[TimperleySaint]

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:37 pm  

40 days and 40 nights (ish) and McLeish is gone from Forest!!!

[John_D]

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:47 pm  

Mike Oxlong wrote:

40 days and 40 nights (ish) and McLeish is gone from Forest!!!

When the owners offed O'Driscoll, who was doing a bang-up job, it should have been obvious that it was going titsy there.
The worry for all other clubs who have recently got rid of a manager now is that they might end up with McLeish. *shudder*

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:11 pm  

John_D wrote:

When the owners offed O'Driscoll, who was doing a bang-up job, it should have been obvious that it was going titsy there.
The worry for all other clubs who have recently got rid of a manager now is that they might end up with McLeish. *shudder*

They were completely loony to off O'Driscoll for McLeish but even loonierer for getting rid of him after 40 days. Clearly they don't think there's quite enough clueless club management in the Championship and want to give the Venkys some competition. I think all that lovely and ever increasing PL lolly is driving a lot of club owners completely mad...

The really worrying thing is that we'll almost certainly be in need of a new manager come the end of the season - hopefully McLeish will find another club to go and ruin before then...

[John_D]

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:22 pm  

I quite like McLeish for this*. Seemingly thinking that no club could possibly be run as insanely badly as Birmingham, he's had a Kuwaiti goalkeeper foisted on him and his number one transfer target turned away because of less than 20/20 vision and effectively said "you guys are impossible. And I've worked with Carson Yeung. Outta here".

* - But he's still a terrible football manager.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:54 pm  

The thing with McLeish is that football managers in this country need to accept that their role is changing. There has always been a massive difference in what a manager does in this country compared to what they do in pretty much all other countries. In England the manager has always expected to have total control over everything, from the youth academy, training facilities, staff recruitment, player recruitment and targeting, training and team selection on match days. Everywhere else the role of the manager is much smaller. It's a man-management role of trying to get the best out of the players given to them by the club. Whilst there may be some input into player recruitment, such as giving opinions on areas to strengthen, they are largely uninvolved in everything at the club bar coaching the players. Even team selection these days is less to do with the coaches and is liable to influence from upstairs.

The last few managers with real control are going to disappear over the next 5/10 years as clubs adopt pretty much exclusive foreign ownership. The fact that the board is making horrible decisions is something the manager needs to start to adapt to, they can let the fans know which decisions weren't theirs quite easily.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:20 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

The thing with McLeish is that football managers in this country need to accept that their role is changing. There has always been a massive difference in what a manager does in this country compared to what they do in pretty much all other countries. In England the manager has always expected to have total control over everything, from the youth academy, training facilities, staff recruitment, player recruitment and targeting, training and team selection on match days. Everywhere else the role of the manager is much smaller. It's a man-management role of trying to get the best out of the players given to them by the club. Whilst there may be some input into player recruitment, such as giving opinions on areas to strengthen, they are largely uninvolved in everything at the club bar coaching the players. Even team selection these days is less to do with the coaches and is liable to influence from upstairs.

The last few managers with real control are going to disappear over the next 5/10 years as clubs adopt pretty much exclusive foreign ownership. The fact that the board is making horrible decisions is something the manager needs to start to adapt to, they can let the fans know which decisions weren't theirs quite easily.

The traditional English role of football manager is massively superior to the continental one of having a disposable manager who just talks with the players. If Dalgleish pushed through the purchase of Carroll then he deserved to lose his job. If he had Carroll foisted on him then really, what was he supposed to do? Teach the donkey how to play like he did?

Using the continental system Dalgleish would have been hinting that he had nowt to do with Carroll, but he was the guy who spotted Suarez. Under the English system Dalgleish would have control over whether Carroll was signed and he'd have suffered the consequences.

Chelsea are a clear example of the retarded nature of the foreign system. Which idiots made the decision that Torres and Sturridge was enough for this long season? Which idiots made the decision that Torres and Ba are what we need for the rest of the season? There's not much a manager can do if they're told they've got to play Torrid even though Sturridge and Ba are clearly superior.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:41 pm  

English clubs try and do the foreign model but don't do it very well. Liverpool being a good example of this, Chelsea an even better example of this (although they do seem to have a fair amount of talent in the reserves/out on loan that they probably haven't paid their future value for).

The foreign model does work, reducing a manager's role to just coaching the team and focusing on his coaching is a very good idea, but to make it work they have to employ somebody to scout/sign players that is on the same wave length as the manager, something so many people at clubs struggle to do.

I've read articles in the past from 'outsiders' looking in to England and the perception seems to be that British managers are lazy. They often like to sign players and be involved in other things, leaving the coaches to implement tactics and coach the team. For me that's wrong, if a man is going to manage a club, the thing he should always be doing is training the players and viewing their performance. People say it's wrong that a manager has to work with players that have been signed for him, but surely it's equally wrong if he picks his teams based on the opinions of coaches because he's been out negotiating deals and watching players in other countries?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:04 pm  

I think you should choose the best fit for your personnel. Not all managers want to get involved in the same things.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:12 am  

Roddy B wrote:

The foreign model does work, reducing a manager's role to just coaching the team and focusing on his coaching is a very good idea,

That's pretty much what Ruud Gullit did when he was at Chelsea. But the success he had a Chelsea made him think he was better than he was and he thought he was worth more. Chelsea fired him because they said there was no reconciling Gullit's opinion of himself and there's

Ruud Gullit's managerial career since then would suggest Chelsea were right.

but to make it work they have to employ somebody to scout/sign players that is on the same wave length as the manager, something so many people at clubs struggle to do.

I still think this relationship is at it's purest when the manager is the man in charge and his scout is someone who works for, and closely, with him.

Look at Mourinho's coaching team. They are all guys who are following him back to Chelsea They occasionally have a talented one like AVB who go there own way and become managers. If a board are appointing these people independently, do you think they're going to work as well.

I've read articles in the past from 'outsiders' looking in to England and the perception seems to be that British managers are lazy. They often like to sign players and be involved in other things, leaving the coaches to implement tactics and coach the team. For me that's wrong, if a man is going to manage a club, the thing he should always be doing is training the players and viewing their performance.

Brian Clough wasn't said to work like that. If a manager finds and trains a brilliant coach to train the team, why does he need to be there to oversee the training?

People say it's wrong that a manager has to work with players that have been signed for him, but surely it's equally wrong if he picks his teams based on the opinions of coaches because he's been out negotiating deals and watching players in other countries?

If a manager is in charge of the whole football team. It's down to him to decide the players who play for him. It's up to him to decide how the players are trained, how often. It's down to him to decide where he needs to be, what he needs to do.

If a manager is given the control, he's only got himself to blame if he fails. There are no excuses. If however the signings are down to someone else, should he really be held accountable when a donkey like Carroll is bought, or a completely busted Torres is bought and must be played?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:54 am