Managerial Discipline?

[lenny3k 505]

The one place they should NEVER turn to is the press/media.....

 

There is only one aim when a player goes to the media and thats for the manager job to be put under scrutiny. Players know that when that happens there is usually only really one way it goes and tends to leads to rumours that dressing rooms are split when in reality, there is possibly only one player with a problem. I don't doubt actual dressing rooms splits are sometimes only created because of a media story of one that is non-existent.

[pete 2,499]

There is only one aim when a player goes to the media and thats for the manager job to be put under scrutiny. Players know that when that happens there is usually only really one way it goes and tends to leads to rumours that dressing rooms are split when in reality, there is possibly only one player with a problem. I don't doubt actual dressing rooms splits are sometimes only created because of a media story of one that is non-existent.

 

This did go on for a while though with Niko calling him a fake and O'Halloran saying his training was too easy. Normally I would say that was sour grapes but it is funny how we die in the second half in most games.

I guess we will have to wait for Kenny Miller's book to get the real story from his side at least.

[JohnMc 2,482]

I agree, which is why I said you were more than entitled to do so!

 

 

 

I agree results were not good enough -- I stated so -- but results have nothing to do with the disciplinary problem, perceived or otherwise. It should be kept in-house, but surely the fact that it was not suggests there is a problem, or at least an issue worthy of discussion? Highlighting a perceived disciplinary issue in no way negates the fact that PC was a failure.

 

It's worthy of discussion, that's what we're doing. My contention is there isn't a discipline problem, there was a management problem. The OP stated pretty clearly he felt there was a discipline problem at Rangers in his opening post and why weren't players being punished.

 

 

I think it's quite common for a player out of contention to be sent to train (a) on their own, or (b) with the reserves/youths. I've seen several instances of it.

 

No, being sent to train with the youths or on your own is a punishment. A player being dropped for form reasons is kept in the 1st team squad. An assistant manager or coach is tasked with building the player back up, either through tough love or encouragement or one on one training. That's how it works at almost every club.

 

A quick google search suggests Miller has had issues in the past: he's asked to leave several clubs; he threatened to quit Them -- not too bad... --; he had a bust up with Dave Jones at Wolves because he wasn't playing; and there was a story about Miller being annoyed at being dropped by MW. Of course, that is contrasted with several glowing reviews about his professionalism and leadership. But, it's not "never".

 

Again, just because he was a "poor manager" doesn't mean there wasn't a disciplinary problem, or at least an issue. It's not specific to PC. The OP was suggesting a wider problem not specific to even Rangers.

 

I only responded because I felt you were trying to criticise PC again, when, IMO, he's not done too much wrong. The only criticism necessary is that results were not good enough. I would expect, and would demand, a manager to drop a player and removes them from the team if they are a disruptive influence. I don't want players that think they are bigger than the club.

 

Look at what actually happened with Miller. After another poor performance against Celtic there were reports in the media that the club had held a meeting with all the players and apparently PC had criticised the UK ones and given Dorrans in particular a hard time for giving Miller the captain's armband when he came on. Is that the kind of thing that should make its way into the papers? No, it shouldn't. At the same time is it the kind of thing the manager should have said after the Celtic game? It struck me as totally missing the issues the team had. He then dropped Miller and sent him with the youths to London. The clear insinuation was he blamed Miller for the story. He might even have been correct, who knows. So all of a sudden the support are blaming Miller for undermining the manager, for disrupting the dressing room and for the dark nights. But there is still no evidence that a. the story was wrong or b. that Miller was the source of it. It was a further 3 weeks before before Miller's agent expressed his anger that his client was being blamed for something he said he didn't do and being punished by the club for it. Is that ill-discipline or frustration at bad management?

 

Now if the incident with Miller was a one off it could be written off as a clash for which there can only be one winner; the manager. But it wasn't a one off, Pedro was falling out with players, the media and with opposition managers with incredible regularity.

 

There's no actual evidence we've a discipline problem.

[JohnMc 2,482]

so which parts do you know for a fact are totally false???

 

Krancjar is always injured & has struggled with fitness from day 1

Wallace is injured & John has been playing better

Miller was playing terribly

MOH has struggled to get a regular game since day 1

McKay couldn't agree a new contract

Hill's contract ended

Halliday is of a lower standard than Jack/Dorrans/Rossiter (when fit)/Holt, so unlikely to get many games

 

The only made up bit was the actions that I suggested they had taken....and the only info we have about ANY of the incidents has generally been through the media & "sources inside the club". Look at all the media attention surrounding the KM stuff - can you honestly say that didn't affect his situation at the club in a positive way??? PC is sacked & KM walks straight into the starting 11, wearing the captains armband....

 

I don't know what to say Darthter, you want me to provide evidence to refute stuff you made up! I don't know how to do that, should I make it up too?

 

What I'll say is this. The fact Miller was made captain last weekend suggests Murty, the first team coaches and the board of directors felt he deserved it. That suggests to me they believed his version of events or at least had sympathy for how he was treated. These people aren't stupid, if they were angry at Miller and held him culpable he'd never have got the armband. They're on the inside, they know what actually happened.

[JohnMc 2,482]

A lot of really good points have been made in this thread and I'm enjoying the debate.

 

There is however no question that we have a discipline problem. We have allowed a player to criticise the manager (via his agent) in the press and we have been perceived to back the player and not the manager. Equally however, PC should not have criticised MOH either in the press. He is a clever man and no doubt had his rationale for that, but it was wrong. These are absolutely fundamental problems in building a high performing team.

 

It's amazing to me that some football clubs like our own are so poor at team building and what that means. We spend millions on the players and manager and then undermine much of the good work by allowing certain behaviours to develop. PC should have been told that under no circumstances EVER should he criticise any players in public. Equally, Miller should have been shown the door at the same time as the manager. We had an opportunity to make a statement about keeping issues in the dressing room, but we made a mess of it, and this will only develop further into a wider problem.

 

This is where the board needs to step in and assert its authority. We can't allow this perception of players being allowed to criticise the manager in public (or vice versa) when they're upset. I think it was JohnMc that rightly mentioned the PLG era. He wasn't successful, but we also screwed up then by backing Ferguson and McGregor instead of the manager. The manager was (as PC is now) guilty of not getting results, but there was no excuse for the players undermining his authority.

 

This behaviour just disgusts me, and I find it hard (or impossible) to support a player who does that. It's like a cancer in the club and we need to offload him, and any other dissenters asap. Players will always have issues and in a club of 20+ seniors players, they won't all be happy. That's fine, but it's what they do about it that makes the difference. I'm sure many of the Celtic players are unhappy about not playing, but if they spoke out they'd be out. Someone (again I think JohnMc) said that if the manager had been successful he could have sent Miller packing without criticism. I think that's true, but I don't think it matters. If anyone underminded one of my leadership team members, even if that leader was underperforming, that person would be out immediately and I'd get more support for the under-performer. Under performing is something that can be addressed. Bad behaviour is like a cancer and just needs to be cut out.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Murty had left Miller out. Would Miller just keep quiet in the press, etc. Unlike many people (including his agent), I don't regard Miller as a model professional. Far from it.

 

Okay. Why do you think Murty didn't leave Miller out? Why do you think the Director of Football didn't instruct him to leave him out? Why do you think Stewart Robertson didn't instruct him to leave Miller out? Indeed why do you think he was given the captain's armband? You have to assume that was done with the full knowledge of everyone who matters at the club? Could it be that we're rotten from the top down, spineless and cowed by one player nearing the end of his career? Or do you think they actually thought Miller was badly treated and that Pedro was at fault?

 

Miller didn't speak out. Miller took his 'punishment' without comment. It took three weeks before his agent complained, whether with Miller's blessing or not we can only assume he did. But he made it clear he'd no issue with being dropped for poor form, but was unhappy at being banished for apparently speaking to the press.

 

If an experienced member of your team feels they are being unjustly treated by their manager, how long do you think they should keep quiet about it for, particularly if they feel they're being ignored when they do raise it?

[Darthter 542]

It's worthy of discussion, that's what we're doing. My contention is there isn't a discipline problem, there was a management problem. The OP stated pretty clearly he felt there was a discipline problem at Rangers in his opening post and why weren't players being punished.

 

No I never....It was a general observation of the game in general & that players appear to be wielding too much power, not allowing managers to enforce discipline effectively.

 

 

No, being sent to train with the youths or on your own is a punishment. A player being dropped for form reasons is kept in the 1st team squad. An assistant manager or coach is tasked with building the player back up, either through tough love or encouragement or one on one training. That's how it works at almost every club.

 

The punishment is deemed by the manager....if he thinks it's suitable to drop the player from the 1st team squad, then so be it.

 

 

Look at what actually happened with Miller. After another poor performance against Celtic there were reports in the media that the club had held a meeting with all the players and apparently PC had criticised the UK ones and given Dorrans in particular a hard time for giving Miller the captain's armband when he came on. Is that the kind of thing that should make its way into the papers? No, it shouldn't. At the same time is it the kind of thing the manager should have said after the Celtic game? It struck me as totally missing the issues the team had. He then dropped Miller and sent him with the youths to London. The clear insinuation was he blamed Miller for the story. He might even have been correct, who knows. So all of a sudden the support are blaming Miller for undermining the manager, for disrupting the dressing room and for the dark nights. But there is still no evidence that a. the story was wrong or b. that Miller was the source of it. It was a further 3 weeks before before Miller's agent expressed his anger that his client was being blamed for something he said he didn't do and being punished by the club for it. Is that ill-discipline or frustration at bad management?

 

Now if the incident with Miller was a one off it could be written off as a clash for which there can only be one winner; the manager. But it wasn't a one off, Pedro was falling out with players, the media and with opposition managers with incredible regularity.

 

There's no actual evidence we've a discipline problem.

 

The armband thing....for all we know, that could have been directly against PC's instructions. PC maybe wanted Dorran's to remain captain, but Miller told GD to hand it over. IF that were the case, you then have a player disobeying direct instructions & doing what the PLAYER deems best, not the manager. That could lead to a very heated discussion on the matter....

 

As for what followed....any "facts" or info appeared to come from the players camp - PC said virtually zero on the matter other than whether KM was in the squad or not. The whole molehill was constructed by the media...but where did the media get their info???

[der Berliner 3,272]

I don't know what to say Darthter, you want me to provide evidence to refute stuff you made up! I don't know how to do that, should I make it up too?

 

What I'll say is this. The fact Miller was made captain last weekend suggests Murty, the first team coaches and the board of directors felt he deserved it. That suggests to me they believed his version of events or at least had sympathy for how he was treated. These people aren't stupid, if they were angry at Miller and held him culpable he'd never have got the armband. They're on the inside, they know what actually happened.

 

The chap who decides who gets the armband on the day is - AFAIK - the manager. I doubt there is much talk between the players or some democracy going on. Perhaps people may utter their comments, but I reckon the gaffer decides. Unless I am mistaken, Miller has coached the development sides alongside Murty since Warburton. Miller sure has bags of experience and Murty sure respects him. Will he know all about what went on between Miller and PC (did the two had a few talks "in private")? There is so much we don't know that saying who's correct and who isn't becomes rather spongy. A few "old bulls" will sure tell a young chap like Murty a few things and I reckon Murty will heed their advice, even if not 100%. And I also reckon that the "Scottish bulls'" words will have a greater impact too. That is almost natural and probably not too wrong. We have to wait and see though whether e.g. a Miller will keep his form of last week and if not, whether he still retains his place. If so, one actually MAY conclude that after what happened to Barton and now also PC, that there is a cabal of players who wield enough power to oust people, a cabal that does not take it well if they are told in no uncertain terms that they are not good enough. No doubt the latter idea will be ridiculed, and perhaps rightly so. But can anyone say for sure that this ain't the case? I think not.

 

We'll have to wait and see how Murty will handle the task at hand and may come to a better understanding of the problems thus far.

[Darthter 542]

I don't know what to say Darthter, you want me to provide evidence to refute stuff you made up! I don't know how to do that, should I make it up too?

 

What I'll say is this. The fact Miller was made captain last weekend suggests Murty, the first team coaches and the board of directors felt he deserved it. That suggests to me they believed his version of events or at least had sympathy for how he was treated. These people aren't stupid, if they were angry at Miller and held him culpable he'd never have got the armband. They're on the inside, they know what actually happened.

 

The only bits I actually made up were the bits about going in the huff & talking to the media....All the other bits are indeed fact, unless you know otherwise.

 

As to KM's return....again, this may be completely untrue, but the board have just sacked the manager, the team needs some kind of stability...that stability may have come by reinstating KM to the starting 11 & allowing him to take the arm band. It may simply have been the easiest route to restore some harmony.

 

Here's something to consider...in an earlier post it was mentioned about PC being unhappy with Dorran's for giving KM the armband, yet Dorran's wasn't dropped or sent out with the youths following that allegedly major bust-up.....

[Darthter 542]

Interestingly....

There's an article in todays National which kinda goes over this thread. The sub header reads "Kenny Miller found himself in a power struggle".

That kinda sums up the situation....No player should EVER be in a power struggle with their manager....

[pete 2,499]

It's worthy of discussion, that's what we're doing. My contention is there isn't a discipline problem, there was a management problem. The OP stated pretty clearly he felt there was a discipline problem at Rangers in his opening post and why weren't players being punished.

 

 

 

 

No, being sent to train with the youths or on your own is a punishment. A player being dropped for form reasons is kept in the 1st team squad. An assistant manager or coach is tasked with building the player back up, either through tough love or encouragement or one on one training. That's how it works at almost every club.

 

 

 

Look at what actually happened with Miller. After another poor performance against Celtic there were reports in the media that the club had held a meeting with all the players and apparently PC had criticised the UK ones and given Dorrans in particular a hard time for giving Miller the captain's armband when he came on. Is that the kind of thing that should make its way into the papers? No, it shouldn't. At the same time is it the kind of thing the manager should have said after the Celtic game? It struck me as totally missing the issues the team had. He then dropped Miller and sent him with the youths to London. The clear insinuation was he blamed Miller for the story. He might even have been correct, who knows. So all of a sudden the support are blaming Miller for undermining the manager, for disrupting the dressing room and for the dark nights. But there is still no evidence that a. the story was wrong or b. that Miller was the source of it. It was a further 3 weeks before before Miller's agent expressed his anger that his client was being blamed for something he said he didn't do and being punished by the club for it. Is that ill-discipline or frustration at bad management?

 

Now if the incident with Miller was a one off it could be written off as a clash for which there can only be one winner; the manager. But it wasn't a one off, Pedro was falling out with players, the media and with opposition managers with incredible regularity.

 

There's no actual evidence we've a discipline problem.

 

There was rumours of Miller having problems with Pedro from a very early stage and it was even thought he was moving to Hibs. Then it died down for a while until the final explosion.