Search for New Mayo Manager

[weareros]

It sounds like it boils down to bad man management for the main part.
Horan had brought in a more modern, corporate style of management, where the players gave their input/opinions and were listened to. Mgmt didn't have to go along with the players wishes (they couldn't please everyone even if they tried anyway), but at least the players felt they were having an input and their opinions were valued.
H & C didn't go along with that approach which is their own perogative, but it seems to me that they didn't make any attempt (or made a very bad attempt) to explain their methods to the players - it was more a case of "we manage, you play, now get on with it".
Maybe if they had tried to explain their decisions things wouldn't have got to the point they did.
But there were certainly egos on the players part as well, and the fact that this has been highlighted might be no harm at all.

Continually questioning the selection of other players and lobbying for changes at a particular position are not usual man management decisions. It's strange that Mayo supporters are so unwilling to criticize the players involved because their actions were a poor reflection of themselves and a dis-service to their county.

The easy way out is to blame the two lads not involved now and ignore the players' transgressions and it's sad to see so many take that approach. Everyone else can see through it.

As opposed to our county where talented players opt-out of the panel because they see the less talented players picked ahead of them due to, take your pick: favouritism. Or what about the John Maughan years, players off the panel because they were over 28, or because a previous manager said they were troublemakers. There's often issues with managers (and managers of Mayo origin seem to be the worst offenders) and often times players have to speak up. Nothing wrong with it.

[joemamas]

If even half of what they're saying is true, then whether it's their genuine intention or not, they are acting in the best interests of Mayo football.
It's nothing new that managers will have rows and disagreements with individual players.
However, a small core group of dominant personalities within the playing group cannot be allowed to dictate things.
Bear in mind, we've all spent a lot of time in dressing-rooms.
Whatever was said by certain players to H&C, either in private or at team meetings, was nothing compared to what was being said about them behind their backs.

First comment on this issue, but Jinxy I think your comments are very reasonable.
If anything remotely like that happens with team selection this year, then Mayo are screwed.

In fairness to Stephen Rochford, as a rookie intercounty manager he obviously felt some kind of allegiance/debt to " the so called group". His position was not made any easier by the fact that we lost to Galway in June, after which he was under enormous pressure. Btw, I thought management got a awful lot more right than wrong in 2016, I hope they will not be judged on one mistake(in hindsight a very big one mind you).

IMO, going forward the management will be judged by their selection, ability to introduce two or three new faces and their tactics going forward. An all-Ireland would be icing on the cake, but realistically with an average forward line, we will most likely struggle in that department.

At the end of the day we were unfortunately a kick of the ball away once again.

[Syferus]

It sounds like it boils down to bad man management for the main part.
Horan had brought in a more modern, corporate style of management, where the players gave their input/opinions and were listened to. Mgmt didn't have to go along with the players wishes (they couldn't please everyone even if they tried anyway), but at least the players felt they were having an input and their opinions were valued.
H & C didn't go along with that approach which is their own perogative, but it seems to me that they didn't make any attempt (or made a very bad attempt) to explain their methods to the players - it was more a case of "we manage, you play, now get on with it".
Maybe if they had tried to explain their decisions things wouldn't have got to the point they did.
But there were certainly egos on the players part as well, and the fact that this has been highlighted might be no harm at all.

Continually questioning the selection of other players and lobbying for changes at a particular position are not usual man management decisions. It's strange that Mayo supporters are so unwilling to criticize the players involved because their actions were a poor reflection of themselves and a dis-service to their county.

The easy way out is to blame the two lads not involved now and ignore the players' transgressions and it's sad to see so many take that approach. Everyone else can see through it.

As opposed to our county where talented players opt-out of the panel because they see the less talented players picked ahead of them due to, take your pick: favouritism. Or what about the John Maughan years, players off the panel because they were over 28, or because a previous manager said they were troublemakers. There's often issues with managers (and managers of Mayo origin seem to be the worst offenders) and often times players have to speak up. Nothing wrong with it.

You seem to have went off on an non-sequitur there.

What you're suggesting is there nothing wrong with two midfielders trying to get the goalkeeper changed. That's not their place, and when they do it multiple times clearly they do not respect the wishes of management at all. It would be like Kevin Higgins lobbying McStay for Colm Lavin to start - it's ridiculous and a symptom of a dysfunctional team.

In this case, the following manager made the exact change that the O'Sheas lobbied for in the AI final; far too coincidental to be simply wrote off as being Rochford's decision alone and it hardly seems like the Mayo players learnt lessons of humility since summer 2015 reading the letter to the CB. And that change proved to be the reason Mayo lost.

We're not talking about actions that were non-consequential here, but ones that may have been the difference between a team winning an All-Ireland or not.

[shark]

If even half of what they're saying is true, then whether it's their genuine intention or not, they are acting in the best interests of Mayo football.
It's nothing new that managers will have rows and disagreements with individual players.
However, a small core group of dominant personalities within the playing group cannot be allowed to dictate things.
Bear in mind, we've all spent a lot of time in dressing-rooms.
Whatever was said by certain players to H&C, either in private or at team meetings, was nothing compared to what was being said about them behind their backs.

First comment on this issue, but Jinxy I think your comments are very reasonable.
If anything remotely like that happens with team selection this year, then Mayo are screwed.

In fairness to Stephen Rochford, as a rookie intercounty manager he obviously felt some kind of allegiance/debt to " the so called group". His position was not made any easier by the fact that we lost to Galway in June, after which he was under enormous pressure. Btw, I thought management got a awful lot more right than wrong in 2016, I hope they will not be judged on one mistake(in hindsight a very big one mind you).

IMO, going forward the management will be judged by their selection, ability to introduce two or three new faces and their tactics going forward. An all-Ireland would be icing on the cake, but realistically with an average forward line, we will most likely struggle in that department.

At the end of the day we were unfortunately a kick of the ball away once again.

I would say Rochford's position was made easier by the Galway defeat in some ways. The pressure was more on the players than him after they had ousted the previous mamangement. Defeat to Galway brought the whole setup down to earth with a crash, thus allowing him to properly grab hold of the situation.

[blast05]

It sounds like it boils down to bad man management for the main part.
Horan had brought in a more modern, corporate style of management, where the players gave their input/opinions and were listened to. Mgmt didn't have to go along with the players wishes (they couldn't please everyone even if they tried anyway), but at least the players felt they were having an input and their opinions were valued.
H & C didn't go along with that approach which is their own perogative, but it seems to me that they didn't make any attempt (or made a very bad attempt) to explain their methods to the players - it was more a case of "we manage, you play, now get on with it".
Maybe if they had tried to explain their decisions things wouldn't have got to the point they did.
But there were certainly egos on the players part as well, and the fact that this has been highlighted might be no harm at all.

Continually questioning the selection of other players and lobbying for changes at a particular position are not usual man management decisions. It's strange that Mayo supporters are so unwilling to criticize the players involved because their actions were a poor reflection of themselves and a dis-service to their county.

The easy way out is to blame the two lads not involved now and ignore the players' transgressions and it's sad to see so many take that approach. Everyone else can see through it.

Can you give me a run down on the long, long list of incidents that you seem to have inside info on ?

[blast05]

http://i.imgur.com/CXLIc7R.jpg
The players were used to having a management team on the right hand side of the mountain in Horan
Horans replacement (or at least one of the duo) was firmly on the left hand side

[muppet]

Although I'm someone who has always defended a player's right to question their management I can't agree with some of the criticism of H&C here. Amateur players have every right to expect to be led by competent management but likewise, that management have every right to respond to criticism, so those saying they've lost respect for H&C are bang out of order IMO. They waited for the right time to do this and are fully entitled to defend their reputation and record as the Mayo management.

In saying that, I think they were wrong to take the Mayo position in the circumstances they did as I believe you need players on your side from the get go and as they didn't have that they should have waited for another opportunity.

I am surprised by those saying it's no big deal for players to question selections though. I think players should question logistics, medical and training if they feel it is not up to scratch but team selection is a big no no. That's crossing a line IMO and is not simply adults discussing aspects of the team. If I was David Clarke and knew SOS was lobbying for his own clubman to have my position then where do you go? Do I go to management and tell them that I want SOS dropped as I don't like the timing of his runs as much as another midfielder? No, that's a line you can't allow be crossed. As long as the management are giving you a fair chance to win you place on the team then that's all you can expect.

If H&C weren't up to it then fair enough but I'm surprised that so many Mayo posters are dismissing most of what H&C are saying as I wouldn't like what I'm hearing about the players if I were them.

Other than an email 'expressing surprise' at a matchday 26 omission, the only question regarding selection was Seamie 'expressing a preference' for Hennelly's kickouts. Seeing as he is the one expected to win a lot of them, I don't see a problem with his 'expressing a preference' at all. If he demanded a change, then that would be different. If there was any real attempt to pick the team, I have little doubt H&C would have told us all about it.

People here are jumping from a couple of sleveen style stories with a misleading headline and interpolating that there was a bunch of egos who picked the team. Nowhere in the article does it say that.

Regarding Alan Dillon, players are always upset when they bust a gut for months and don't make the team. If they aren't, I'm not sure I'd want them in the squad personally. But that is part of management.

For H&C to single out Alan Dillon for complaining about being dropped is very low in my opinion.

[Jinxy]

Yeah, but you have to look at these things in context.
Which is, a small group of 'senior' players were the driving force behind the letter to the county board.
H & C have pretty much told us who those players were and incidents like those described above might explain some of their motivation.

[Syferus]

It sounds like it boils down to bad man management for the main part.
Horan had brought in a more modern, corporate style of management, where the players gave their input/opinions and were listened to. Mgmt didn't have to go along with the players wishes (they couldn't please everyone even if they tried anyway), but at least the players felt they were having an input and their opinions were valued.
H & C didn't go along with that approach which is their own perogative, but it seems to me that they didn't make any attempt (or made a very bad attempt) to explain their methods to the players - it was more a case of "we manage, you play, now get on with it".
Maybe if they had tried to explain their decisions things wouldn't have got to the point they did.
But there were certainly egos on the players part as well, and the fact that this has been highlighted might be no harm at all.

Continually questioning the selection of other players and lobbying for changes at a particular position are not usual man management decisions. It's strange that Mayo supporters are so unwilling to criticize the players involved because their actions were a poor reflection of themselves and a dis-service to their county.

The easy way out is to blame the two lads not involved now and ignore the players' transgressions and it's sad to see so many take that approach. Everyone else can see through it.

Can you give me a run down on the long, long list of incidents that you seem to have inside info on ?

I can send you the Indo if you want. I doubt there's many that haven't been dumped in a bin around Breaffy anyways.

[Dubhaltach]

Although I'm someone who has always defended a player's right to question their management I can't agree with some of the criticism of H&C here. Amateur players have every right to expect to be led by competent management but likewise, that management have every right to respond to criticism, so those saying they've lost respect for H&C are bang out of order IMO. They waited for the right time to do this and are fully entitled to defend their reputation and record as the Mayo management.

In saying that, I think they were wrong to take the Mayo position in the circumstances they did as I believe you need players on your side from the get go and as they didn't have that they should have waited for another opportunity.

I am surprised by those saying it's no big deal for players to question selections though. I think players should question logistics, medical and training if they feel it is not up to scratch but team selection is a big no no. That's crossing a line IMO and is not simply adults discussing aspects of the team. If I was David Clarke and knew SOS was lobbying for his own clubman to have my position then where do you go? Do I go to management and tell them that I want SOS dropped as I don't like the timing of his runs as much as another midfielder? No, that's a line you can't allow be crossed. As long as the management are giving you a fair chance to win you place on the team then that's all you can expect.

If H&C weren't up to it then fair enough but I'm surprised that so many Mayo posters are dismissing most of what H&C are saying as I wouldn't like what I'm hearing about the players if I were them.

I'd agree with most of that. A lot of people here focusing on the wrong issues. Due to the shambolic appointment process, H and C were never going to be able to fully command the respect of the group. This is an essential for an intercounty team with genuine all-Ireland ambitions so they just had to go. Unfortunately, it could have been handled a lot better by all parties involved.

In my view, the recent interview did however reveal two very significant events. 1. Séamie O Shea requesting that Hennelly start the Galway game in 2015 and 2. Aidan O Shea questioning the omission of a player from the squad via email. Now some Mayo supporters may view these as minor incidents but I don't see it that way. While I'm aware that the old 'dictator' style of management wont cut it in the modern era, the reasons outlined above show why there has to be a line with regard to team selection.

Nobody except the people involved know the exact truth behind the Rob Hennelly decision in this years final. These two incidents do however give a certain amount of credence to the story we've all heard. If AOS was willing to contact a manager that he didn't particualry get on with about team selection, it's not a far stretch to suggest that he was plugging a certain selection to a manager that he sat beside at this years Dublin v Kerry Semi final.

[muppet]

Yeah, but you have to look at these things in context.
Which is, a small group of 'senior' players were the driving force behind the letter to the county board.
H & C have pretty much told us who those players were and incidents like those described above might explain some of their motivation.

Now we are at the crux of the issue.

The reality is that H&C don't seem to know. After the heave, there were lots of calls from CB people demanding to know why the players wanted rid of them, and the players said nothing. The Indo presents that article as a list of grievances from certainplayers, but is in in fact a list of individual gripes made by players over the year, as recalled by H&C. Those gripes may have had nothing to do with the heave, or everything to do with the heave, we don't know and neither do H&C, as the players have long maintained a silence on the issue.

So the context you refer to, is that H&C still don't know. They simply give a few mildly embarassing anecdotes about a year in the life of Mayo management, as I'm sure any management team wanting to stick the knife into any team could do. They then claim the show is being run by a few players, but the evidence from their revelations is very flimsy.

But it is extremely unbalanced of them to attack the players for dispensing with them, without even referencing the shambolic process that put them in charge of those players.

[muppet]

Although I'm someone who has always defended a player's right to question their management I can't agree with some of the criticism of H&C here. Amateur players have every right to expect to be led by competent management but likewise, that management have every right to respond to criticism, so those saying they've lost respect for H&C are bang out of order IMO. They waited for the right time to do this and are fully entitled to defend their reputation and record as the Mayo management.

In saying that, I think they were wrong to take the Mayo position in the circumstances they did as I believe you need players on your side from the get go and as they didn't have that they should have waited for another opportunity.

I am surprised by those saying it's no big deal for players to question selections though. I think players should question logistics, medical and training if they feel it is not up to scratch but team selection is a big no no. That's crossing a line IMO and is not simply adults discussing aspects of the team. If I was David Clarke and knew SOS was lobbying for his own clubman to have my position then where do you go? Do I go to management and tell them that I want SOS dropped as I don't like the timing of his runs as much as another midfielder? No, that's a line you can't allow be crossed. As long as the management are giving you a fair chance to win you place on the team then that's all you can expect.

If H&C weren't up to it then fair enough but I'm surprised that so many Mayo posters are dismissing most of what H&C are saying as I wouldn't like what I'm hearing about the players if I were them.

I'd agree with most of that. A lot of people here focusing on the wrong issues. Due to the shambolic appointment process, H and C were never going to be able to fully command the respect of the group. This is an essential for an intercounty team with genuine all-Ireland ambitions so they just had to go. Unfortunately, it could have been handled a lot better by all parties involved.

In my view, the recent interview did however reveal two very significant events. 1. Séamie O Shea requesting that Hennelly start the Galway game in 2015 and 2. Aidan O Shea questioning the omission of a player from the squad via email. Now some Mayo supporters may view these as minor incidents but I don't see it that way. While I'm aware that the old 'dictator' style of management wont cut it in the modern era, the reasons outlined above show why there has to be a line with regard to team selection.

Nobody except the people involved know the exact truth behind the Rob Hennelly decision in this years final. These two incidents do however give a certain amount of credence to the story we've all heard. If AOS was willing to contact a manager that he didn't particualry get on with about team selection, it's not a far stretch to suggest that he was plugging a certain selection to a manager that he sat beside at this years Dublin v Kerry Semi final.

This is typical of the discussion and the interpolations being made.

Where is it claimed in the article that AOS contacted the manager about a team selection?

[Dubhaltach]

Although I'm someone who has always defended a player's right to question their management I can't agree with some of the criticism of H&C here. Amateur players have every right to expect to be led by competent management but likewise, that management have every right to respond to criticism, so those saying they've lost respect for H&C are bang out of order IMO. They waited for the right time to do this and are fully entitled to defend their reputation and record as the Mayo management.

In saying that, I think they were wrong to take the Mayo position in the circumstances they did as I believe you need players on your side from the get go and as they didn't have that they should have waited for another opportunity.

I am surprised by those saying it's no big deal for players to question selections though. I think players should question logistics, medical and training if they feel it is not up to scratch but team selection is a big no no. That's crossing a line IMO and is not simply adults discussing aspects of the team. If I was David Clarke and knew SOS was lobbying for his own clubman to have my position then where do you go? Do I go to management and tell them that I want SOS dropped as I don't like the timing of his runs as much as another midfielder? No, that's a line you can't allow be crossed. As long as the management are giving you a fair chance to win you place on the team then that's all you can expect.

If H&C weren't up to it then fair enough but I'm surprised that so many Mayo posters are dismissing most of what H&C are saying as I wouldn't like what I'm hearing about the players if I were them.

I'd agree with most of that. A lot of people here focusing on the wrong issues. Due to the shambolic appointment process, H and C were never going to be able to fully command the respect of the group. This is an essential for an intercounty team with genuine all-Ireland ambitions so they just had to go. Unfortunately, it could have been handled a lot better by all parties involved.

In my view, the recent interview did however reveal two very significant events. 1. Séamie O Shea requesting that Hennelly start the Galway game in 2015 and 2. Aidan O Shea questioning the omission of a player from the squad via email. Now some Mayo supporters may view these as minor incidents but I don't see it that way. While I'm aware that the old 'dictator' style of management wont cut it in the modern era, the reasons outlined above show why there has to be a line with regard to team selection.

Nobody except the people involved know the exact truth behind the Rob Hennelly decision in this years final. These two incidents do however give a certain amount of credence to the story we've all heard. If AOS was willing to contact a manager that he didn't particualry get on with about team selection, it's not a far stretch to suggest that he was plugging a certain selection to a manager that he sat beside at this years Dublin v Kerry Semi final.

This is typical of the discussion and the interpolations being made.

Where is it claimed in the article that AOS contacted the manager about a team selection?

The article stated that AOS sent an email to management questioning the omission of player from the match day 26. That's questioning team selection in my book.

[Jinxy]

Yeah, but you have to look at these things in context.
Which is, a small group of 'senior' players were the driving force behind the letter to the county board.
H & C have pretty much told us who those players were and incidents like those described above might explain some of their motivation.

Now we are at the crux of the issue.

The reality is that H&C don't seem to know. After the heave, there were lots of calls from CB people demanding to know why the players wanted rid of them, and the players said nothing. The Indo presents that article as a list of grievances from certainplayers, but is in in fact a list of individual gripes made by players over the year, as recalled by H&C. Those gripes may have had nothing to do with the heave, or everything to do with the heave, we don't know and neither do H&C, as the players have long maintained a silence on the issue.

So the context you refer to, is that H&C still don't know. They simply give a few mildly embarassing anecdotes about a year in the life of Mayo management, as I'm sure any management team wanting to stick the knife into any team could do. They then claim the show is being run by a few players, but the evidence from their revelations is very flimsy.

But it is extremely unbalanced of them to attack the players for dispensing with them, without even referencing the shambolic process that put them in charge of those players.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but once they're appointed, should everyone not move forward in the best interests of Mayo football?
Did the players effectively sacrifice their season as a way of sticking two fingers up to the county board?

[Il Bomber Destro]

It sounds like it boils down to bad man management for the main part.
Horan had brought in a more modern, corporate style of management, where the players gave their input/opinions and were listened to. Mgmt didn't have to go along with the players wishes (they couldn't please everyone even if they tried anyway), but at least the players felt they were having an input and their opinions were valued.
H & C didn't go along with that approach which is their own perogative, but it seems to me that they didn't make any attempt (or made a very bad attempt) to explain their methods to the players - it was more a case of "we manage, you play, now get on with it".
Maybe if they had tried to explain their decisions things wouldn't have got to the point they did.
But there were certainly egos on the players part as well, and the fact that this has been highlighted might be no harm at all.

It sounds like it all boils down to players meddling above and beyond what is acceptable in team affairs. What seems obvious is that certain players threw a strop when the management team didn't go along with the players wishes and then successfully had them removed from their jobs. Do you think Holmes and Connelly were responsible for Mayo's failure in 2015?