Playing the Blame Game - who's fault is it?

Down
By Albatross
May 8 2006

Hartlepool United have been relegated, and Ken Hodcroft has taken responsibility and apologised. As Pools fans everywhere play the blame game, it has to be said that there are other candidates that should share the responsibility.

Ken Hodcroft has apologised to the fans, but how much he personally has to apologise for is open to question. The blame cannot fall on him alone, as in the same way the glory for our success over the previous six seasons can't; a lot of people and a lot of factors had a role to play.

One direction a lot of accusing fingers will be pointing at is towards Martin Scott and to an extent Steve Agnew. Scott took over a side on the verge of making the playoffs for the second year running, during which time he'd been the assistant manager. He was a shoo-in for the job, especially after taking us to Cardiff; after all, he'd done something no other Pools manager had done, he knew the squad inside out, and although the feeling was not universal many felt he had earned his chance.

Before the season started we were told the aim was automatic promotion; and with backing from the board we brought in three players that had been at a higher level the previous season and one that we paid a fee for who had been capped for the Welsh team not too long ago. None of them will have been cheap signings. We had, we were told, the biggest and best squad in the club's history. Under the circumstances, it's no wonder that Scott is seen in a poor light.

The players we didn't sign turned out to be more important than the ones we did. Chris Westwood left, and Pools initially struggled to replace him; first we had Collins on loan who did a decent job, but then there was really a gap until Scott went and Ben Clark teamed up with Nelson. We had a left back with a poor injury record, but never signed anyone to fill that role and had to rely on playing midfielders out of position. On the right of midfield we seem to have tried a motley collection of forwards out of position (Williams, Proctor), players looking for a position (Llewellyn, Strachan) and youngsters (Maidens, Istead). Meanwhile up front in the absence of Boyd, Porter and to an extent James Brown we seemed happier to sign up youngsters from other clubs such as James Walker and Dean McDonald than give players like Andy Appleby, David Foley and Jack Wilkinson a chance to stake their claim. Again, it seems that money was made available by the board with tales that we tried permanently to sign McDonald and a striker from Norway during the January Window, without success.

While it's possible to point to injuries as a factor, the squad should have been strong enough to at least keep things ticking over. Instead, things deteriorated and even the players that had shown what they were capable of last season such as Sweeney looked out of sorts. It's hard to look beyond those involved with the team for these reasons.

So is Hodcroft to blame for not getting rid of Scott earlier? Possibly, as it was glaringly obvious well before he left that things weren't working. Scott though had some luck; just as it looked the calls for his head were about to become irresistable the team would pull a result or two out of the hat and calm things down a bit. Had Scott departed after the Tamworth debacle for example, there would have been time to try and bring in a replacement and still have the chance to do some deals during the transfer window. Instead, by the time Scott left it was just about too late. Leaving Paul Stephenson in charge for the remainder of the season was also taking a risk that hasn't paid off.

The players themselves have to take a share of the blame as well. When it comes down to it, they are the ones that are expected to put the effort in, and the general feeling is that there are a few that need to ask themselves some searching questions. Without naming names, there are players at the club who we know can and have performed much better in the recent past; there are others who simply haven't lived up to their reputations. A handful can hold their heads up - but a school report on many would say "Must do better".

The other thing that can be laid at the door of IOR and their appointees is the way the relationship between club and fans has deteriorated throughout the season to the level where at times for some people it's been downright poisonous. The heavy-handed approach taken to anyone that seemed to want to protest against Scott - even including throwing people out and confiscating banners - didn't enamour them to anyone. There were dark mutterings of other goings-on as well that if nothing else displayed the lack of trust that many fans have for those in charge. It's ironic that arguably the two things this year that have displayed the club in a positive light have come from the fans: the Poolie Pride CD and the HUDSA Walk to Brentford. Pools have supported those efforts - but they didn't start them. The club itself has organised no "Meet the Manager" session, no Fans Forum, and even the revival of the Pools Bar seems to be being brought into question; instead, we've had a long-running argument with the council regarding the ownership of Victoria Park and a call to back the club in that without any indication of what the future plans for the Vic are should IOR get their way. IOR have not exactly shouted their plans out from the rooftops at any time, but definate information from the club seems to be at an all-time low which only goes to feed the rumour mill and frustrate the fans.

So what now for Pools? The announcement of the new manager is expected soon, and also the retained list should be due shortly. Both may give us some clues about what to expect next season; let's hope that those expectations are high and that unlike this year they are fulfilled.