve success. The reason Chelsea haven't won the league as often as they'd have liked despite their resources, must be because they've had far too many managers in too little time, most managers at Chelsea Abramovich would sack if they don't win the title one season. That's stupid. You think sacking a manager because they don't win the league one year will make it more likely they'll win it the next? With a completely new manager and a whole new system? My own general opinion is, clubs and players need stability.
However, Lee Clark does make me reevaluate my general point of view on the amount of time managers get. There's a flip side to it. What also made Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton and maybe Man City so successful was that they genuinely did and do have great managers. Surely the actual quality of the manager is a variable as well that stipulates success, not merely just the amount of time they get.
Let's be frank... there's nothing that Lee Clark has done so far at the club that suggests he's a good manager, or added anything to the general confidence of the team since Hughton left. Maybe Hughton being such a good manager, it's a case of 'hard act to follow' and I'm associating/comparing Clark's lack of ability with how brilliant Hughton was.
I have to say though, having thought about the Huddersfield games amongst others, we're simply not playing with anywhere near the amount of confidence and motivation we did under Hughton and you've got to question: how could such a good, energetic Championship team last season, with so little changes to the squad, become such a poor and semi-apathetic Championship team, so quickly? It has to be to do with the manager. Otherwise, what's the difference?
What really worries me is that the players didn't look as though they wanted the ball against Huddersfield, they just didn't seem to be playing with any confidence. You could say that a lack of confidence comes from the uncertainty at the top, but in many ways situation regarding the boardroom is no different to how it was last season when we had the confidence to go to places like Millwall and win 6-0. The other main factor influencing confidence is the manager, it's the manager's job to instil confidence in the players. Arguably also the fans, but then it becomes a bit of a vicious circle because the players aren't giving the fans confident enough performances to give the fans confidence, to in turn give the team confidence. You have to say here, the blame lies mainly with the manager.
The other thing that worries me about Clark is the rumours of alcoholism that I've heard. I can't boast much reliability on the source front because it's from a friend who had been on the Huddersfield fans forum, coming across whispers saying that the reason Clark got the sack at Huddersfield was because of his drink problem. I don't really know anything else, but it just worries me in a niggly sort of way because it fits perfectly. At the time he was sacked, the Terriers were on, I think, 49-game unbeaten run or something like that. I'm pretty sure they were either in or near the automatic promotion places. It makes no sense, and the only existing potential reason he could have been sacked is him having an alcohol problem. For the moment though, I'm going to take the 'absense of evidence is not evidence of absense' line. I.e. just because we don't know of any other reason why he could have been sacked, doesn't necessarily mean it was that he is an alcoholic. It's not a rumour that exactly inspires confidence, though, you have to say.
With the board at Blues, I feel very uncomfortable about the whole situation. I've seen an article on the Birmingham Mail website (here's the link). What I personally don't get, is the first line of the article is: "it is now a case of when, and not if, Birmingham City FC is sold."
You've got to question- according to who?? There are no quotes in it, which you'd assume there would be if it was from a press conference or an interview that Peter Pannu did. I don't know if I'm the only person thinking this, but where do they get this information from?? It doesn't specifically say.
I find it infuriating really, how little many fans know about the situation. My understanding is Carson Yeung's accounts have been blocked for legal reasons, I think related to the suspicion of money laundering (hiding the source of illegally taken money), and so he hasn't been able to pump money into the club.
Although I have to say I don't know an awful lot about how finances within football and business work, I could initially forgive Carson Yeung if he's innocent on that front. But then, you've got to question it because as a genuine, honest, innocent chairman that wants the best for the club, my first thought would be to let the fans know everything about the situation, rather than leave us so much in the dark. If he's not going to contact the club, apologise and make an attempt to put things right, then his motives for becoming chairman in the first place have got to be questioned.
And now there's apparently, according to the article, several consortiums looking to takeover the club, none of which are 'known', but then that's a bit of a problem with the information cycle. How could anyone 'know', that there are several consortiums interested but no-one 'knows' who the consortiums are. It's like... did the consortiums ring the club up with a withheld number? Someone would have to know, at some length, who the consortiums are to know that they are interested in the first place! And if they, presumably the current owners do, why don't they tell the fans about what's happening? And if they aren't prepared to tell the fans what's happening off the pitch, then surely you've got to question whether they've got the clubs best interests at heart.
Phew, tell you what, I'm in luck if they're auditioning for a new series of Poirot.
As always, would be interested to know what you guys think about the situation at blues, either in terms of clark or off the pitch in the boardroom, so do leave a comment after the beep and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
No comments:
Post a Comment