You are a highly erudite folk, hence fathoming the following bland similitude would, presumably, be facial. I hope you like football.
It happens, in the soccer realm, that a club endures success dearth. Different managers/coaches tackle this delicate predicament distinctively. The world has observed quite a plethora of them manipulating match day field tactics, through metamorphosing formations and deploying different lads into the fray, inter alia. It is heartrending however, to espy some notable cases, wherein, results continue traversing the elusive avenue. Such managers have however, worn audacious physiognomies, promised of better days ahead and expounded of ‘toolkits’ they have at their disposal that they would soon unleash for twist of fate. They address press conferences and articulate somewhat sensible propositions, flaunting fireworks, albeit, with a wet fuse.
It would be prudent to note that sometimes the Gordian knot obtrudes match tactics and the four-four twos. Accordingly, it would be folly to be oblivious to issues that orbit from the affairs and proceedings in dressing rooms to the decisions, demeanours and comportments by the board and its composition. The nexus between and among these variables is undeniably profound. Goal congruence is vital.
Questions then arise, as to why the board would stick with such managers who fail to deliver. It could be that they believe the manager would really turn things around. This could be birthed from them being charmed by the coach’s au naturel optimism and rhetoric. It could be because they know that there will eventually be repercussions, thence a desideratum for a scapegoat. It could also be, that, maybe some in the board are sadists who enjoy seeing the team suffer. This could sound farfetched, but we read of a certain team that participated in the AFCON games of 2019 in Egypt. It is alleged that some members of this team sabotaged their nation. Is this not tantamount to treason, if it is true? The point is, anything is possible.
Questions arise too, as to why a failing manager will stick to a team when results suggest they would have failed. Or the proper question is, why would a manager refuse to look beyond match tactics and the three four threes? When such questions are not answered, fans infer. Accordingly, it could be that, the manager lacks stamina. They would be lacking the pluck to confront or tell the board that their overall policies and behaviour adversely affect the team’s performance. Quoting, a former coach of a now failing club, “…that team requires someone who is strong, someone who can look the beast in the eye, because that board is a beast…” Worse still, it could be professed that all cats are grey in the dark.
Fans’ forbearance dwindles. They do not like being lied to. They distaste being told that the team is now playing better and conceding less, and not being told that it still fails to score. They hate inconsistent pronouncements. They resent being told they can help resuscitate the club’s form by forking out more in gate takings. Fans dislike paying for a match, only for players not to turn up, citing incapacitation.
The manager’s qualifications end up being questioned too. Could the board have bought a pig in a poke? The abomination of desolation could certainly be usurping a place which is not his. It becomes a chicken and an egg question.
The world bears witness to what eventuates to such managers. They fall victims. Their destinies are decided by a fanatic roll of the dice. The same appertains to the boards. Leo Tolstoy once said, “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means-except by getting off his back.”