Why do coaches get sacked over poor performance of players?

[EarnOnVictor]

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. 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?

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.

[Synchronice]

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. 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'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.

[Justbillywitt]

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. 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?

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.

[0t3p0t]

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.

[Nwada001]

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.

[Frankolala]

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.

[piebeyb]

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.

[Blitzboy]

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.

[coin-investor]

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.

[slapper]

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

[Hewlet]

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. 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?

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?

[Fiatless]

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. 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?

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.

[qwertyup23]

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?

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.

[Hispo]

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. 

[uneng]

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?

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.

[Huppercase]

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. 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?

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.

[uchegod-21]

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. 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?

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.

[Findingnemo]

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.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

[Quidat]

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. 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?

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.