Coyle's interview...

Positives... "chance after chance, could have scored five or six on the day."

"didn't see a push by Kevin Davies for the first goal."

"Should have had three points with how we played".

- Owen Coyle

Phil Brown said...

"On balance a draw was a fair result".

The draw was fair.

They were the better team in the first and i think we just about nicked the second.

If we had any defensive integrity though we'd have probably won.

A draw is a fair result based on how each team performed over 90 minutes.

But if Coyle wants to be taken seriously when he's whinging about decisions going against him, he has to be honest about the ones that go in his favour. It was a blatant push by Kevin Davies and the goal should not have stood.

doffcocker wrote:A draw is a fair result based on how each team performed over 90 minutes.

But if Coyle wants to be taken seriously when he's whinging about decisions going against him, he has to be honest about the ones that go in his favour. It was a blatant push by Kevin Davies and the goal should not have stood.

Every manager in the country does this. Every single one of them. They all complain about the decisions that go against their team and not about the ones that go in their favour.

largehat wrote:
Every manager in the country does this. Every single one of them. They all complain about the decisions that go against their team and not about the ones that go in their favour.

I know. You'd think they'd understand the benefits of being honest.

doffcocker wrote:

I know. You'd think they'd understand the benefits of being honest.

They're biased, they spend 90 minutes wound up on the touchline, shouting at their players and often berating the 4th official, and get interviewed within a few minutes of the final whistle. There's a lot at stake for them. I suspect you and I would be exactly the same in that situation.

I think your previous post was unfair. He's no different to any other manager in that regard... or are you saying you don't take any football manager seriously.

I've always hated managers in general never acknowledging decisions that go in their favour whilst demanding sympathy for those that don't. I'm aware they all do it, but that doesn't make it less annoying.

I'd take pleasure in admitting to being on the receiving end of good luck in terms of refereeing decisions.

doffcocker wrote:I'd take pleasure in admitting to being on the receiving end of good luck in terms of refereeing decisions.

And any refs watching you taking pleasure at their mistakes would be sure to have that in the back of their mind next time they're refereeing your team. Referees are influenced by things like that. You'd be unwise.

largehat wrote:

doffcocker wrote:I'd take pleasure in admitting to being on the receiving end of good luck in terms of refereeing decisions.

And any refs watching you taking pleasure at their mistakes would be sure to have that in the back of their mind next time they're refereeing your team. Referees are influenced by things like that. You'd be unwise.

Are you saying managers refrain from admitting to bad decisions in their favour, for fear of upsetting the referee?

doffcocker wrote:
Are you saying managers refrain from admitting to bad decisions in their favour, for fear of upsetting the referee?

For fear of adversely influencing future refereeing decisions, as opposed to being bothered about hurting anyone's feelings.

He must forgot about the 5 or 6 they should have in the first half alone.

terenceanne wrote:He must forgot about the 5 or 6 they should have in the first half alone.

You exaggerate. They had 6 on target in the whole game, including the 2 they scored.

largehat wrote:
For fear of adversely influencing future refereeing decisions, as opposed to being bothered about hurting anyone's feelings.

So admitting to bad decisions in one's favour adversely influences future refereeing decisions, where slating the ref for bad decisions that went against one have no such effect?

doffcocker wrote:

So admitting to bad decisions in one's favour adversely influences future refereeing decisions, where slating the ref for bad decisions that went against one have no such effect?

I don't believe that's what I've said.

Managers frequently cite that their teams are victims of poor refereeing for the reasons I've already stated.

Managers infrequently cite that their teams have benefited from generous refereeing, even in instances where they very clearly have, because they don't want to make a big deal out of it for various reasons, one of which includes sending a message to referees that they have profited from their mistakes. They also want the players to take the credit for things.

Over-riding all of this is the presence of bias, or more accurately, the absence of objectivity.

Returning to your point, I therefore don't concur that moaning about refereeing decisions undermines the credibility of a football manager, because they're all at it, and there're a lot of mind games involved.

Perhaps I could have been a little clearer in the way I've explained my view on this, but that's all it is - one person's view.

largehat wrote:

Every manager in the country does this. Every single one of them. They all complain about the decisions that go against their team and not about the ones that go in their favour.

I don't agree, some managers are honest.

I've just watched the interviews with the two managers and Coyle's, as usual, was fucking embarrassing. I used to think the guy was just a lying bastard but I now suspect he actually believes the shit he spouts. Why else would he keep picking the same useless bastard players?

On the other hand, Sean O'Driscoll's interview was honest and probably too complimentary to Bolton if anything. No whinging about the Davies push and admitted Bolton could have scored 5.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

Every manager in the country does this. Every single one of them. They all complain about the decisions that go against their team and not about the ones that go in their favour.

I don't agree, some managers are honest.

I've just watched the interviews with the two managers and Coyle's, as usual, was fucking embarrassing. I used to think the guy was just a lying bastard but I now suspect he actually believes the shit he spouts. Why else would he keep picking the same useless bastard players?

On the other hand, Sean O'Driscoll's interview was honest and probably too complimentary to Bolton if anything. No whinging about the Davies push and admitted Bolton could have scored 5.

I was talking specifically about referees decisions though, and O'Driscoll, right at the start of the interview, comes in with a grumble about Davies' push (kind of fair because there was a push) but also claims Davies was offside - no referee in the country would have ruled that out for offside. When was the last time you saw one of those ruled out?

I'm still waiting to see who these "honest" managers are.

who slag off their players in interviews every week, slam their teams performances and admit everything their players did wrong was, well.... wrong.

Oh yeah they don't exist.

You get the yearly "blow up" from cretins like Mick Mccantmanage and Alan Cockney wanker Pardew but thats it.

I thought he was offside at the time. Offside is offside. Not sure if he was interfering though.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

You get the yearly "blow up" from cretins like Mick Mccantmanage and Alan Cockney wanker Pardew but thats it.

Why is McCarthy a cretin? Because he points out when his players are shite?

Perhaps if everyoe was more honest the game wouldn't be as pisspoor as it is these days.

Put it this way, I'll bet McCarthy gets a job in football management before you do.

jayjay23 wrote:I thought he was offside at the time. Offside is offside. Not sure if he was interfering though.

I can't see how he could be offside as he was the last player to touch the ball and he played it forward.

It should have been a foul for pushing though.