|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 8:24:21 GMT
Some posters say sacking managers quickly and often brings success. I think sacking managers often indicates distress at a club and in many cases leads to decline. Tiny Accrington Stanley have had John Coleman as manager for around 19 years in two spells, and now find themseles in League 1 mixing it with much bigger clubs. Since sacking John Rudge the Vale have had 19 managers, including caretakers, in 19 years and find themselves in League 2. People keep quoting Watford as a club that sacks it's managers on a regular basis, do we really see them as the club we would like to emulate? That sounds an awful lot like cherry picking the examples that prove your point and ignoring all the ones that don't Geoff. Watford's model works up to a point but there's a medium between them and what you're suggesting, which is that it becomes clear when a manager's cycle has ended and a change after that time is best for everybody, provided you identify and appoint the right man. That's why the Sporting Director model is gaining such traction, because it allows the club to have a sense of direction and a set of underpinning principles that dictate the recruitment of the manager as much as the players and every other aspect of the footballing side. They've got to be the right fit for the project. The cult of the manager and the potential damage his exit can do is theoretically minimised by that. At Stoke rob who would a Sporting Director report too?
Who would have the final say on transfers?
Would the SD have any input into team selection or tactics?
Would the SD decide who we recruited as manager.
Would Fergie have agreed to such a position at M.U.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 8:37:39 GMT
That sounds an awful lot like cherry picking the examples that prove your point and ignoring all the ones that don't Geoff. Watford's model works up to a point but there's a medium between them and what you're suggesting, which is that it becomes clear when a manager's cycle has ended and a change after that time is best for everybody, provided you identify and appoint the right man. That's why the Sporting Director model is gaining such traction, because it allows the club to have a sense of direction and a set of underpinning principles that dictate the recruitment of the manager as much as the players and every other aspect of the footballing side. They've got to be the right fit for the project. The cult of the manager and the potential damage his exit can do is theoretically minimised by that. At Stoke rob who would a Sporting Director report too? Who would have the final say on transfers? Would the SD have any input into team selection or tactics? Would the SD decide who we recruited as manager. Would Fergie have agreed to such a position at M.U. 1) The owners 2) It would be a collaboration between the SD, manager, head coach. They'd agree on the principles beforehand and each would have a veto. 3) No 4) Yes 5) Who cares? He retired seven years ago and football has changed since then, let alone his heyday in the 90s and 2000s. Read this trainingground.guru/articles/stuart-webber-climb-of-the-canaries
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 8:57:55 GMT
In a perfect world rob ok, in the real world the potential for confusion, buck passing and the blame game.
So Norwich are the latest club everyone should look to copy, it use to be Southampton didn't it?
I care how Fergie worked his magic, so football has changed that much in 7 years that we can ignore what he did.
I think the basics in football are the same as they've always been and the key man is the manager, get that appointment right and everything else falls into place.
I've no problem with a SD, or similar, but the manager must never be undermined by such an appointment.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 9:04:14 GMT
In a perfrect world rob ok, in the real world the potential for confusion, buck passing and the blame game. So Norwich are the latest club everyone should look to copy, it use to be Southampton didn't it? I care how Fergie worked his magic, so football has changed that much in 7 years that we can ignore what he did. I think the basics in football are the same as they've always been and the key man is the manager, get that appointment right and everything else falls into place. I've no problem with a SD, or similar, but the manager must never be undermined by such an appointment. It's no so much a 'perfect world' as the one we're living in in 2019 Geoff, for all I enjoy the game's history and the stories about Fergie and Clough, many of them simply aren't relevant in modern football. The manager is a hugely important figure but what's the harm in future proofing yourself? If the model works properly the manager wouldn't be undermined because they're all part of the same process. Sneer all you want at Norwich, their model is working better than ours at the moment and so, for that matter, is Southampton's. When the time came for them to replace Mark Hughes, they showed a bit of imagination and got themselves out of trouble, we showed none whatsoever and were relegated.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 9:21:56 GMT
In a perfrect world rob ok, in the real world the potential for confusion, buck passing and the blame game. So Norwich are the latest club everyone should look to copy, it use to be Southampton didn't it? I care how Fergie worked his magic, so football has changed that much in 7 years that we can ignore what he did. I think the basics in football are the same as they've always been and the key man is the manager, get that appointment right and everything else falls into place. I've no problem with a SD, or similar, but the manager must never be undermined by such an appointment. It's no so much a 'perfect world' as the one we're living in in 2019 Geoff, for all I enjoy the game's history and the stories about Fergie and Clough, many of them simply aren't relevant in modern football. The manager is a hugely important figure but what's the harm in future proofing yourself? If the model works properly the manager wouldn't be undermined because they're all part of the same process. Sneer all you want at Norwich, their model is working better than ours at the moment and so, for that matter, is Southampton's. When the time came for them to replace Mark Hughes, they showed a bit of imagination and got themselves out of trouble, we showed none whatsoever and were relegated. You seriously think rob that a FIT Fergie couldn't win a league title with M.U. in todays game, can't see why you would think that.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 20, 2019 9:30:34 GMT
The commitment to the Alex Ferguson model, without the key component. Alex Ferguson, is currently killing Man United in terms of player acquisitions and recruitment. There's no coherent plan and after a sharp decline over the last 6 years they're beginning to realise it may be the structure of the club that is a problem.
It's not about copying clubs, it's about finding the right balance. Webber has now achieved cut-price promotions with unknown players and somewhat unfashionable clubs, you can't say he's not done well. Southampton was always much more about youth development rather than first team acquisitions. Brentford's recruitment and scouting has allowed them to punch well above their weight for years, and long term may well see them in the Premier League at some point.
I think all top flight clubs in Germany operate with a sporting director and have done for at least a decade and it's a big reason why the Bundesliga is the best league in the world for tactical innovation because managers are appointed based on how they fit the wider vision of the sporting director. Julien Nagelsmann and his budding genius management has only emerged as such a success because of the leeway offered to him by his sporting directors. It's a much better model IMO than as Rob eloquently put "the cult of the manager".
|
|
|
Post by allstokedup on Sept 20, 2019 9:49:29 GMT
I don't get their logic I'd like to hear their defence on keeping jones after being presented these following stats: 200 days since our last home win Not a league win since April Lost the last 4 league games on the spin Worst start to a season in the last century Whats all the fuss about Coates?? Win on Saturday and that wipes out your first 3 points, then everyone starts saying things like "Only 1 league win since April" blah, blah, blah. The reality is we are 7 games into a new season with a new squad and we were unlucky to lose 3 of those games. The Board are not leaving it too late to sack him but having invested in him, and new set of management under Jones, and a dozen new players, they are giving him and the rest of the coaching/training team every chance possible to get it sorted. You may be right to say Jones should be sacked, time will tell, but should the rest of his coaching/training/technical team also be sacked so quickly, which would inevitably happen as a new manager will want to assemble his own assistants? A very positive post, with valid points which a lot of supporters fail to see. Changing managers would create even more upheaval, which we really is the last thing we need. I think the best way forward is to stick with the current incumbent for the next 3 - 4 games during which we need a minimum of 1 win & 2 draws. The way the team played last week gives me hope. It wasn’t NJ’s fault Joe Allen got a stupid red card. The players seem to be behind the manager and we should do likewise. The good days will return and we will enjoy it all the more when it does.
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Sept 20, 2019 9:58:32 GMT
Win on Saturday and that wipes out your first 3 points, then everyone starts saying things like "Only 1 league win since April" blah, blah, blah. The reality is we are 7 games into a new season with a new squad and we were unlucky to lose 3 of those games. The Board are not leaving it too late to sack him but having invested in him, and new set of management under Jones, and a dozen new players, they are giving him and the rest of the coaching/training team every chance possible to get it sorted. You may be right to say Jones should be sacked, time will tell, but should the rest of his coaching/training/technical team also be sacked so quickly, which would inevitably happen as a new manager will want to assemble his own assistants? A very positive post, with valid points which a lot of supporters fail to see. Changing managers would create even more upheaval, which we really is the last thing we need. I think the best way forward is to stick with the current incumbent for the next 3 - 4 games during which we need a minimum of 1 win & 2 draws. The way the team played last week gives me hope. It wasn’t NJ’s fault Joe Allen got a stupid red card. The players seem to be behind the manager and we should do likewise. The good days will return and we will enjoy it all the more when it does. At this moment in time I cannot forsee 'the good days' returning anytime soon. It's all well and good if the players are behind the gaffer, but if we can't translate this into wins then it's hopeless. If we lose tomorrow that will be 1 point in 8 games, if the teams above us win we could be looking at a 7 point gap between us and 21st. That is dangerous territory.
I think a lot can be said about Paul Hart as well. As a senior figure I fail to see what he's exactly doing with Jones and the team, he's the assistant manager! Jones needs someone to help guide him along, and Hart isn't doing that. He needs a footballing brain above him, so he needs a Technical/Sporting Director. And he needs to be purchasing players that fit into a 4-1-2-1-2. Okay I'm not a fan of it but it took us 3 games or so to drop it. I thought he'd have at least stuck to his tut a bit more than that.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 10:03:20 GMT
The commitment to the Alex Ferguson model, without the key component. Alex Ferguson, is currently killing Man United in terms of player acquisitions and recruitment. There's no coherent plan and after a sharp decline over the last 6 years they're beginning to realise it may be the structure of the club that is a problem. It's not about copying clubs, it's about finding the right balance. Webber has now achieved cut-price promotions with unknown players and somewhat unfashionable clubs, you can't say he's not done well. Southampton was always much more about youth development rather than first team acquisitions. Brentford's recruitment and scouting has allowed them to punch well above their weight for years, and long term may well see them in the Premier League at some point. I think all top flight clubs in Germany operate with a sporting director and have done for at least a decade and it's a big reason why the Bundesliga is the best league in the world for tactical innovation because managers are appointed based on how they fit the wider vision of the sporting director. Julien Nagelsmann and his budding genius management has only emerged as such a success because of the leeway offered to him by his sporting directors. It's a much better model IMO than as Rob eloquently put "the cult of the manager". You may be correct in some of the points you make but what has caused the problems at Man. U. above anything else is they keep appointing the wrong managers.
Chelsea have a structure and have managed to lose Sarri and Conte, and have decided to appoint Lampard.
Today more than ever football success is based on money, clubs who can pay the highest wages to players and managers tend to win things.
If we look at Stoke again, Peter Coates knows who the best managers are but may not be prepared to meet their demands, however good the structure is it won't change that problem.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 10:24:53 GMT
It's no so much a 'perfect world' as the one we're living in in 2019 Geoff, for all I enjoy the game's history and the stories about Fergie and Clough, many of them simply aren't relevant in modern football. The manager is a hugely important figure but what's the harm in future proofing yourself? If the model works properly the manager wouldn't be undermined because they're all part of the same process. Sneer all you want at Norwich, their model is working better than ours at the moment and so, for that matter, is Southampton's. When the time came for them to replace Mark Hughes, they showed a bit of imagination and got themselves out of trouble, we showed none whatsoever and were relegated. You seriously think rob that a FIT Fergie couldn't win a league title with M.U. in todays game, can't see why you would think that. I have no idea Geoff. He was always great at adapting to the changes and the trends so he might've done, but I also think he knew when to get out at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 10:27:24 GMT
The commitment to the Alex Ferguson model, without the key component. Alex Ferguson, is currently killing Man United in terms of player acquisitions and recruitment. There's no coherent plan and after a sharp decline over the last 6 years they're beginning to realise it may be the structure of the club that is a problem. It's not about copying clubs, it's about finding the right balance. Webber has now achieved cut-price promotions with unknown players and somewhat unfashionable clubs, you can't say he's not done well. Southampton was always much more about youth development rather than first team acquisitions. Brentford's recruitment and scouting has allowed them to punch well above their weight for years, and long term may well see them in the Premier League at some point. I think all top flight clubs in Germany operate with a sporting director and have done for at least a decade and it's a big reason why the Bundesliga is the best league in the world for tactical innovation because managers are appointed based on how they fit the wider vision of the sporting director. Julien Nagelsmann and his budding genius management has only emerged as such a success because of the leeway offered to him by his sporting directors. It's a much better model IMO than as Rob eloquently put "the cult of the manager". You may be correct in some of the points you make but what has caused the problems at Man. U. above anything else is they keep appointing the wrong managers. Chelsea have a structure and have managed to lose Sarri and Conte, and have decided to appoint Lampard. Today more than ever football success is based on money, clubs who can pay the highest wages to players and managers tend to win things. If we look at Stoke again, Peter Coates knows who the best managers are but may not be prepared to meet their demands, however good the structure is it won't change that problem.
That's one of the problems but there are many and a lot of them stem from the bumbling incompetence of Ed Woodward, the CEO. Conte won the league. Sarri finished third and won the Europa League. That 'structure' seems to be no barrier to success, does it? I'm not convinced Peter Coates does know 'who the best managers are'. The club's reluctance to show any imagination or seriously look overseas is incredibly limiting.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 20, 2019 10:32:08 GMT
You seriously think rob that a FIT Fergie couldn't win a league title with M.U. in todays game, can't see why you would think that. I have no idea Geoff. He was always great at adapting to the changes and the trends so he might've done, but I also think he knew when to get out at the right time. VAR zould kill him sorry Alex you can’t have that one Roy , Wayne , Gary , Paul will all actually have to be sent off for GBH Robin was indeed 15 yards offside Howard actually can’t wear a red shirt The video shows 11 players round the ref they will all have to be sent off And while we are it take a red card yourself Mid table medicoriyy at best for the worlds most despicable institution
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on Sept 20, 2019 10:47:01 GMT
The Chief exec should be dismissed before our current manager
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 10:49:02 GMT
You may be correct in some of the points you make but what has caused the problems at Man. U. above anything else is they keep appointing the wrong managers. Chelsea have a structure and have managed to lose Sarri and Conte, and have decided to appoint Lampard. Today more than ever football success is based on money, clubs who can pay the highest wages to players and managers tend to win things. If we look at Stoke again, Peter Coates knows who the best managers are but may not be prepared to meet their demands, however good the structure is it won't change that problem.
That's one of the problems but there are many and a lot of them stem from the bumbling incompetence of Ed Woodward, the CEO. Conte won the league. Sarri finished third and won the Europa League. That 'structure' seems to be no barrier to success, does it? I'm not convinced Peter Coates does know 'who the best managers are'. The club's reluctance to show any imagination or seriously look overseas is incredibly limiting. But Conte and Sarri didn't seem happy with how things were run at Chelsea rob. The FL appointment may well be based on the assumption that he will fall in line with what the club want, it will be interesting to see whether he can deliver a top 4 finish.
I agree with your comments about Woodward and his part in the decline in United's fortunes.
Remember of course if Stoke go ahead with the appointment of an SD it's the owners who will choose him, they will have to be extremely careful they don't get that wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 10:49:58 GMT
The commitment to the Alex Ferguson model, without the key component. Alex Ferguson, is currently killing Man United in terms of player acquisitions and recruitment. There's no coherent plan and after a sharp decline over the last 6 years they're beginning to realise it may be the structure of the club that is a problem. It's not about copying clubs, it's about finding the right balance. Webber has now achieved cut-price promotions with unknown players and somewhat unfashionable clubs, you can't say he's not done well. Southampton was always much more about youth development rather than first team acquisitions. Brentford's recruitment and scouting has allowed them to punch well above their weight for years, and long term may well see them in the Premier League at some point. I think all top flight clubs in Germany operate with a sporting director and have done for at least a decade and it's a big reason why the Bundesliga is the best league in the world for tactical innovation because managers are appointed based on how they fit the wider vision of the sporting director. Julien Nagelsmann and his budding genius management has only emerged as such a success because of the leeway offered to him by his sporting directors. It's a much better model IMO than as Rob eloquently put "the cult of the manager". Surely the appointment of a good sporting director becomes as difficult as finding a good manager. Any key position in football requires the club to find someone who's good at that position.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 10:56:16 GMT
That's one of the problems but there are many and a lot of them stem from the bumbling incompetence of Ed Woodward, the CEO. Conte won the league. Sarri finished third and won the Europa League. That 'structure' seems to be no barrier to success, does it? I'm not convinced Peter Coates does know 'who the best managers are'. The club's reluctance to show any imagination or seriously look overseas is incredibly limiting. But Conte and Sarri didn't seem happy with how things were run at Chelsea rob. The FL appointment may well be based on the assumption that he will fall in line with what the club want, it will be interesting to see whether he can deliver a top 4 finish.
I agree with your comments about Woodward and his part in the decline in United's fortunes.
Remember of course if Stoke go ahead with the appointment of an SD it's the owners who will choose him, they will have to be extremely careful they don't get that wrong.
The owners choose every major appointment don’t they Geoff, there’s not much we can do about that? Lord knows the Chelsea model isn’t an easy one to deal with but again there was more at play with those two managers. Conte could have an argument in an empty top. Sarri struggled to win over the fans and a media who’d taken against him as a weirdo because he wasn’t good for a sound bite and hadn’t had a playing career. Lampard will get a much, much easier ride as a golden boy of English football, and will get time because of the transfer ban.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 20, 2019 11:08:23 GMT
The commitment to the Alex Ferguson model, without the key component. Alex Ferguson, is currently killing Man United in terms of player acquisitions and recruitment. There's no coherent plan and after a sharp decline over the last 6 years they're beginning to realise it may be the structure of the club that is a problem. It's not about copying clubs, it's about finding the right balance. Webber has now achieved cut-price promotions with unknown players and somewhat unfashionable clubs, you can't say he's not done well. Southampton was always much more about youth development rather than first team acquisitions. Brentford's recruitment and scouting has allowed them to punch well above their weight for years, and long term may well see them in the Premier League at some point. I think all top flight clubs in Germany operate with a sporting director and have done for at least a decade and it's a big reason why the Bundesliga is the best league in the world for tactical innovation because managers are appointed based on how they fit the wider vision of the sporting director. Julien Nagelsmann and his budding genius management has only emerged as such a success because of the leeway offered to him by his sporting directors. It's a much better model IMO than as Rob eloquently put "the cult of the manager". Surely the appointment of a good sporting director becomes as difficult as finding a good manager. Any key position in football requires the club to find someone who's good at that position. Of course, but what a good sporting director does first and foremost is ensure as much continuity as possible irrespective of playing or managerial staff, not necessarily guarantee quick success. That's why it's becoming such an important role as football gets more and more tumultuous and why in many respects it is more important than the manager himself. Spain and Germany encourage their players to continue conventional educations throughout their careers so they can step up into these roles when they decide to retire, it's something that we're way behind on but starting to introduce. Likewise, English football has been very dismissive of anyone who hasn't played the game coming into manage a football club, which many examples abroad show to be a complete fallacy. If Nagelsmann (never played a pro game) is English I really can't see a route to him managing a top 4 club given how our football structure exists.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 20, 2019 11:18:59 GMT
That's one of the problems but there are many and a lot of them stem from the bumbling incompetence of Ed Woodward, the CEO. Conte won the league. Sarri finished third and won the Europa League. That 'structure' seems to be no barrier to success, does it? I'm not convinced Peter Coates does know 'who the best managers are'. The club's reluctance to show any imagination or seriously look overseas is incredibly limiting. But Conte and Sarri didn't seem happy with how things were run at Chelsea rob. The FL appointment may well be based on the assumption that he will fall in line with what the club want, it will be interesting to see whether he can deliver a top 4 finish. I agree with your comments about Woodward and his part in the decline in United's fortunes.
Remember of course if Stoke go ahead with the appointment of an SD it's the owners who will choose him, they will have to be extremely careful they don't get that wrong.
Conte and Sarri both manage at clubs with sporting directors now, who both have way more of a role than the Sporting/Technical Director they managed under at Chelsea. Chelsea is a bat shit insane organisation at times but that's way more to do with ownership than footballing operations both on the pitch and at administrative level.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 11:35:10 GMT
But Conte and Sarri didn't seem happy with how things were run at Chelsea rob. The FL appointment may well be based on the assumption that he will fall in line with what the club want, it will be interesting to see whether he can deliver a top 4 finish. I agree with your comments about Woodward and his part in the decline in United's fortunes.
Remember of course if Stoke go ahead with the appointment of an SD it's the owners who will choose him, they will have to be extremely careful they don't get that wrong.
Conte and Sarri both manage at clubs with sporting directors now, who both have way more of a role than the Sporting/Technical Director they managed under at Chelsea. Chelsea is a bat shit insane organisation at times but that's way more to do with ownership than footballing operations both on the pitch and at administrative level. How long have Inter had a sporting director and am I right that they haven't won the Italian league since 2OO9/1O?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 11:37:56 GMT
Conte and Sarri both manage at clubs with sporting directors now, who both have way more of a role than the Sporting/Technical Director they managed under at Chelsea. Chelsea is a bat shit insane organisation at times but that's way more to do with ownership than footballing operations both on the pitch and at administrative level. How long have Inter had a sporting director and am I right that they haven't won the Italian league since 2OO9/1O? Any reason why you chose Conte's club and not Sarri's to ask that particular question Geoff?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 20, 2019 11:44:00 GMT
Conte and Sarri both manage at clubs with sporting directors now, who both have way more of a role than the Sporting/Technical Director they managed under at Chelsea. Chelsea is a bat shit insane organisation at times but that's way more to do with ownership than footballing operations both on the pitch and at administrative level. How long have Inter had a sporting director and am I right that they haven't won the Italian league since 2OO9/1O? Since 1999. Current one took over in 2014. Juventus named their first out and out Sporting Director in 2010 and have won every domestic title bar one despite losing several managers in that period.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 11:44:25 GMT
How long have Inter had a sporting director and am I right that they haven't won the Italian league since 2OO9/1O? Any reason why you chose Conte's club and not Sarri's to ask that particular question Geoff? You're very astute rob.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 12:47:28 GMT
How long have Inter had a sporting director and am I right that they haven't won the Italian league since 2OO9/1O? Since 1999. Current one took over in 2014. Juventus named their first out and out Sporting Director in 2010 and have won every domestic title bar one despite losing several managers in that period. In a sense then it's fairly dificult to know for sure what caused the relative failure at Inter and the huge success at Juve.
It we accept that clubs need a SD and all clubs recruited one, then the owners of a club would have to get the SD appointment absolutely right, as rob is telling us that the SD will choose the manager.
If a club makes a mistake in the choice of a SD then the danger of the wrong manager being chosen increases, then we have two problems.
The owners who have ultimate responsiblity for the performance of the club should choose the manager in my opinion and not delegate it to another member of staff.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 13:12:06 GMT
Since 1999. Current one took over in 2014. Juventus named their first out and out Sporting Director in 2010 and have won every domestic title bar one despite losing several managers in that period. In a sense then it's fairly dificult to know for sure what caused the relative failure at Inter and the huge success at Juve. It we accept that clubs need a SD and all clubs recruited one, then the owners of a club would have to get the SD appointment absolutely right, as rob is telling us that the SD will choose the manager. If a club makes a mistake in the choice of a SD then the danger of the wrong manager being chosen increases, then we have two problems.
The owners who have ultimate responsiblity for the performance of the club should choose the manager in my opinion and not delegate it to another member of staff.
Maybe the owners should just do everything themselves by that logic Geoff, then they have no problems. Pick the team, choose the tactics, do the lot. Cut out the danger of appointing the wrong manager?
|
|
|
Post by RF10 on Sept 20, 2019 13:26:59 GMT
I wouldn't say they are leaving it too late right now. They are giving the manager time to produce results instead of being quick to pull the trigger. There is a fine line between this and leaving too late though. We left it too late with Mark Hughes. I think end October should be the final cut off point for loyalty.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Sept 20, 2019 13:37:14 GMT
Nathan jones clearly is not working out at Stoke that’s clear to see, yet the board are constantly reluctant to sack Jones which has essentially ruined this season already. He left it too late with Hughes and Rowett 1Clubs like Watford sack their manager after poor form and it clearly works 2If we had sacked Jones after 4 games the season may well not have been over like it is now 3Is Peter Coates scared of delivering the p45? Or brainwashed by Jones’ small talk? Or maybe doesn’t care all that much anymore? 4Just doesn’t make any sense 51. Season is not yet ruined, we are just 7 matches in, or, after the last 3 seasons, were you really expecting Stoke to win the Championship? I agree he left it too late (about a month IMO) to sack Hughes, but the sacking of Rowett was about the right time, when results started to deteriorate again after a 10 game unbeaten run, and he starting to criticize fans who are the customers. 2. Watford have just rehired a manager they sacked - that makes real business sense? 3. Having just signed 12 new players it would be nonsense to sack the manager after 4 games. 4. Peter Coates is an astute successful businessman. He is also compassionate and caring. He does not sack managers on a whim but only when it has been conclusively shown there is nothing to gain from continuing the engagement. He is also considerate of all the other employees that go with the manager; trainers, coaches, tacticians etc. and indeed players who would undergo a major turnover when a new manager is employed. Any responsible manager does not play fast and loose with employees lives and livelihoods. 5. Maybe not to you. But having been a manager of businesses for over 30 years responsible for many hundreds of employees in that time, Peter Coates/ the Board's management ethos makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 20, 2019 13:39:39 GMT
In a sense then it's fairly dificult to know for sure what caused the relative failure at Inter and the huge success at Juve. It we accept that clubs need a SD and all clubs recruited one, then the owners of a club would have to get the SD appointment absolutely right, as rob is telling us that the SD will choose the manager. If a club makes a mistake in the choice of a SD then the danger of the wrong manager being chosen increases, then we have two problems.
The owners who have ultimate responsiblity for the performance of the club should choose the manager in my opinion and not delegate it to another member of staff.
Maybe the owners should just do everything themselves by that logic Geoff, then they have no problems. Pick the team, choose the tactics, do the lot. Cut out the danger of appointing the wrong manager? There is a suggestion on this thread that the SD could become more important than the manager, don't see that at all.
The manager for me is the most important person at the club and therefore should be accountable to the owners.
I also don't buy this idea that you can appoint a SD who then will ensure each manager appointed will be in line with the clubs beliefs etc.
Great managers tend to be strong individuals, I don't see them easily accepting that another person at the club has the ability to enforce decisions on them, Klopp and Pep strike me as in charge and the only people who could overrule them would be the owners, and even they might find it difficult.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 20, 2019 13:43:25 GMT
Maybe the owners should just do everything themselves by that logic Geoff, then they have no problems. Pick the team, choose the tactics, do the lot. Cut out the danger of appointing the wrong manager? There is a suggestion on this thread that the SD could become more important than the manager, don't see that at all. The manager for me is the most important person at the club and therefore should be accountable to the owners. I also don't buy this idea that you can appoint a SD who then will ensure each manager appointed will be in line with the clubs beliefs etc. Great managers tend to be strong individuals, I don't see them easily accepting that another person at the club has the ability to enforce decisions on them, Klopp and Pep strike me as in charge and the only people who could overrule them would be the owners, and even they might find it difficult.
Pep has a Director of Football fulfilling a similar role. He arrived years before Pep and helped lay the groundwork for what Guardiola would look to implement when he came in. Klopp is a believer in the Sporting Director system and Liverpool's has had a significant hand in their success. www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/michael-edwards-liverpool-fsg-klopp-12124673Again, it isn't about 'enforcing decisions' on anyone, it's a collaborative process. It's not 1978 anymore.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Sept 20, 2019 13:59:37 GMT
Nathan jones clearly is not working out at Stoke that’s clear to see, yet the board are constantly reluctant to sack Jones which has essentially ruined this season already. He left it too late with Hughes and Rowett Clubs like Watford sack their manager after poor form and it clearly works If we had sacked Jones after 4 games the season may well not have been over like it is now Is Peter Coates scared of delivering the p45? Or brainwashed by Jones’ small talk? Or maybe doesn’t care all that much anymore? Just doesn’t make any sense This is a very good question. I feel the board have been very patient with NJ, he has had close to 30 league games and has won only 3. This must be close to the worst record in our history, and especially when you know he has been backed in bringing good players in as well. For me the answer is obvious, but if NJ is able to turn it around I'll be the first to back him as well. Unfortunately I don't believe he will as I feel the belief in the group has gone. I would appoint Hughton IMMEDIATELY!
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 20, 2019 14:08:52 GMT
Since 1999. Current one took over in 2014. Juventus named their first out and out Sporting Director in 2010 and have won every domestic title bar one despite losing several managers in that period. In a sense then it's fairly dificult to know for sure what caused the relative failure at Inter and the huge success at Juve. It we accept that clubs need a SD and all clubs recruited one, then the owners of a club would have to get the SD appointment absolutely right, as rob is telling us that the SD will choose the manager. If a club makes a mistake in the choice of a SD then the danger of the wrong manager being chosen increases, then we have two problems.
The owners who have ultimate responsiblity for the performance of the club should choose the manager in my opinion and not delegate it to another member of staff.
Since 1999 Inter have won 11 major honours including a Champions League, I'd hardly consider it a relative failure. Juventus have always been the most dominant of the trio that have controlled Italian football, they were falling behind because of the innovations of both Milan clubs in the 2000s resulting in CalcioPoli and the match fixing scandal. As soon as they adopted the set up of the Milan clubs, they've dominated domestically. It goes without saying a sporting director is an important appointment, but if a manager is going to do both jobs then it's no more of a risk because you are dividing the labour up whilst potentially keeping one facet consistent. If a manager is so integral to the success of a club and there is no structure behind it when he leaves, you end up with a Manchester United situation where they are floundering to replace a 1 in a million type football manager. But it doesn't even have to translate to successful clubs, take Stoke for instance in the last 2 years. We had Hughes, fairly laid back and trusted his players to go out and play well without any major tactical plan. That starts going wrong and we bring in Paul Lambert. A high intensity, high fitness, low block, low flair manager who doesn't suit the best players at the club. We go down meekly. Then we go down, spend 50 million on attacking players and appoint one of the most defensive minded managers in the league to manage them and it doesn't work out as Rowett is uncomfortable playing that way. We then go complete 180 and sign a manager renowned for his attacking style which then doesn't work because the players have absolutely zero confidence and belief in what they are doing. Then when Jones isn't working out we want to move back to a safety first type manager. That's fucking bonkers and the result is a bloated squad full of players from 3 distinct eras of management. A sporting director, if he's doing his job properly would at least try to maintain some consistency in managerial appointments to make sure players don't become obsolete or not the manager's cup of tea. It's risk mitigation rather than complication. He doesn't have to bring in 10 trophies in 10 years he just has to ensure the club sticks to a long term plan, working with accordance with the manager. Most young managers these days are far more open to working this way, the days of the dictatorial manager are virtually over and almost certainly dead on the continent.
|
|