TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Southampton Gull wrote: 02 Mar 2025, 22:23 Nicely edited, try using it in context of the whole post

We can all read the post I quoted from, you started the sentence with a claim that most of [us] chose to accept Osborne - what rot!

Started the sentence with what?

'My focus was always on Osborne, most of you just accepted him and saved your anger for Johnson'


Look back through the forum, there are plenty of examples to choose from. Fact, not rot

Southampton Gull wrote: 02 Mar 2025, 23:05 Started the sentence with what?

'My focus was always on Osborne, most of you just accepted him and saved your anger for Johnson'


Look back through the forum, there are plenty of examples to choose from. Fact, not rot

It was never a choice of choosing to blame Osborne or ‘gaffer’. Pretty sure most people’s primary target was the ownership, but the manager played his own part in that story and took a lot of justified flak, no doubt part of Osborne’s deflection tactics but enabled by the manager who played to his tune right to the bitter end.

Even if some folk focussed on the manager given he was more visible on the football side, it is a pretty bold claim to state that most people accepted Osborne regardless of their views of Johnson.

As others have posted, we are in such a better position now both have left the building and giving them any air is a waste of time and energy. Just be prepared to be challenged when you call out Wotton for ‘excuses’ in his first 6 months of the season, having given the previous boss a free pass over two seasons despite being 10x worse at that game.

Been doing some mulling! Does anyone else feel that having strong, vocal and animated leadership on the side of the pitch can actually harm the team. If you want strong leaders on the pitch, encourage it and then trust them to get on with it. For sure, encouragement and maybe tactical advise from time to time. But a constant barrage from the side could be counter productive. No-ones able to take accountability. I think letting them get on with it themselves a bit more would create a stronger more resilient unit, especially in the long run. If they're being shouted at constantly, just tells me the manager has zero confidence in them. Balance is crucial. A strong touchline presence to guide, but allowing players space to lead could cultivate a more robust, cohesive unit. Just thoughts.

Plainmoorish wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 09:21 Been doing some mulling! Does anyone else feel that having strong, vocal and animated leadership on the side of the pitch can actually harm the team. If you want strong leaders on the pitch, encourage it and then trust them to get on with it. For sure, encouragement and maybe tactical advise from time to time. But a constant barrage from the side could be counter productive. No-ones able to take accountability. I think letting them get on with it themselves a bit more would create a stronger more resilient unit, especially in the long run. If they're being shouted at constantly, just tells me the manager has zero confidence in them. Balance is crucial. A strong touchline presence to guide, but allowing players space to lead could cultivate a more robust, cohesive unit. Just thoughts.

When our whole back line has a average age of 22 then they do need some baby monitoring and encouragement, I do not expect it to come from those players who are more worried about not making a mistake, in any game there are countless opportuntities for the manager to get the players over for a chat and a reset, goalkeepers as if getting a secret signal from the bench feign injuries on a regular basis, If you constantly have to micro manage your players by shouting at them either you are not coaching them correctly or you have little confidence in their ability to fulfill instructions for all of 45 minutes at a time. This so called animated leadership should be already be on the pitch and coming from the captain.

gullsgullsgulls wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 07:15 It was never a choice of choosing to blame Osborne or ‘gaffer’. Pretty sure most people’s primary target was the ownership, but the manager played his own part in that story and took a lot of justified flak, no doubt part of Osborne’s deflection tactics but enabled by the manager who played to his tune right to the bitter end.

Even if some folk focussed on the manager given he was more visible on the football side, it is a pretty bold claim to state that most people accepted Osborne regardless of their views of Johnson.

As others have posted, we are in such a better position now both have left the building and giving them any air is a waste of time and energy. Just be prepared to be challenged when you call out Wotton for ‘excuses’ in his first 6 months of the season, having given the previous boss a free pass over two seasons despite being 10x worse at that game.

Of course it was a choice and it was a choice many made just like I observed and the primary target many chose was the manager. The ownership was toxic even before they gained control. I was threatened for exposing them but never stopped trying to turn the focus onto them.

Moving forward I'm not bothered by anyone challenging my view that Wotton uses every excuse under the sun. You seem incapable of reading what is written anyway..The evidence is there for all to see and quelles surprise, his latest offerings contain him finally sharing some responsibility. Again I'll use a fact some seem to forget, Wotton took over in May almost 10 months ago, not 6 months as his blind supporters mistakenly suggest. I'm far from the only one questioning his methods.

Southampton Gull wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 10:21 Of course it was a choice and it was a choice many made just like I observed and the primary target many chose was the manager. The ownership was toxic even before they gained control. I was threatened for exposing them but never stopped trying to turn the focus onto them.

Moving forward I'm not bothered by anyone challenging my view that Wotton uses every excuse under the sun. You seem incapable of reading what is written anyway..The evidence is there for all to see and quelles surprise, his latest offerings contain him finally sharing some responsibility. Again I'll use a fact some seem to forget, Wotton took over in May almost 10 months ago, not 6 months as his blind supporters mistakenly suggest. I'm far from the only one questioning his methods.

I’m not challenging you that he uses excuses - we can all see and hear that is the case. I’m actually not a Wotton fan in the slightest and personally have been a bit disappointed this season. For the record, my post stated 6 months ‘of the season’ which started on 31 August. I’m equally aware he was here since May but given he spent the first 4 months rushing around bargain basement to find 14 players who were willing to join a club on its knees, I don’t think you can judge him on the quality of his training programme during the summer!

Plainmoorish wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 09:21 Been doing some mulling! Does anyone else feel that having strong, vocal and animated leadership on the side of the pitch can actually harm the team. If you want strong leaders on the pitch, encourage it and then trust them to get on with it. For sure, encouragement and maybe tactical advise from time to time. But a constant barrage from the side could be counter productive. No-ones able to take accountability. I think letting them get on with it themselves a bit more would create a stronger more resilient unit, especially in the long run. If they're being shouted at constantly, just tells me the manager has zero confidence in them. Balance is crucial. A strong touchline presence to guide, but allowing players space to lead could cultivate a more robust, cohesive unit. Just thoughts.

Yes, this. I agree. Nothing wrong with being passionate, but there comes a point (probably 2.55pm) where a manager has to detach slightly and trust his team.
There's a fine line between encouragement and almost bullying. Please note I said almost before I get my head bitten off

westbaygull wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 11:33 Yes, this. I agree. Nothing wrong with being passionate, but there comes a point (probably 2.55pm) where a manager has to detach slightly and trust his team.
There's a fine line between encouragement and almost bullying. Please note I said almost before I get my head bitten off

Totally agree, Janet. Some thin skins at the moment.

westbaygull wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 11:33 Yes, this. I agree. Nothing wrong with being passionate, but there comes a point (probably 2.55pm) where a manager has to detach slightly and trust his team.
There's a fine line between encouragement and almost bullying. Please note I said almost before I get my head bitten off

I won't bite either of your heads off as I'm with you (and I wish he'd use a few other adjectives).

gullsgullsgulls wrote: 03 Mar 2025, 07:15 It was never a choice of choosing to blame Osborne or ‘gaffer’. Pretty sure most people’s primary target was the ownership, but the manager played his own part in that story and took a lot of justified flak, no doubt part of Osborne’s deflection tactics but enabled by the manager who played to his tune right to the bitter end.

Even if some folk focussed on the manager given he was more visible on the football side, it is a pretty bold claim to state that most people accepted Osborne regardless of their views of Johnson.

As others have posted, we are in such a better position now both have left the building and giving them any air is a waste of time and energy. Just be prepared to be challenged when you call out Wotton for ‘excuses’ in his first 6 months of the season, having given the previous boss a free pass over two seasons despite being 10x worse at that game.

There are lots of previous posts from the time suggesting this....

Not saying that players shouldn't be berated for mistakes or bad decisions but as in any walk of life shouting and swearing at people doesn't sound like the perfect way to build someones confidence and make them want to produce their best standards for you.