Talking tactics part 2
Last week I was trying to shed light on the tactics involved in litigation by comparing them to football. One thing they absolutely have in common is the ease with which any strategy can fall to be criticised if it does not work out, even when it does not at first seem to be incorrect. Of course success or failure of the strategy does not necessarily demonstrate whether it was the correct strategy or not.
I was struck by the comparison when talking to other Manchester United fans after the United Chelsea game, which United lost 2-1. I am not by nature one unduly impressed by reputation alone, but Sir Alex Ferguson has by and large pretty much got it right more times they can easily be counted. That doesn't mean that every decision has come off, or even that every decision was the correct one, but he is still either at the peak or there or thereabouts in the pantheon of great football managers. What struck me was how many people were critical of the decision to field against Chelsea the team that he did. Although United lost, players were sufficiently rested for a crucial game the following Tuesday which in the event they won. (Since the right tactics can still go wrong however, before knowing the Tuesday result I was pointing out to fans the fact it was entirely sensible to maximise the chances for the Tuesday evening especially given the need for fitness and constant vigilance to avoid conceding an away goal. My point was that whatever happened on the Tuesday itself, any strategy which improved United's prospects would have been a sensible one). Nor did anyone seem inclined to grasp the fact that the tactics had very nearly worked. Only the happenstance of an entirely unnecessary handball and a penalty a few minutes from time gave Chelsea the victory. Had it not been for that the Premiership would have been all but wrapped up and everyone would have been declaring the team selection to have been a tactical masterstroke. On such wafer thin margins do reputations depend.
The same is true tactical decisions in relation to court hearings. Someone who is skilled and experienced will be well placed to make decisions which improve the chances of success. However everything is always a percentages game. There is no guarantee of success. All you can ever do is seek to make the most of the points which you think you have available, and to pursue those points which you think are the right ones tactically to take. It can have been a sensible decision to call a particular witness even if in the event (having started brightly perhaps) they prove to be an unmitigated disaster.
Just like in football it is all too easy to be wise after the event. The very same people or commentators who were suggesting Sir Alex Ferguson got it wrong in his team selection and tactics against Chelsea would have been pointing out his stupidity had he fielded a stronger side, drawn or won that game, but then been eliminated from the That semi-final. It would have been treated as a foolish failure to realise that the odds favoured United retaining the Premiership title whatever happened in the Chelsea game and that therefore there was a compromise balance to be struck.
No doubt if in the event United had then proceeded to win the Premiership by a comfortable margin, the futility of pinning so much on the away game at Chelsea would no doubt have been a recurring theme of many articles. Often the very person who will criticise you for having called a witness whose evidence goes badly is exactly the same person who will criticise you for not having called the witness if the case goes wrong in that eventuality. Indeed, these are the people who frequently will still say it was the wrong decision even if the case was successful, suggesting that victory would have been even more sure had the decision they favour been taken.