Why do coaches get sacked over poor performance of players?

[Pesona1]

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?

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.

[HelliumZ]

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.

[usekevin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[serjent05]

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.

The main responsibility of a coach is to motivate an individual or an entire team. Coaches are focused on improving the performance and skills of athletes by conducting training sessions, coordinating practice drills, and providing guidance. Their work is conducted both on and off the field - not only while an athletic event is in session. Coaches are sometimes tasked with recruitment activities in order to fill a team's roster to help them succeed. Other duties of a coach include fundraising, overseeing facilities, and promoting a safe environment.

[1] WHAT DOES A COACH DO?

[JoyMarsha]

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

[panganib999]

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?

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?

[Sunderland]

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.

[un_rank]

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.

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.

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?

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.

: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?

Each reaction had an action that prompted it.

- Jay -

[Gormicsta]

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?

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.

[Onyeeze]

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

[Rruchi man]

~

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.

[Casdinyard]

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?

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?

[shield132]

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 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.

[maydna]

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.

[Weawant]

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.

[oktana]

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?

[Docnaster]

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

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.

[Orpichukwu]

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.

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.

[Slow death]

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

[o48o]

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?

"No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do."

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.