Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:01 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

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?

Well if he has somebody with a fantastic eye for a player who's looking for types of players the manager has asked for, why does he need to be there to pick the players the club goes for, or be involved in negotiating a contract?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

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?

That's the problem, though, clubs are investing so much money, it's becoming harder and harder for them to trust one man to make it work or screw it up. Heck, we gave it to Comolli and Dalglish and they managed to screw it up. It's OK when you're Man City and you're signing players on Sky/ESPN every week, but there are clubs that want the roughest diamonds around, they want them for as cheap as possible and before anybody else can get them. Is it realistic to expect a manager to be involved with finding these players and identifying these players, as well as coaching a team to get results and meet desired targets? It's not too unrealistic, but surely if you split the role, i.e. one person in charge of coaching, one in charge of scouting/signing, you increase your chances of getting better results in each area? Particularly if you have the right relationship between the manager and other guy (give him whatever name you want).

There's no right or wrong way of managing a club, every club is different, but I can understand why clubs are trying to use the continental model. Not only does it look a better way of making sure the money you're investing is being spent wisely, it allows for greater continuation if the club were to lose a manager. A lot of the clubs that do this well end up having their managers poached just like they have their players signed by bigger clubs, so it makes more sense to do it, the problems occur when big clubs do it.

[John_D]

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:26 am  

Roddy B wrote:

There's no right or wrong way of managing a club, every club is different, but I can understand why clubs are trying to use the continental model. Not only does it look a better way of making sure the money you're investing is being spent wisely, it allows for greater continuation if the club were to lose a manager. A lot of the clubs that do this well end up having their managers poached just like they have their players signed by bigger clubs, so it makes more sense to do it, the problems occur when big clubs do it.

I agree. But having seen it not work out brilliantly with (for example) Comolli at Spurs and Liverpool, it's always going to be looked on from a British perspective with a sense of condescension and derision without any peek beneath the headlines at (again for example and it now feels like I'm picking on him) Comolli's total adherence to the Moneyball philosophy which is of dubious value outside a closed system and outside such a rigid, measurable, stats-based game as baseball.

It's the same with players. David Luiz, for instance, is pilloried over here for defensive flaws and the guffawing that such a club as Barcelona could be interested him was audible from the news stands, but when you take a serious, critical look at his qualities, you see he'd be an ideal fit there. Or zonal marking. You hear that being blamed for goals given away with little other critical thought, but never is man-for-man marking blamed at other times. It's this unwillingness to even consider change for fear of being seen as arch or not fitting the prevailing anti-intellectualism that pervades football just as it does society. That's the frustrating thing.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:49 pm  

John_D wrote:

Or zonal marking. You hear that being blamed for goals given away with little other critical thought, but never is man-for-man marking blamed at other times. It's this unwillingness to even consider change for fear of being seen as arch or not fitting the prevailing anti-intellectualism that pervades football just as it does society. That's the frustrating thing.

Perfect example at Villa Park in the Capital One Cup semi-final.

If Villa mark zonally rather than man for man, Ron Vlaar doesn't switch off momentarily and let James Hanson get a yard on him.

Nobody in the Sky studios or commentary that night were complaining about how fallible the man for man system is when you have defenders who clock off, because it's what they were all brought up on and coached right through their careers.

You get the feeling there are still plenty within the British game who look at the likes of nutritionists and sports scientists like it's some sort of new age nonsense, and think that ten pints on a Saturday night after the game is the perfect way to prepare for the following week.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:15 pm  

I'd like to see Brazil line up as follows:
Julio Cesar

Dani Alves
Dante
David Luiz
Felipe

Ramires
Paulinho

Hulk
Ronaldinho
Lucas Moura

Neymar

This'll be a good test for England tonight. I'd like to Walcott and Welbeck play together, they're the future up front for England in my opinion, with Rooney playing in behind. I know Cole's winning his 100th cap, but I'd much rather see Baines starting at left back. He's outshone Cole this season and offers us something from set pieces that Cashley doesn't.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:11 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Well if he has somebody with a fantastic eye for a player who's looking for types of players the manager has asked for, why does he need to be there to pick the players the club goes for, or be involved in negotiating a contract?

That's the problem, though, clubs are investing so much money, it's becoming harder and harder for them to trust one man to make it work or screw it up. Heck, we gave it to Comolli and Dalglish and they managed to screw it up. It's OK when you're Man City and you're signing players on Sky/ESPN every week, but there are clubs that want the roughest diamonds around, they want them for as cheap as possible and before anybody else can get them. Is it realistic to expect a manager to be involved with finding these players and identifying these players, as well as coaching a team to get results and meet desired targets? It's not too unrealistic, but surely if you split the role, i.e. one person in charge of coaching, one in charge of scouting/signing, you increase your chances of getting better results in each area? Particularly if you have the right relationship between the manager and other guy (give him whatever name you want).

There's no right or wrong way of managing a club, every club is different, but I can understand why clubs are trying to use the continental model. Not only does it look a better way of making sure the money you're investing is being spent wisely, it allows for greater continuation if the club were to lose a manager. A lot of the clubs that do this well end up having their managers poached just like they have their players signed by bigger clubs, so it makes more sense to do it, the problems occur when big clubs do it.

Maybe I'm reading with the wrong tone, but I'm not sure why this seems to be suggesting that it was a shock, or that they were great choices but even they couldn't make it work. It was one guy who had an iffy record already and another who had been out of the game properly for a decade. It was a disaster waiting to happen, which everyone but King Kenny's subjects correctly predicted.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 pm  

St. Rughead wrote:

I'd like to see Brazil line up as follows:
Julio Cesar

Dani Alves
Dante
David Luiz
Felipe

Ramires
Paulinho

Hulk
Ronaldinho
Lucas Moura

Neymar

This'll be a good test for England tonight. I'd like to Walcott and Welbeck play together, they're the future up front for England in my opinion, with Rooney playing in behind. I know Cole's winning his 100th cap, but I'd much rather see Baines starting at left back. He's outshone Cole this season and offers us something from set pieces that Cashley doesn't.

Welbeck who's scored one goal all season?! I know Sturridge & Defoe are out but there must be a better optiion than that surely

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:20 pm  

St. Rughead wrote:

I'd like to see Brazil line up as follows:
Julio Cesar

Dani Alves
Dante
David Luiz
Felipe

Ramires
Paulinho

Hulk
Ronaldinho
Lucas Moura

Neymar

This'll be a good test for England tonight. I'd like to Walcott and Welbeck play together, they're the future up front for England in my opinion, with Rooney playing in behind. I know Cole's winning his 100th cap, but I'd much rather see Baines starting at left back. He's outshone Cole this season and offers us something from set pieces that Cashley doesn't.

Really don't see it with Welbeck, he's just another Emile Heskey. If he's England's future we're not improving any time soon.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:27 pm  

St. Rughead wrote:

I know Cole's winning his 100th cap, but I'd much rather see Baines starting at left back. He's outshone Cole this season and offers us something from set pieces that Cashley doesn't.

He's been outshone by Baines for about the last 3 years. Baines is comfortably the better modern fullback. Cole really adds nothing in terms of attack, he's reasonable defensively but some of the praise he's had this week has been ridiculous. England's best ever left back according to Pearce.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:01 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

Really don't see it with Welbeck, he's just another Emile Heskey.

In that case, we're heading the right way!

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:47 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

He's been outshone by Baines for about the last 3 years. Baines is comfortably the better modern fullback. Cole really adds nothing in terms of attack, he's reasonable defensively but some of the praise he's had this week has been ridiculous. England's best ever left back according to Pearce.

The thing is though, that's not so ridiculous when you try and name a better candidate than him in his prime of a few years ago.