So let's say that the squad, or key players, downed tools, and ultimately got the coach fired. Are they good enough to earn that right, or do they have enough equity/goodwill built up over the seasons to justify this action? I mean IF we are to simplify the narrative down to squad vs coach?
They should play the way that the entire organization is structured… 3 at the back. They were playing an awful rigid 442. That alone should get him fired
It is probably a mistake to try and characterize the firing as a player revolt of some kind as some people seem to want to do. Clubhouse dissatisfaction seems to have been one element of the decision, but I cant see it being conclusive. If the guy was universally loved and adored by one and all, the results on the field were still the results. Maybe popularity could or would have bought him a few more games but in the end the team was not playing up to the level that management felt it should be, ( we can agree to disagree on that) and as people around here noted, there didnt seem to be much in the way of a recognizable system developing or any sense of a positive trajectory on the field. ISTM that perhaps player sentiment was just the icing on the cake. The list of very successful long team coaches who players didnt mich care for personally is long and distinguished.
I'd rather blame 1) Issa for making a bad hire or 2) HR himself, who said he was going to build on what Nancy did, which was either hubris or a lie. The claim was this was an evolution of Nancy, and it wasn't. It was closer to an asteroid killing the dinosaurs that monkey turning into man.
Hes already reemployed https://www.hammarbyfotboll.se/nyheter/henrik-rydstroem-aer-hammarbys-nya-huvudtraenare Money for gazdag cleared up again
If I had a nickel for every time a bald coach coached both The Crew and Hammarby, I'd have...two nickels.