Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

    Tyler Hansbrough: Jim O’Brien ‘didn’t believe in me’
    By Kelly Dwyer

    Though Tyler Hansbrough(notes) missed his fair share of games with injury or illness (pneumonia, in late January), most of his 2010-11 season spent under former Pacer coach Jim O'Brien was marked by inconsistent playing time. And, resultantly, lots of frustration. And a clear lack of belief in the second year big man, from the man they call "Obie."
    Like, say, in the second week of December. Hansbrough put up 20 points and nine boards in a Pacers win over Denver, only to play just 18 combined minutes over the next three games, with the final notch in that trio of shame resulting in a Did Not Play, Coach's Decision. Scores of zeros under the minute ledger dot his game log under Obie, and despite Hansbrough's overactive defense at times, there was no real reason for a 25-year old second year forward to be treated like a flighty 19-year old rookie.
    So you can completely understand it when Hansbrough comes completely clean to RealGM.com's Andrew Perna, knocking out the difference between O'Brien and new coach Frank Vogel in the time it takes to shout "wow" at a smart-looking Acura.
    When asked how it feels to be making his mark as of late, he said:
    "It feels great, especially after so many people doubted me and I had a coach that didn't believe in me."
    Harsh, Obie. Kind of makes Hansbrough's 8.9 minutes per game average in December look awfully mean.
    Of course, it isn't as if belief alone has been a panacea for Tyler and his Pacers. O'Brien was let go on January 30th, and flush with belief Hansbrough shot just 39 percent while playing less than 24 minutes per game in February. The real turnaround didn't come until March hit, as the former North Carolina forward is averaging over 19 points and 7.5 rebounds in only 32 minutes a contest.
    We can't see what goes on in Pacer practices, obviously, but even in short spurts earlier this season it appeared more than obvious (despite some rough outings) that Hansbrough was the type of player who could provide starter-quality production on both ends with extended minutes. And it should be noted that we didn't think nearly as much of this guy's game following his truncated rookie season.
    Obviously a coach can't shoot his chances in the foot by force-feeding minutes consistently to a player that is still figuring it out, but we figured out James Posey(notes) a long time ago, and yet Obie kept going to him at big forward for long stretches. It made no sense.
    The Pacers are a half-game up in the Eastern playoff bracket partially because of Hansbrough's ever-improving play. Way to cheer a guy up, Frank Vogel.
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...?urn=nba-wp306

  • #2
    Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

    When asked how it feels to be making his mark as of late, he said:
    "It feels great, especially after so many people doubted me and I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

    Harsh, Obie. Kind of makes Hansbrough's 8.9 minutes per game average in December look awfully mean.
    But....but.....He actually started some games!
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

      All the cars in the world to go with there and this guys picks an Acura? Really?


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

        JOB had a loose screw. All honest observers know this.

        Next.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          All the cars in the world to go with there and this guys picks an Acura? Really?
          Better than Kia for sure.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            JOB had a loose screw. All honest observers know this.

            Next.
            I don't think that he has a screw loose......Hansbrough just isn't JO'Bs cup of tea.

            I don't agree with the way JO'B coached...but if he preferred Troy Murphy over Hansbrough...that's his choice ( no matter how misguided it may seem to the common fan ).
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

              Originally posted by Kelly Dwyer
              Of course, it isn't as if belief alone has been a panacea for Tyler and his Pacers. O'Brien was let go on January 30th, and flush with belief Hansbrough shot just 39 percent while playing less than 24 minutes per game in February.
              But folks will gloss over this one...

              I just want to point out that pretty much EVERY player who thinks he shouldn't be on the bench says that the coach isn't/won't give him a chance and that he has to stay ready. Let's please not act like Tyler is some unique situation, a superstar who was being kept down by an evil coach.

              JOB's playing time allocations were maddeningly inconsistent with actual performance. We get that. We don't have to it every time a player or columnist mentions it (for the third, fourth, or fifth time even).
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                Why not? Is this not Pacer-related news?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Better than Kia for sure.
                  Hey, those new Forte Koups are pretty nice little cars! lol

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                    Who would of thought it? A rookie who couldn't get consistent playing time, struggles initially when given an expanded role.

                    The shocker would have been if he would have came out and tore Feb. up, not that he struggled a bit. That's why it's glossed over.

                    Who in their right mind would expect a rookie to perform at a high level the very first time they're given the opportunity to contribute night in and night out?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                      I understand, in part, why JOB relied on veteran players so much - NBA experience. You look at the Celtics and one of their starters, KG, has 16 yr NBA experience! That's 2 more years over our ENTIRE STARTING LINEUP COMBINED!

                      So, I can understand, in part, why he relied on the vets so much. But...

                      This team has seen players come and go so frequently over the last 7 yrs, it's as if they have a revolving door at the locker room. So, inconsistency and team chemistry have certainly been major problems for this team. Nonetheless, if the GM's 3-yr play has been to acquire players who not only fit the coach's style of play but also players who want to be here, then it only makes sense to play those players who will be here for the long-haul and not just for the remainder of the season. This is why TJ Ford is riding the pine. Mutual agreement notwithstanding, he's not going to be part of the team next year, so unless his play had been spectacular, there's really no reason to utilize his talents especially if what he bring is no better or worse than the talent of his peers at the Point. Same can be said of Soloman Jones or even James Posey. None of them will be here next year, and not one plays better than Foster (to Solo), Hansborough (to Posey) or Collison or Price (to Ford).

                      Moreover, if the idea was to become faster and more athletic, it just makes sense to go with those players who provide those attributes. Foster still gets up and down court just as fast as Solo and is the better rebounder. Hansborough clearly is the better offensive threat over Posey and plays defense just as tough if not tougher. And we all know what skills TJ brings (or is lacking for some). To me, it's a no-brainer. You play Hansborough as often and for as long as you can! Same goes for both our young PGs, Jmac and Paul George.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        But folks will gloss over this one...

                        I just want to point out that pretty much EVERY player who thinks he shouldn't be on the bench says that the coach isn't/won't give him a chance and that he has to stay ready. Let's please not act like Tyler is some unique situation, a superstar who was being kept down by an evil coach.

                        JOB's playing time allocations were maddeningly inconsistent with actual performance. We get that. We don't have to it every time a player or columnist mentions it (for the third, fourth, or fifth time even).
                        The only thing with gloss over it is Jim's forehead.

                        For most players (and coaches) I would agree, but not this time. It's not like we had MJ on the bench or anything, but there's a huge difference between Solomon Jones or James Posey and Tyler Hansbrough.

                        When Jim played Solomon Jones and James Posey over Tyler, he was keeping a much better player with far more potential (Tyler) down. For example, Solo arguably should have been cut and is pretty fortunate to be in the NBA. Can you say that about Tyler?

                        I suppose we can pretend that, as a C, Solo wasn't taking Tyler's minutes...and that James Posey still has it...until you look at James' FG% which is in last place on the team. Yes, last. ...and that was the knock on Tyler who is now 5th on the team.

                        So who is the better PF? Posey takes almost 6 minutes to grab a board. Tyler gets one every 4. I will cut this short to spare you...but every team in the entire league would pick Tyler over Posey.

                        The fact Jim had Tyler riding pine while giving Posey minutes is not the main reason Frank Vogel is coach now...but it's one of them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          JOB had a loose screw. All honest observers know this.

                          Next.
                          Yep.

                          Tyler got the Josh treatment. Kinda weird. Last year Tyler gets regular 20 mpg right off the bat, Josh gets the yank around even after good "irrelevent" games.

                          This year with Troy gone Josh moves into a starting role finally (minutes I mean) and suddenly Tyler is getting yanked around.

                          Ditto what we saw with AJ Price LAST YEAR. Remember he had some nice outings and when JOB was asked why he was returned to the DNP status JOB said "we wanted to find out if he could play, we saw that he can, so that was enough". WTF???


                          I swear that I honestly wondered if he was doing stuff on purpose. It's hard to explain otherwise.


                          But folks will gloss over this one...
                          Bill, you know that I won't. I get killed for mentioning stuff like that even.

                          But that's still not a good reason not to be playing him. Tyler's March is why you play him. Ditto for all the other guys. Josh, AJ, Paul, Darren, Rush and Roy all have needed NORMAL coaching with NORMAL roles. Not wildly varying minutes and roles, random doghouse appearances, etc.


                          For example, 80% of PD hates Rush for some reason, but as someone who likes his game I'll say that he's honestly slumping in the last month. But you don't punt on your young guys when they struggle.


                          JOB would have sat guys like Durant and Westbrook out of nowhere and for weeks at a time.


                          JOB's playing time allocations were maddeningly inconsistent with actual performance. We get that.
                          You and UB got to enjoy YEARS of telling us we were crazy to blame the coach when it came to PT. UB went as far as to dismiss Josh as an NBA player outright. Often the defense of the rotation was that the guys weren't ready.

                          In fact you specifically once told me that Rush was better able to develop from watching on the bench.

                          JOB's been gone a couple of months, not a couple of years. We are just now getting pretty direct confirmation that the players weren't in agreement with the way they were used.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-17-2011, 05:48 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                            I understand, in part, why JOB relied on veteran players so much - NBA experience. You look at the Celtics and one of their starters, KG, has 16 yr NBA experience! That's 2 more years over our ENTIRE STARTING LINEUP COMBINED!

                            So, I can understand, in part, why he relied on the vets so much. But...

                            This team has seen players come and go so frequently over the last 7 yrs, it's as if they have a revolving door at the locker room. So, inconsistency and team chemistry have certainly been major problems for this team. Nonetheless, if the GM's 3-yr play has been to acquire players who not only fit the coach's style of play but also players who want to be here, then it only makes sense to play those players who will be here for the long-haul and not just for the remainder of the season. This is why TJ Ford is riding the pine. Mutual agreement notwithstanding, he's not going to be part of the team next year, so unless his play had been spectacular, there's really no reason to utilize his talents especially if what he bring is no better or worse than the talent of his peers at the Point. Same can be said of Soloman Jones or even James Posey. None of them will be here next year, and not one plays better than Foster (to Solo), Hansborough (to Posey) or Collison or Price (to Ford).

                            Moreover, if the idea was to become faster and more athletic, it just makes sense to go with those players who provide those attributes. Foster still gets up and down court just as fast as Solo and is the better rebounder. Hansborough clearly is the better offensive threat over Posey and plays defense just as tough if not tougher. And we all know what skills TJ brings (or is lacking for some). To me, it's a no-brainer. You play Hansborough as often and for as long as you can! Same goes for both our young PGs, Jmac and Paul George.
                            This makes perfect sense when you are talking about Garnett over Green or Shaq over Big Baby etc.

                            But it makes no sense whatsoever to have a player playing out of position who is far past his prime taking min. away from a player who is better right now and will be part of the foundation of your franchise.

                            In other words I don't buy for a min. that JOB played veterans over rookies. What I believe is that he played players who fit his gimmicky offense. If Tyler were a stretch four instead of a real four I would bet serious money that he would have had consistant min. fed to him.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tyler Hansbrough, "I had a coach that didn't believe in me."

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              ...he played players who fit his gimmicky offense.
                              You nailed it. He attempted (and failed) to convert Josh into a three point shooter in December. That was the beginning of his undoing if you were watching close enough.

                              Last year he rode the Murphy horse all night long only to see him get traded, benched by his new team, then re-traded.

                              But the real problem with Jim is that he tried to FORCE players into his gimmicky offense...something that ultimately led to his dismissal because it frustrated him so much he lashed out at his players.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X