Why do coaches get sacked over poor performance of players?

[Saisher]

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 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.

[LUCKMCFLY]

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.

[DaNNy001]

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?

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 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.

[el kaka22]

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.

[wheelz1200]

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.

[Franctoshi]

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?

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.

[borovichok]

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 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.

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.

[shivansps]

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?

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.

[swogerino]

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?

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.

[uneng]

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'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.

[bitvalak]

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.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

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 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.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

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.

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.

[Fortify]

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?

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.

[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?

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.

[jaberwock]

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.  

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.

[wiss19]

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.

[Alpha Marine]

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. 

[maydna]

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.

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.

[Inwestour]

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?

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.