Bitcoin Forum

I have followed various sporting activities and I noticed something that hardly make complete sense to me and that is the rationale behind firing a coach when the players do perform poorly. What drew my attention to this is a news flash about Jose Mourinho's case in Roma. According to the article, Mourinho left Roma angry and feeling betrayed by the players (https://www.msn.com/en-xl/sports/other/mourinho-leaves-bitter-farewell-note-to-roma-players-after-getting-sacked/ar-BB1hXwlR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d8e083aba6434f2e80b09c35f7b9af78&ei=12). Is it even possible that players will intentionally lose matches because they want their coach out at the expense of their own careers? If this is true, why will the club management reprimand the coach and not the players? I know some people will argue that the coach is the leader of the team and should be responsible for building the unity and love the team need to play in high morale, but in a case the players happen to have hated the coach and have decided to lose matches as punishment for their coach, is it right to fire the coach?

It is evident that this mistake does not meet the initial competition target. This is because the players in the squad are also the coach's selection for transfers in or out. Therefore, it is understandable that if the player's performance is poor, the coach will be criticized. If the player being criticized is frequently criticized, the club owner will undoubtedly incur significant losses if the player's poor performance and results harm the club's performance.

I mean if that's true and the club decided to fire the coach, then we can argue that is the wrong decision to take. But we don't know everything even if some leakers will say A and B, we can't verify them. Unless a proper investigation is conducted and open to the public, all we can use is speculation and rumors. A good club will likely filter out players and managers if any of them make mistakes, no point in backing one over the other if both of them are troublemakers. At the end of the day, you should never assume what a club does is always the right decision, especially if you have people who can lie outright in public for whatever reason.

If I were to own a club and players were tanking to get a coach fired, I would make sure that those players were banned from the sport for life assuming I could prove it. Other then that though, it's normally a coach's job to get the best out of their players and if he isn't doing that with repeated bad performances by the team, owners usually want to try and go in a different direction vs letting go of the players.

I think blaming solely the coach for player underperformance isn't always fair. But even if players disliked him, intentionally throwing matches is unprofessional and detrimental to their careers.

Could the players feel disconnected, demotivated, or unhappy due to the coach's methods, which can reflect their on-field performance?

It might seem more practical to replace the coach than to overhaul the entire roster of players.

Sometimes coaches are unfairly scapegoated for issues that may stem from deeper-rooted organizational problems.

Club management should do a thorough analysis.

When it comes to football, the coach is almost responsible for everything that goes on in the team, because he is the one that select the type of players he needs for his team, he is the one training them, he knows there strength and weakness, he knows system that suit them most, he does the selection during match day, so all this things are what most management in football expect the coach to know, because he is not just a coach but he is also a manager, so when things are not going their way, then their would be consequences which the manager is going to pay with his job.

So if as a coach or manager you feel like the players are not playing well just to sack you, their are so tough decisions that needs to be taken after having a meeting with them, to arrest the situation.

Any fairytale story is really possible.

The players perform poor to make the coach to get fired is possible.
The coach didn't select the player even he has show a good performance in both training camp and friendly match, it's possible.
Both players and coach working together to destroy their own team is possible too.

Here, Mourinho don't want to get blamed for Roma that perform bad in this season, that's why he blames the players.

This is normal thing to happen and of course many other teams out there fire coaches when they cannot work according to expectations and the dismissal is aimed at being able to replace better coach.
Not only Mourinho but also several other coaches out there who have had the same case but to say that Mourinho is actually still too early to fire him more quickly like some time ago.
At least we have to give Mourinho the opportunity to finish this season and give him time to prove whether he can make changes and show improvement by improving the standings.
I was quite surprised when I first heard that Mourinho was fired early and if you look at Mourinho previous performance it wasn't too bad, but this is what happened and the AS Roma owner ambition is to become one of the top team.

But dismissal or change of coach will not always match the hope of having better changes.
It can be seen from Manchester United and Napoli who always make firm decisions about their coaches by dismissing and replacing them but in the end fail to get these changes.

I don't think it was because of losing one game that he was fired from Roma. Roma has been in poor form recently and Morinho's bad behavior was in the spotlight after he received a red card in the match against Atalanta. After all, Morinho is a legend and AS Roma management must have thought carefully about the decision to fire Morinho.

One of the considerations for firing Morinho may be due to the not compact between players and coaches, management is unlikely to fire all the players and may prefer to fire Mourinho. Apart from that, his replacement coach is Daniele De Rossi, who may not be as good as Morinho. But hopefully with the new coach Roma will find unity and performance again. But in the end we can only speculate about what happened to them

What if it involves your important players that are putting efforts in other for the club to be successful and maybe they don't actually like the coach's way of attending to players because there are coaches that are very arrogant and pompous whenever they want to tell a player to do something, let's consider a scenario whereby his team is losing a game and instead of the coach to encourage his players at that moment but instead he keeps shouting at the players more especially when they make mistakes. I have been following football for a very long time now and I can tell you that some coaches are very disrespectful to their players even this Jose Mourinho, he also does that though he's a good and professional coach but he doesn't care about the importance of any player as he can go as far as not featuring an important in a game conspicuously maybe simply because he didn't perform well in previous match.

 Inasmuch as football is concerned, there ought to be a kind of good relationship between the players and their head coach in other for them to work together and move a team forward but a situation whereby the players decide to conspire to jeopardize the efforts of their coach, then there is really something the coach isn't doing well to his players. Players can't just betray a coach without it being that maybe the team doesn't like his coaching pattern and doesn't relate freely with their coach so in such situations the only remedy is to sack the coach rather than banning such players and moreover, I think there is also a penalty that is being set by the football apex body FIFA to any player who intentionally tries to jeopardize the efforts of his coach so for me if players team up against a coach at the expense of his job, then he isn't in good terms with the players.

That's because the one who regulates the formation of the players is the coach and if the coach cannot do his job well, the club management needs to give a warning so that the coach can improve his duties and his team can win the championship. But if several times after the warning, the coach is not able to improve the team's performance and the team cannot win the desired championship, the club management can fire the coach because he is no longer able to work well and is not responsible for managing and training the players and cannot find a strategy which is suitable for his team when his team competes with other teams. The task of a coach is very difficult so team management should be able to choose a coach who can carry out duties according to their job description.

Have you ever heard of the movie 8 men out? It's about the Chicago White Sox losing the world series on purpose. 8 men banned from baseball for life. 1 was the great Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Good or bad players doesn't matter, they are destroying the integrity of the sport by losing on purpose. If they dislike a coach, then speak their thoughts to the owner and let the owner fire him if he agrees. If the owner doesn't agree, play out your contract and ask for a trade. Don't lose on purpose to suit your own selfish agenda.

It's possible for the coach to get fired especially when their team doesn't do well. There are several reasons, not only game results. Coach-player relationship is very important, it will affect the team's morale and performance if both don't get along. If both relationship fails, club may replace coaches to improve, not to blame the coach but to ensure teamwork.

Something about football is that the coach is seen to be totally in charge of the team and it's believed that the players plays accordingly to the pattern, tactics and style as directed by the coach so should any outcome emerge be it positive or negative results it's purely on the coach before anyone else.

Even when the players are underperforming it will still be blamed on the coach as that was the job he was employed for to come in and correct. However, there are times players can gang up against a coach they are fed up with and decide to be underperforming just to get the coach sack because he's no more appealing to their liking anymore. 

One of the reason coaches get sacked is partly due to the fact that they are not so much seen as an investment to the tram as players are. They are kind of like hired company directors placed on the board by owners. They will be replaced at any mishap, while players can be traded later or while on contract used to build up their value by improving them, placing them in ads etc.

What that matters is the coach performance. A coach is hired to deliver the best and if possible, to win the lead and cup competitions. If a coach is not doing that but the club is getting poorer in performance, the coach would be removed for another coach to begin work with the team.

Has this happened before in the history of footballnor sport generally? We all know how the world is. As some people will want good for you, some people will want bad for you just as you can see in movies like Oppenheimer which is a true life story. Coach will interact with players and some interactions may lead to hatred from the players in a way the players may not show it but be playing poorly.

That's how they hide bad management.
Just look at the NBA, they fire coaches left and right even if they just serve 1 or 2 years. When there's a locker room problem with players they don't blame the players, the coaches will be the ones to receive the bad figure.
Even the ones who served for almost half their life in one team can be fired anytime and I think this is just the management doing things improperly.
Players are like gems to them, they are paying them millions of dollars for that but coaches are always replaceable and it will go on even in the future.
I don't think it's because of bad coaching, it's just the management doesn't want to get all the media attention so they will do something in their favor and the first in their eyes will be coaches.
It takes time for a player to be traded if they are the ones who made the mistake so the easiest path will be to point the finger on the coaches. It's sad but it's true. We don't really know the stories behind it and coaches will still make a good statement even after they are fired.

From my perspective there alot of things that contribute to firing of coaches not just the poor performance of the clubs players. If I could speculate there are lots of agreement/documentations that happens when it comes to appointment a coach for a club and maybe in this process they contain rules that me and you may not be aware of that leads to firing of coaches.

If it's only about the performance of players sometimes I see clubs selling out the players which they feel are not helping the team, so it's not only the coaches that gets firing as a result of poor performance.

For each match played that ends in a victory for the club, players must receive their bonuses. I don’t think that a personal attitude towards a coach will prevail in denying oneself financial support.
Coaches are fired due to unfulfilled obligations. Each coach is given a task, and failure to complete it means that the coach cannot continue the contract. Everyone knows that every professional coach has a strategy; how he lines up the players before the game depends on how the game goes. But there are still other points on which the main players can be bribed, who are capable of creating a bad game, and sometimes these players act together with the coach.

Fans need someone to take responsibility for the poor performance of their favorite team, and usually the coach will be used as a scapegoat for this. This is because the coach is the person who is responsible for training the team, providing strategies, analyzing opponents, etc., and because of the fans' high expectations for this, when their team loses, the coach will be blamed for it. Even when the coach has actually worked optimally, fans will still blame them if their team still loses because the coach is responsible for the overall success of the team.

My brother, I see it just the way you see it and I am baffled often just the way you are baffled and I've complained about it many times even on this forum. It doesn't truly make sense, and it has never solved the problem in my opinion. This is so rampant in Europe, that most clubs are not patient with their coach, and a little underperformance will easily show the coach the exit which I think is not supposed to be so. You can see what is happening in Chealse, several coaches have been sacked, I mean the coaches that were supposed to have been given time to stabilise the club in most cases (although not in all cases as some coaches are obviously bad and deserved it) will just be sacked abruptly, which is bad in my opinion.

I do see it and am always so surprised, even some external coaches will speak against it as they were also shocked. Well, let me say that too much money is intoxicating these clubs as many of these coaches would have their deals terminated before their time and this attracts more money against the club. But clubs like Liverpool which didn't sack their coach for a long period of time even when the club was being challenged have it better these days. You can't compare the Liverpool of 10 years ago with the Liverpool of now, that is what we are talking about. At times, some coaches need more time to stabilise the clubs, this is even as they need the cooperation of the players and not fair to always absorb all the faults in this case which the club will always want to put on them.

It's funny that team won 4 matches in a row after changing Mourinho with Daniele De Rossi.
By the way, Roma had almost zero budget and Mourinho still won them their first European trophy in 11 years. They shouldn't sack him, he is not a type of coach that should get sacked because he is one of the most experienced coach that can make weak teams play well.
OP I don't think players intentionally played bad to get rid of Jose Mourinho, the fact is, Mourinho is a demanding person, he always expects more from his squad and squad failed to deliver. It just happened that Mourinho got with wrong team and squad.

Coaches are the custodian of the team and he is responsible for the tactics and Man management of the squad. All the players can't be bad at the same time, so it's the duty of the coach to identify a player or players that are not doing well and replace them, if he is unable to to this then he is not a good coach. His tactical work has to show too, because it is what he tells the players to do on the pitch that's what they will rely on. A coach is the leader, if it's going well all credit to him and if it's going bad he is responsible.

That is why coaches has to maintain a good relationship with the team but for me this is some sort of an unresolved conflict within the team like undisciplined players, no teamwork and many other possible reasons. Coaches knows what is good for the team so his decisions might anger or agitated and as a result conflict is getting worse that is why sometimes it ends up firing when not resolved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How about breaking it down? Game sabotage is rare, if ever. No player intentionally wrecks their career. However, the coach is more than a tactic board - they're the team's glue. They build strategy and atmosphere. Morale, cohesiveness, and the coach's message may be lost if the team loses

Blame the coach why? Because they pivot. Changing coaches is easier than replacing a team. Hard, but that's pro sports. New coaches can change methods, dynamics, and player attitudes. It's not always fair, but who said sports were fair? Results matter. Something must give if those don't come. Coaches often are that

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?

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.

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.

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.  :P

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? (https://www.zippia.com/coach-jobs/what-does-a-coach-do/)

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

Because it just makes sense. Let me tell you more about it:

1. Coaches are responsible for the game plan of athletes on the field. They are the ones that are expected to create plans that would be effective against the opponents. They're the ones that should create counter strategies and tactics that they can exploit across the game. If the coach couldn't do this then he can't expect the players to do well in the field.

2. The player's main responsibility when in the field/court is to actually administer skills into the plan that the coach suggested. If the strategy isn't effective or is not tailor-fitted to the specific player's strengths and weaknesses once again it's their fault. Only time it would be the player's fault is if they are deliberately throwing the game.

As you can see from these important pointers, the coach plays a crucial role in each team they are in. If the coach couldn't do his job how would you expect the team to succeed?

If many players hate their manager/coach then the club definitely will be in trouble.
Better cut 1 off than the entire team even if the coach is a world class manager.

Coach/manager cannot be sold while any players even if their performance are bad still worth something.
Also the manager contract usually shorter and renews every season with a cheaper contract termination clause compare with the player's contract.

Players are managed by the coach. He/she has the authority to bench any player who is not performing up to standard. The club would even back a coach who ostracizes a player from the club entirely and would do their best to get the players the club needs, if the manager cannot produce results with the players at his disposal then they should step away from the job.

If the coach has lost the dressing room that is an even more reason to relieve him from his job. The club can obviously not sack a squad of over 20 players.

Each reaction had an action that prompted it.

- Jay -

On one hand, it's true that the coach is responsible for setting the tone for the team, Since he calls the shots, it's only fair to hold him accountable for the team's Performance. Whether they do well or not, the Coach is mostly held responsible. But on the other hand, you're right that the players are also responsible for their own actions. I think it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If the players aren't motivated to play well, the coach might not be able to do much to change that. But if the coach is uninspiring, the players might not be motivated to play well. So I believe that the performance of the team is dependent on not just the Coach but also the players too, so firing a coach simply because they're not doing well is absurd actually, it could mean that all he needs is time to get more acquainted with the team, study their lapses and then do something about it.

This question is very nice question, but in normal circumstances the performance of players in any club is being determined by the information a coach is processed to them, so coach oriented the players and its few players that fail to listen to coach instructions and perform on their own when they notice the weight of the matches, so sometimes we have to know that the downfall of a football team is base on coach and it team, and if a club is not doing well and the management decides to sack the coach, I will advice that they should sack coach and the team members so that they will not be corruption, sometimes what brings setback of players in a pitch can be a corruption

The other name for a coach is a manager, and a manager should be able to manage the welfare of the players under him and maximize their abilities  outside the field so that their on field performance improves personally and also on a team level. When a coach fails and records many poor results from his team, It is either because he has failed to understand each of the players he has and how best to use them or also as a result of him using a wrong game tactics and strategy that is not favoring the team.

It is the duty of the coach to analyze each opponents and devise a strategy or tactics for the team to execute, when a coach fails his players fail too.

Cause they deserve it. The central plan of a coach is where players depend upon when it comes to strategy and plays around the court. If a coach couldn't do so much as to provide concrete plans that work for their players to follow through then it just makes sense that the coach is fired/punished for the poor performance. After all just as what panganib has said the sole responsibility of a player is to just make sure that whatever plan the coach has in his/her mind they can accomplish based on their skills and capabilities. And most of the time athletes that get paid in the millions are able to perform anyway so the ball is left on the coach's end.

While your speculations about players being so against their coach that they are willing to throw a game or a season to get rid of him is possible and has happened in the past a couple of times, it still doesn't make sense as especially for newly signed teams and organizations they are working on a strict budget down to how much they pay their coaches, hiring another coach would mean massive upheaval in team's synergy and playstyle, as well as budgeting and compensation benefits that may end up causing the players to lose more money than if they had just kept the coach they were with in the beginning of the season. So yeah, it's all possible and it could be the case that Mourinho's so hated by the Roma organization that they wanted him out like a Pariah but at the same time are they really in the position to do so?

It's the coach's fault when players perform poorly, coaches play a significant role in forming good teams, Mourinho is the perfect example of that, he is the coach who can make a team with weak players play well. He won the Champions League with Porto in 2004, he won many trophies with average teams and he made history in Porto and Inter. This proves that coach has a huge influence on the team and its performance.
By the way, it is pitiful to see Mourinho getting sacked from Roma. Roma won the first major European tournament in their history, they won the Conference League with the help of Jose Mourinho. How can they sack this man? Many times football management goes blind and doesn't fix the problem, instead, they worsen the problem. Mourinho is not the coach that any team, especially Roma, has to sack.

Perhaps it's because the coach hasn't found the right strategy for his team, so his team hasn't been able to win the match. A coach must find the right strategy for his team and know each player's performance to place his players according to their skills. Perhaps it takes time to learn the skills possessed by a player on his team so that his team has a chance to win. But if the coach still cannot find the right strategy, there may be no other choice for the team management other than to fire the coach and look for another replacement coach who can find a suitable strategy. So the coach's job is not easy. Only an experienced coach can find the right position for each player.

It's mostly believed they these players play under the instructions of the coach and that's why he will be blamed if theses players perform poorly over a period of time, and This will be a quick and straight answer to your question but going further I think there's and can still be more to the sea things but what we best know is that which we can discuss.

The coach passing instructions to the players how they are expected to perform on the pitch and he also provides them with tactical advice with which they are expected to abide by and give the desired results an for players the coach doesn't find compactable with him, he's also expected to sell of or get a replacement and that's why they are usually given funds at the beginning of the season to set up their teams so they will be able to produce the desired results an get the team to win trophies when possible so failure to do this even in the presence of all provided resources will lead to the fans and board of management seeing the coach to lack competency thereafter they sack him.

The coach as the word implies is the person who trains and instructs the team. First off, as the coach, you have to make your team like you and want you as their leader. Secondly, understand that it’s easy to blame the coach because whatsoever gameplay you see in the match is based on his instruction. The coach is the one who can understand each and every team member’s weaknesses and know exactly where and when to play them for maximum performance. Do you not agree that different coaches bring about different performances from the team?

In every football team, the coach is saddled with the responsibility of making sure that the team succeeds and in professional clubs and national teams, he's the one who recommends for the team management the set of players that he can work with to deliver maximum positive results which at the end of the day is provided with everything he needs to succeed and that's why he's sacked when he fails to succeed with the team at the end of the day.
That's how it's been in football since the use of coaches came to existence and I don't think there's anything that's gonna change that popular practice in football anytime soon.

There are situations where it's very obvious that the team intentionally does it. That's for a match that ordinarily they could have won, but they will then intentionally start missing goals and misbehaving on the field. Such behaviour can raise an eyebrow, and questions will be asked.
 
And one thing about planned something is that the moment an entire team plans to do something and there is hatred for their coach, such an attitude can't be hidden, and it's not everyone in the team who will buy that idea. It's just very possible to detect when something like that is being planned; there are no two ways about it.

In my opinion, coaches are fired because they are the ones who choose the players, the formation of the team and give instructions to the players during the game. so the brain of a team is the coach, when a team has good players but doesn't have a good coach, then that team won't win games and won't achieve anything, whereas in the case of a team that has bad players but has a good coach, This team could be able to win games and win titles. For example, what I'm talking about, in Serie A (Italian league) Roma had a good coach, Mourinho, but he wasn't managing to make the team play well, so he was fired. and in Mourinho's place they put another coach who has no history of having won series A as a coach

and he also has no history of having won the european champions league or european league as coach of any team, but he knows roma and as roma's new coach he managed to get 3 consecutive victories in his first 3 games, many people argue that he only had those 3 victories because he played against very weak teams, but I disagree. he made the team play better in my opinion. This makes it clear how changing coaches is the determining factor in the success or failure of a team. That's why whenever a team has bad results, they will blame the coach and they will fire the coach and it makes perfect sense in my opinion

Because what do you think is the job of the coach? It's literally to make the the team more motivated and better as a whole team. But obviously it's not as simple as it sounds. They can't make players better than they can be, as you can't make a good meal with crappy ingredients either. But he can build the team to be the best it possibly can.

But maybe you shouldn't also take Mourinho's word for it as this is just his side of the story, if other coaches don't have any effect on their performance either, then you can put more weight on his words. And most importantly, if all the players around the coach hate him, there's only one common denominator. And he might want to take a look at the mirror if he really think he was a good coach.

This is not the right way to go about it and I will try to discuss it by sharing my opinion

Football coaches are never sacked over poor performance of players; coaches are sacked because they fail to meet up with the targets set by the club owners.

A coaches job is to get results; irrespective of the infield / off field issues; failures to get the players to perform for you, the club and get results means the coach has failed in its role;

It is only natural to get sacked, coaching is not all about tactics and methods alone, but making sure the players perform your tactics and you get results

I'm not professional in sports but I knew for sure that the management of sports in the country will fire a coach because they need someone to fire when things do not go as they want, when they need someone to bear the consequences of loosing too much.  They cannot sack the players, so the coach becomes the next.
 
With a good tactics or plan for each game, nobody will talk about sacking a coach of a team.

It won't happen mostly in professional leagues. Firing a coach will depend on the team management.

By intentionally losing the match just for that purpose, these players are risking their respective careers. No way they will do that.

The league will also be jeopardized and mostly some sponsors might pull out if there's an intentional losing that's happening inside the league.

i believe the players can do such intentional act if they truly want their coach to be out of their realm. there may be strong or valid reason why a certain coach is not liked by his players. it means also, that they are against with his management or approach to them. but in my opinion, it is possible that they can intentionally lose a game for that very reason.

just consider the following factors that can trigger their hateful act to their coach -
- they don't like his authority, not listening to his players' point of view
- doesn't care about his player's feelings
- can't unite his team
- arrogant with things
- focus on winnings not considering his players' conditions even when injured
- play favouritism
- doesn't want feedback or any kind of criticism and the list may go on depending on their situation.

That was crazy. I believe professional players will not intentionally lose a game just for their coach to be put at risks  There are lots of ways for their coach to be fired and the best way is to voice out their complaint to the management. In professional leagues, it's a big violation if the team purposely lose the match. It's unprofessional.

What if that game is very important and these players will try to lose that game? It's was the same as game fixing and rigging the match.

We don't know the real problems that occurred between the AS Roma players and their coach because as far as I know Mourinho didn't have any problems with the players so he deliberately sacrificed defeat so that the board fired the coach because he was considered not good enough in building overall performance, if this is true What really happened is that the players did this on purpose, in my opinion it is very unreasonable because this is not a small league and if they lose a lot of points then AS Roma will be even more left behind by other teams and of course it will be difficult for themselves later.

in my opinion it's just gossip, it's like Impossible because they are a professional player who has a responsibility to win the match even if they don't like a coach. In Mourinho case, not just this time, He even did the same thing before, I don't surprise when heard the news about Mourinho because he is a person who have type like this when he was bored to training the club. he was used to doing that, because he wants to be highlighted by the media, so famous that make another club interested to recruit him. I think he deserves an Oscar as coach who can be the actors.

This happens for every sport that has a coach. It's a normal thing and about business relations that whenever the team didn't perform well, it's either the coach is out or the players of it.

I think that most coach understands this and even if they have a contract and it won't be honored anymore by the team's management, they will accept it.

As career in sports is like this. It's a peak of your career when you're winning and you'll just be nothing when your team performs poorly and there's a need to blame someone. But in the end, it's just pure business.

Speaking in this context, in my opinion, AS Roma management must study this carefully before deciding to change coaches. Because in my personal opinion, the things that can cause a coach to be fired by club management are:

• Has a very bad performance at the club he coaches
• He often has arguments with the players, so many of the players don't like him (don't get along).
• And finally, the management wants to make changes to the club's playing style (this factor does not mean the coach's performance is very bad).

In my opinion, these three factors are the underlying reasons why a coach can be fired.

So talking about Mourinho who was fired from AS Roma because many of his players didn't like him, I think the steps taken by AS Roma management were very correct. Because if for example AS Roma had to keep Mourinho in the coaching chair, but the players didn't like Mourinho, this would definitely have a bad impact on the club. So sacrificing Mourinho and retaining the players, in my opinion, is the right step. Because after all, the players must be prioritized, because the players are the ones who play on the field. So, if for example the AS Roma players' performance is not good because they are not comfortable with Mourinho, then the AS Roma management must take bold steps to change the coach. And now the AS Roma coach has been replaced with De Rossi and so far the performance of the AS Roma players can be said to be better.

A player will have to be stupid to risk their career to play badly to shift the blame on the coach to get him or her sacked. That coach has nothing to lose, he/she lost the job.. so he/she will expose their motives and the players will be sacked too.

In the end, a club is a business and their ultimate goal will be to make a profit, so they will monitor both the coach and the players performance and base their decisions on that.  ;)

The coach is the one in charge of the team, he is the one that can bench, trade or fire a player to build the team he wants with the resources he has. The coach gets paid a lot of money to make all those decisions, which makes him the one responsible for the performance of the team in the end. A player alone can't be responsible for the whole performance of the team, which is why the blame is usually put on the coach. This doesn't mean that the coach has all the power and player don't have any power. When the players feel like the coach is not using them for their full potential, or there is a rift between the players and the coach, then the players could start to play poorly. So, the coach has the players and in his hands and the players have the coach in their hands. I think this a fair relationship and it shouldn't be only the players that get fired for poor performance.

If we need to understand sport we need put it out there that sport is not only about sport, it as an aspect of management that links what the club wants to the team as a responsibility of the manager, and because these instructions are given to the manager for the team to execute and if they fail to do so, his technically the first to be axed.

Besides, because his given the powers to choose his team and all that & when it's not working... owners don't get to direct there dissatisfaction of poor results to the team but the manager him or herself.  

Think of the manager as player number 1 or team captain and when poor results come his responsible for them and will take full responsibility as the leader.
Its like in a home, if kids misbehave the person responsible for there behaviour it's the parents except they don't get to leave their kids lol

His experience needs to find a way to win their support otherwise deliberate or not...his still the leader responsible for everyone...if it means benching the bad apples as punishment to correct the team so be it...

Team management will fire a coach who cannot make his team win the championship after management has given him repeated opportunities. Management will consider that the coach needs to learn more at new clubs so that they can gain more experience in managing a team. Finding tactics or strategies for his team is not easy, so a coach must have a lot of experience to find the right composition for each player. Moreover, each team has its own ego and may not want to be paired with other players. This is one of the things that coaches have to overcome. Getting a win is the dream of all teams, so the coach's job is very difficult because he is responsible for finding the right strategy.

The coach is the main person responsible for a team, he is the one who determines the strategy, determines the starting line up and decides on player substitutions when his team is competing. Mourinho dismissal was due to several poor results achieved by Roma in several matches. The performance of the players on the field is the coach's responsibility because he is in full control of drawing up plans before the match starts. Mourinho was very instrumental for Roma, he managed to bring Roma to win the Conference League trophy and reach the Europa League final last season.

Mourinho relationship with his players is very harmonious, it is impossible for players to betray Mourinho by deliberately playing badly which makes Roma lose. Mourinho was still able to improve Roma performance because some of the core players were his former subordinates, but due to management's inability to be patient, Mourinho had to leave Roma in a disharmonious manner.

When a team does badly, they often blame the coach. While players might not intentionally mess up to get rid of their coach, if there's bad blood, it can affect how they play. Firing the coach can be a way to shake things up but clubs need to figure out if it's the real solution or if there are deeper issues with the players. It's a tough call and whether to point fingers at the coach or the players depends on what the club thinks will actually make the team better

Jose mourinho sack at as Roma was more political than about performances; Ofcourse the results for Jose at Roma has not been good, aside winning European trophies (the first in Roma history), the coach has been unable to achieve a top 4 finish and to be candid; the as Roma side is not good enough to compete for a top 4 place in the Serie a.

I will like to mention in addition why coaches get sacked

1. Poor performance in the league table; European places etc
2. Fall out with players
3. Fall out with management ( Bayern sacking nagglesman)

Many more…

For sure there would really be those kind of chances given specially if we do speak about into those losing games on which its true that coaches are the main ones who would really be blamed out
but of course there would really be those kind of assessment if its really that on coache's mistake in regarding into those losing game on which we know that there's no such thing about assurance on winning because there would really be always those teams which is way more better compared to another one.This is why it wont really be that much of a precise thing if you are really that
just that looking in one angle just because you do really believe that they are the main ones who should really be getting blamed. So its not that a realistic or normal approach on things.

Why do company mangers get sacred if the company is not performing to the satisfaction of the owners, this is normal, if a team is not performing well the blame is placed on the manager, hope you remember that he is been paid and there are obligation that he must carry out and also contract with different sections are being signed between him and the team owners so if he fails on his own his own part what happens, the team is not doing well for now and I think that the club owner can't wait any longer because the need fast result which I don't know if they will get it as fast as they need it, but the truth is that when a team is not doing well the blame will always be for the manger because the team is under the care of the manager so if otherwise happen is to his own detriment.

the coach is responsible for the whole team perform since he can manage directly their physical form, choices on the style of play, who to send to play and so on... obviously he is personally responsible for these choices and can be sacked in case of issues.
Mourinho case is something different in this case since he was in a particular situation with players... at least for what has been told here in Italy. I don't know if it's true or not, however he is still a great coach (my opinion).

Coaches get sacked because it is part of their job description to meet some key performance indicators one of which is to bring out the best in a football player under their tutelage that would validate the lump some that they are being paid  by their employees. If you do noy perform well, you are out. And that is what it is. Besides you know that these coaches are never in want for a job because immediately they are fired, there is usually another offer waiting for them.

Coaches who perform well, have a long contract and staying period at their jobs. Everyone appreciates them. Everyone is happy and they are happy too.

Once a former coach said that football in my area said, if the players' mood is bad then the coach must be blamed and if the players' mood is good then the coach must also be appreciated. This is a real thing, just imagine the team under Pep Guardiola and ten hag, of course the performance of Man City players is better, it's all because Man City players really respect Pep Guardiola as their coach.
A wise and respected coach is the key to a team's success, currently Alonso is in that phase, he is highly valued by Leverkusen players so Leverkusen's squad performance is very good this season.

The management should try to reconcile with the players but if the players who have a rift with their coach happen to be a franchise player or their top player the management has no choice but to sack the players, it's the player who worked hard on the playing fields players and they are the one representing the team, they will have a hard time trading their best player than replacing their coaches, there are assistant coaches that can replace their main coach.

Well, in this there are many things that can be done and thought about , for example things are not like that all the time, because first of all, when things are tried to be done, there is a Team that has done better for 3 seasons and it is the MU and They don't throw out the coach, so for teams that have done much less they throw out the coach, there are other Teams that when they do less they throw out the coach, so sometimes I say yes, the thing is football because they can be very Different, because there are teams They are not like that, they take great care of their players. I have seen that there are many players who agree to take out their players and that is something that is usually very rare in some cases in the Venezuela national team because things were So in the National team, they knew how to see things as such and they took out someone they call "Chita San Vicente", very bad by the way and he was the one who was Thrown out of the entire classification last time.

So when we get closer to seeing it, it comes out that if it has to do with Doing things Wrong and it is with a series of losses, then these things are what I see Wrongly, When you lose a lot things cannot be seen clearly. That way it was obvious that they were Going to be fired , but that's why I give the example of Ten Hag because he is a coach who has Always saved himself, and I don't know what he's got in his head, and that's something that I don't see is Right , in reality In this order of things things are very different, and I think that things can be seen that way, and what I think is that they should have already fired him and Looked for Someone like Mou, there things are very different, now I did think What a club is looking for is because they can give Results, the MU has won something again ? No, have they had UCL recently? No , then things can be very Determining here, now the reason why they haven't removed it=? I don't Understand it.

The coach serves a very important role in the player performance and that's why it's believe that a coach and their player's aren't supposed to be having any issue at all because it can lead to the players being demoralized and even take up crazy decision like the OP made insight on the scene that transpired between Jose Mourinho and the Roma players and I believe similar cases have also being witnessed too.

Plenty of people gave the reasons, but I still think that a worker point of view is the rightest one. If the company is not doing good, is it because of one employee, would be able to fire 20 employees and hire new 20 people and hope that it would do fine?

I mean laying off people exists, and waiving players too, but firing your workers and getting new ones all at once never exists, it never happens, I haven't heard about it. Whereas, firing the manager that does worse, and then hiring a new one is simpler. Doesn't mean it would be solved. Like look at United for example, ETH is not a great manager ı can give you that, but not like United has a good team neither, they really suck with each player and for each position as well.

It all depends.  Coaching absolutely matters in terms of player performance.  I've seen it time and time again no matter the sport that the same team with different coaches performs differently.  For me one of the key attributes to coaching is not individual performance but getting your team to play together and identifying and utilizing the strengths of the cohesive unit.  And not that it should be like this at the professional level but being able to motivate each player is on the coach to enhance as well.  So yeah if players don't play well sometimes it's on the coach.

As a coach, you are hired/ your duty is to manage and put a team in order and that's why you are paid for and failure to do so, all blame will be put on you regardless if the players are performing so poor or not because it is still in your duty to feature and not feature a player in a given match, furthermore, it's still in your responsibilities to sell and buy a player of your choice should a player is no longer doing fine; Therefore, I don't see reasons why at the end of a game the manager won't be blamed for the poor performance of his team when it is a job his paid to do and have agreed in the beginning to handle.

This is not a case of mistake it is a case of having a poor run by a team. Of course, the coach is always blamed and they are right to sack a coach for players poor performance. If sheep are scattered all over the place who do you blame? The shepherd. This is likened to the football business. Coaches are always giving support to sign players they need to increase the performance of their team and after the support who do you blame for poor performance? It is the coach. The coach's inability to coordinate players and instil a good philosophy capable of improving the team`s performance is certainly a failure on the part of the coach.

Let us understand that a coach is employed to improve team performance and when the coach is not fulfilling this responsibility he will have to go to give way for another person who can lead and bring results to the team. In addition, players' performance are reflection of the coach's effectiveness. When the team is performing well, the coach takes glory and vice versa.

Firstly, even if you are right and the players are not on good terms with the coach, it is easier to change one coach than several players. Secondly, it rarely happens that players have a bad relationship with the coach for no reason, something must have happened. Regarding Mourinho, I recommend that you read his book, there are many points that show that he does not have a simple character and sometimes players can be understood.
It’s also worth noting that often we don’t know everything that’s going on inside the club.

That is something well known.Before Mourinho I forgot which great player was at Bayern Munchen that got sacked by the players as they didn't want him as a coach so they intentionally lost games until he was fired.Players are very important pieces of the team and they decide a lot nowadays,if they are not happy with the coach then most likely it won't work for that team.I don't know if at Mourinho was the same situation but where I live now it is a common happening that players lose games consistently if they are not happy with the coach and I think this should be common procedure in man soccer leagues.

It's true. Also, part of the coach's job is to participate in the selection process of players who will be hired for the team. So, if the wrong players were picked to play for the team, it's part of his responsability as well, therefore when the club or national team is performing poorly, they have to fire this coach in order to bring another one who will help building a new team's configuration.

Technically, when a coach is replaced, some players are also replaced by the new coach, maybe due to their poor performance, or maybe due to them not fitting the new plans for the team. In some cases it can also be a financial decision, as some expensive players might not be worthing the price the team is spending with them, when compared to their performances. So this money can be invested in cheaper players, but who will averagely bring more consistent results for the team along the matches.

When a coach is signed to a contract, of course there are several targets they give and a vision for the club in the future. If it doesn't meet the target, of course the coach will be kicked.
Players won't be stupid enough to fight the coach, even if they have to fight, maybe only 1-2 players will rebel. But in a club, good synergy is needed between players, coaches and staff.
Every match result is the coach's full responsibility as head. If a player underperforms, of course the coach will park him for several matches.

             -  I often see that situation in basketball: two in 1 position but on one duty. And you are also right in what you said, that when the performance of the coach is not good, the performance of the players is really affected.

It means that it depends on the coach whether the players he handles will win. Because if the performance that the coach gives to his players is good, the coach also boosts their trust or confidence that they will improve their performances even more.

Alright, so in regards to the question you just asked above, I'm here to say that a coach has 4 distinct duties, namely; to assess, to select, and to draw the game plan.

In details:
1). TO ASSESS: Because it is the duty of a coach to assess the strength and weaknesses of his/her opponent team or club whenever they have an intended game to play, so as to enable him determine the degree of training he is likely to undergo so as to enable him win the match..

2. TO SELECT: Because it is the duty of the coach to select players suitable to play a match depending on the degree of the strength or weakness of its opponent, weather to start from its best players or not, so as to enable them to win a match.

3. TO DRAW THE GAME PLAN: Because it is the duty of the coach to draw the game plan for the team to enable them to win a match, depending on what strategy he thinks is likely to work best for him.

E.t.c...

But in a general scenario, if a club fails to perform well, everybody blames the coach for his inability to foresee and select the right players for the right kind of match, and nothing more.

Ultimately poor performance reflects badly on individual players, but it is specifically the job of a manager to figure out how to make the team cohesive. If a manager is unable to do that, by any number of means - like changing training, combining players who work well together, coaching them in a certain way or building incentives, then they are failing at their particular job. Sometimes managers are pushed around by club owners for no reason, take Wayne Rooney who was shoehorned in to Birmingham City a little while ago - not because he has a great or skillful track record as a manager - but because "celebrity appeal" outweighed that fact. They actually shoved off a perfectly good manager and Rooney did not last long anyway.

And thats the purpose of having a coach on which he would really be the ones responsible on what are those training regime and other correlated things into it. There might be some player individual problems that might rise but this is something that could really be handled out rather than on having a team but have lesser that kind of strategic plans or routines or trainings which this is
really that on coach job on how he would really be able to handle up such team.This is why you cant blame out those masses or fans on having those kind of blaming on the time that they would really
be having those kind of impressions towards coaches whenever they have seen that there are some lacking thing on the team that they do like or favorite on.

That's indeed a stupid move because they are mostly the ones who will get sacked and not their coach, but some won't care. They will mostly leave so that they won't be stressed seeing the people they hate.

For those who still want to continue their career, they will only think of other safe ways to revenge on their coach. That's great if a club owner can monitor their personnel but they should do it more closely and they can install voice recorders if CCTV's can't record their conversations, to know each detail that is going inside, as there might be other anomalies that can happen other than our subject here and their reputation can get affected with it.

Even if it's not fair, that is how it works everywhere and not only in the sports industry. A coach or a manager is held accountable for mistakes that are made by players because they are the ones choosing those players for the games or even to stay within the club. If a player isn't doing well or making issues for personal reasons, they have all the rights to transfer them or sell them to another club and buy other players to improve the quality of their team and club.

This happens in every sport, not just football. If the players perform well, the captain and the coaches are praised that they are doing a great job, but when the team plays poorly and loses easy matches, the blame goes to the captain and the management instead of the players for performing badly. However, the players are often changed for such behaviour regardless of the decisions taken at the managerial level.

I'm going to speak on football for this because it's the team sports I follow the most, followed by basketball.
One thing I can say in football is that, if a club gets a good coach they've solved at least 50% of their problems. A lot boils down to the coach. If you watch a team for 90 minutes you can tell if they have a good coach, an average coach or a bad coach. I'm going to list out things you should be looking out for.

1. The first thing you look out for to spot a good coach is how that team press. When they lose the ball, how eager are they to win it back? Do the players just relax and allow their opponents hold the ball and play for a long time even though that opponent is not too better than them? If they do then it's the fault of the coach. It's the coach that'll make sure his players always wants to win the ball back, don't let your opponent get comfortable on the ball. The only time a team shouldn't press much is if they're a man down due to red card.

2. How many chances does the team creates. A team that hardly creates chances find it very hard to win games. If you don't create chances you won't score, if you don't score you won't win. It's that simple. Now the players may not be good enough to score these chances or score goals out of hard chances but if they create the chances then they have a good coach and there's nothing more he can do when the players don't score. It's his tactics that will determine if they'll create chances

3. How's the confidence level of the players?
Do they play with fear? Do they play like they respect the opponents? Do they trust themselves? Can they see a player when they're in a tight spot and comfortable give the ball to him, trusting him to make good use of it? Do the players panic on the field? These are things that the coach instills on his players. The coach brings out the best in these players.
Let's take Pep and Klopp for example, see how Man City and Liverpool play with so much confidence. They do not believe you're better than them. Stones can give the ball to Ederson when an opposing striker is running at him and they won't panic, that's trust. The players don't like the coach? Why?

There are other points, but just watch out for these few.
A coach to me is the most important part of a team. I'll take a good coach over a star player at his peak.
Ask a Barcelona fan which they'll take between peak Messi and peak Pep and any Barcelona fan that understands football would take Pep over Messi right now.
So when the team is not performing well, it boils down to the coach.
Sometimes a team might be good the previous season and are average the next, it still boils down to the coach. Maybe the players have lost confidence, trust or they're fatigued. A coach should understand how to keep his players fit and rotate them. The role of a coach is more complicated than just setting formations and making substitutions. Pep understands this and that's why he's the best coach in the world currently.

A lot of people believe having good players equals being a good coach. That's so false. We've seen coach's fail in PSG, Barcelona and even Madrid when they had a very good squad. And we've also seen coaches with average players do exploit. See what Alonso is doing with Leverkusen? Are the players in Bayer Leverkusen better than the players in Bayern Munich?

There are off the pitch factors you can be looking at too, but since you might not see those players of the pitch, I won't mention but the team spirit off the pitch is a factor.
Argentina for the 2022 world cup has a very good team spirit off the pitch. They believed they were winner, they had trust in themselves and their coaches. I don't believe this is the best Argentine team if we're talking about individual, but this is the best Argentine team as a team. They lost the first game and they still believed they'd win. Lautaro flopped and got replaced with Alvarez yet he didn't make a fuss, he just came on whenever called upon and gave his best, that's what a good manager does to a team. 

That's true because a team's success in winning a match depends on how the coach or manager manages his players by placing them in the appropriate place. If the coach cannot do this, his team will have difficulty winning the match, and perhaps his team will not be able to win the competition. If there is a player who cannot perform optimally, the coach should already know, so he will replace the player with another player so that he can maintain the performance of his team and even improve his team's performance.

This cannot be separated from the supervision of the coach to find suitable players to compete in each match. That's why the coach must know how each player is performing so that the coach can choose suitable players to compete and perform well for their team. When his team cannot perform well, the coach must immediately know about it and change his playing strategy to return to a good performance.

You know, I noticed this situation specifically with clubs where Mourinier was the manager. At first I noticed this trend in Chelsea, when the team played many games in a draw, often 0:0, it looked like sabotage, later I saw the same thing when he was the coach of Manchester United, but there the situation with conflicts between players and the coach was even more tense. I haven't heard any talk about Mourinho's problems at Roma, but if you're talking about it and he really feels it's from the players, then he should look for the reason in himself.

regarding the Mourinho case, I hope you don't read from one source but look for the most confirmed source.
when a club has a problem, especially if the problem is with a star player or a popular coach, many media outlets will exaggerate the problem by changing the true story.
and in my opinion Mourinho case of leaving Roma is because he is no longer able to handle a team that cannot get the players that Mourinho wants so improving the team's performance will be very difficult. on one hand, Roma financial condition is in a slightly bad condition so Mourinho is not there allow to bring in players at high prices.
If the players really didn't like Mourinho, he should have been fired from that time, but in fact Roma's performance last season was still fine without any problems.

the dismissal of a coach cannot be predicted whether it is because the players don't like the coach or the management doesn't like the way the coach works, but what is certain is that as long as a team doesn't make any progress, management will definitely fire the coach to save time to immediately find a new coach who is capable. to improve the team's performance.

A coach tries his best to shape the team's squad but it is not unusual for the coach to feel bad if any player in this squad performs poorly. If a football squad is lined up in a 4-3-3 format, any player performing poorly in any one of the formations can definitely lead to a lack of performance in the squad. In that situation, there must be extra pressure on the coach and the coach has to perform extra responsibility to change and expand the squad. So for now I will not neglect the responsibility of the coach according to the team instructions to allow any negative influence on the coaching of the coach.

From my point of view, coaches and players both need each other. Because in the field of sports, it less harmonious, sometimes coaches force their players too hard, things that are difficult make communication between players and coaches less good and this creates an unfavorable gap on both sides. criticizing each other about each other's shortcomings is actually a normal thing because coaches and players have personalities that cannot possibly be the same. In football, it is actually the coach's responsibility to take care of which players he will choose for the match and it depends on the education that is applied so if the performance bad players, coaches can be affected.

Coaches tenure are not well secured, not even in any league. You might bring your team into a championship and win. But if in the next season the team fail, the thing one who are going to take the blame is the coach himself. So I'm not surprised by it, I'm not saying that it is a practice, but usually that's what is happening in any league. First, they are the leader, they are the one who bring this player into unison and just focus on one goal and that is winning. If he fails then the management will have to find a new one as the players are not responding to him. Second, if ever he brings the team into a champion, and then the next year he failed, then his system is no longer working and maybe the management will also find him liable so he will get sacked despite what he brings into the table the previous year.