• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Thomas Frank - Former Head Coach

Mabspurs said:
Really? What's the "hit ratio" at Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth?
Click to expand...

Worse than ours, it just doesn't matter

Brentford last 5 leagues finishes -> 10th, 16th, 9th, 13th, 3rd in Champ (7 position spread with highest outside Europe and includes Championship season)
Brighton last 5 league finishes -> 8th, 11th, 6th, 9th, 16th, 15th (10 position spread with highest position in European spot)
Bournemouth last 5 league finishes -> 9th, 12th, 15th, 2nd in Champ, 6th in Champ (6 position spread and 2 seasons in championship)

These clubs have one objective, don't get relegated, and their magic/data driven systems really don't stand up to scrutiny, it basically is build a system around the club that minimizes the reliance on manager/players that has a buffer (6-10 positions), and yes, try to do smart recruiting but lets be clear, Sarr, Bergvall, Grey, Vuskovic, Moore would all be hailed if signed by one of these clubs because they would get the luxury of game time regardless of dips in form because the goal isn't so high.
 
Mabspurs said:
I guess we will agree that 10 of the 13 coaches he appointed over his 25 year tenure were brick; as evident from their less than 2 year tenure - that's more than 75%!!...

As for the good ones... Poch is all his, I give you that. But MJ was certainly not planned and Redknapp was as much a desperation card as Tudor is right now. Even if you give him those three, it's still less than 25%. Compare that with the likes of Bloom, Benham and Foley at Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth who seemingly are able to bring in coach after coach who fits seemlessly into the fabric and culture of the club....

Problem is that the current incumbents show no signs of being different or more competent....
Click to expand...
When Arnesen recommended that we hire Jol as manager, Levy decided he knew more about football than Arnesen and hired Santini instead. Luckily Jol was there as coach and could step in when it quickly became apparent that Levy knew nothing about football and Arnesen did.
 
Raziel said:
To be fair to Ange, there was a tactic

- 4-3-3 out of possession moving to a 2-3-5 in attack, with some key principles, player in possession was given license to move into any open space in front of them, wide players stay wide and play one of two cross options, either across face of goal for tap in by other wide player or cut back to center of box for runners. In addition, high line meant any winning of the ball would have us a lot closer to the opposition goal.

That system had a few problems that got sussed out and Ange never quite adapted, specifically
- The fluidity of players (moving into spaces, FB/winger swap, Porro ending up in middle of box) could be countered by man to man marking
- The counter was long ball over top to width (the center was usually congested), hence Ange was only close to making it work with VDV, probably needed another fastest defender in Europe to make it work

He also had three other issues
- No in game management, no ability even at 3-0 up to slow/close the game out, we were likely to score but also vulnerable for the full 90 minutes
- The players often cramped each other, too often you would have 3-4 players in same area (say out left) making it harder to exploit.
- Bit like Frank's weird zone 14 thing, despite having a player like Son (and Maddison/Deki), Ange didn't really want the cut in from wide, shoot from outside the box as a regular part of the system (Son himself mentioned it), Broader issue of the system bringing the player level down vs. raising it up.

All of that is wildly different from the 4-2-4 mid block game we played for last 8 or so Europa league matches.

For Ange, there was a system, and that's where being kind to him, you could (I don't agree) say that better players (Kane up front, another fast CB, players more technical/comfortable in tight spaces) could have led to success, I'd argue the system had too many flaws to overcome either way. Inherently it works at lower levels where the opposition will be less ruthless, less clinical in chance conversation.

Frank to me beyond the counter the opposition (how, with what transition plan?) seemed to be aiming for

- Get ball to Kudus, Kudus either beats his man or passes back to Porro, Porro booms cross into box (where only one CF would be fighting against 2-3 defenders), this is backed up by data (Porro and Kudus have the most crosses in PL) and who we wanted to buy, Robertson/Semenyo was to replicate the same fudging tactic on left.

At least that's the best I could come up with for Frank
Click to expand...
He just didn’t have the mentality to accommodate his injuries in the team or make adjustments that were effective. For me Frank tried too much to be cute by changing formations week in week out, not utilising the players to their strengths.

Ange the opposite in trying to stick to one way of playing regardless of result being stubborn. It’s like every week he may as well have called the opposition manager to let him know what and how we are going to play.

Either way both managers were not backed completely by the board, i would also argue that neither really showed that they should have been trusted long term.
 
Gazza said:
He just didn’t have the mentality to accommodate his injuries in the team or make adjustments that were effective. For me Frank tried too much to be cute by changing formations week in week out, not utilising the players to their strengths.

Ange the opposite in trying to stick to one way of playing regardless of result being stubborn. It’s like every week he may as well have called the opposition manager to let him know what and how we are going to play.

Either way both managers were not backed completely by the board, i would also argue that neither really showed that they should have been trusted long term.
Click to expand...

IMG_1965.png

This image is from the same journalist who wrote the frankly insane ‘Thomas Frank should be the most in demand manager in football’ article today. But I think the end of that first paragraph gets to why Ange didn’t adjust like some people wanted him to.

He built a whole project on the idea that we were going to be the bravest team, and that players would join us to play the kind of football they dreamed about playing as kids. That no matter what the circumstance, we were going to play our way, and if it went wrong, he would take the blame.

The reason he is doing this is because he’s deliberately playing a high risk high reward game. No club should be hiring Ange because they ultimately want to place about where they should place. It’s about taking a big swing, which if you hit, is going to lead to great rewards.

So when he says that adapting his principles would lead to the players questioning him down the line, it’s a really really important point. I think it’s obvious that he intellectually understands that if he was more adaptable, he’d probably pick up a few more points in the short term, to see through an injury crisis for example. But he was thinking long term. The whole point of being brave is that you are brave even when it is hard to be so. If you tell the players it’s ok not to be brave, you’ve essentially lost the chance of performing way above your station, and you become like one of the pack. We (at least I didn’t think) were hiring Ange to be like one of the pack. We were doing it to out perform our starting.

Because it’s such a specific idea and way of playing that most other clubs won’t try. And if we get the exact right pieces in place, and let it all come together, great things can happen. Equally if the pieces aren’t there, there’s going to be some rough moments. But the whole point is that you accept the rough moments because the pay off of having players totally committed to a way of playing that could lead to outsized performance would be worth it. If you question the idea, you lose the bravery. If you lose the bravery, you may as well hire David Moyes or Nuno, and pragmatic your way to upper mid table.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
View attachment 21641

This image is from the same journalist who wrote the frankly insane ‘Thomas Frank should be the most in demand manager in football’ article today. But I think the end of that first paragraph gets to why Ange didn’t adjust like some people wanted him to.

He built a whole project on the idea that we were going to be the bravest team, and that players would join us to play the kind of football they dreamed about playing as kids. That no matter what the circumstance, we were going to play our way, and if it went wrong, he would take the blame.

The reason he is doing this is because he’s deliberately playing a high risk high reward game. No club should be hiring Ange because they ultimately want to place about where they should place. It’s about taking a big swing, which if you hit, is going to lead to great rewards.

So when he says that adapting his principles would lead to the players questioning him down the line, it’s a really really important point. I think it’s obvious that he intellectually understands that if he was more adaptable, he’d probably pick up a few more points in the short term, to see through an injury crisis for example. But he was thinking long term. The whole point of being brave is that you are brave even when it is hard to be so. If you tell the players it’s ok not to be brave, you’ve essentially lost the chance of performing way above your station, and you become like one of the pack. We (at least I didn’t think) were hiring Ange to be like one of the pack. We were doing it to out perform our starting.

Because it’s such a specific idea and way of playing that most other clubs won’t try. And if we get the exact right pieces in place, and let it all come together, great things can happen. Equally if the pieces aren’t there, there’s going to be some rough moments. But the whole point is that you accept the rough moments because the pay off of having players totally committed to a way of playing that could lead to outsized performance would be worth it. If you question the idea, you lose the bravery. If you lose the bravery, you may as well hire David Moyes or Nuno, and pragmatic your way to upper mid table.
Click to expand...
That’s fair but not worth the risk if we were getting battered every week. After those 10 games, we were shocking. All ifs and buts I’m afraid. Give me an astute manager who knows how to win games and proves it.
 
Gazza said:
That’s fair but not worth the risk if we were getting battered every week. After those 10 games, we were shocking. All ifs and buts I’m afraid. Give me an astute manager who knows how to win games and proves it.
Click to expand...

We simply weren’t shocking after the first 10 games. There were plenty of great wins. Just actually look at the results. There was a tough period after the Chelsea home (lots of injuries and suspensions came there) and a tough period towards the end of the season where we essentially played the top 4 all in a row.

I just don’t believe we were going to get battered every week if we didn’t have a horrific injury crisis under Ange. And I would rather we at least try something different that allows us the opportunity to try and compete above our station. Otherwise we’re just coming in about 6th every year and not doing much of anything.

I can appreciate that it’s a personal preference. But I never was against Ange because I wouldn’t want him to be something he’s not anyway. We should have hired him knowing we’re taking a big swing, high risk, high reward. I’d say that because part of this whole strategy is his unwavering belief which let the squad together, we got the reward in the end with a trophy in any case.
 
Gazza said:
That’s fair but not worth the risk if we were getting battered every week. After those 10 games, we were shocking. All ifs and buts I’m afraid. Give me an astute manager who knows how to win games and proves it.
Click to expand...

Also it’s very hard to know who that manager is for Spurs.

The mid table over performers don’t tend to earn the respect of our players unless they are a truly special one like Poch.

The big club winners don’t last long when they don’t have the most money to play with.

Our only choice is to do something quite different, and I think Ange was a version of something different. So was Poch - it was about reducing expectations to establish foundations and culture that provided a strategic advantage that money couldn’t buy.
 
Raziel said:
Football inherently will have an issue with data, and that's sample size.

A lot of decisions, e.g. buy Semenyo two years ago, vs. buy him this January are limited perspectives based on sample size (one season wonder). And people on this board will swear that "they knew" Semenyo was the real deal, what they conveniently forget is how many others "they knew" at that point of time that didn't make it.

My metric as proof is was there ever a more guaranteed sure thing than Dele at 21? what would data have said about him? none of the current 21-year-olds in England come close to what Dele was, and look how that turned out .. Who knows what Conte would have done here if 3 people around him (or even the one) didn't die unexpectedly.
Click to expand...

It's a poor example of an otherwise very decent point.

What happened with Dele had absolutely nothing to do with football. His career demise has been tragic. As for Conte? He'd have blown up no more than a year later (and that's stretching it).
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I don't think it was odd he was gone in February. He was open to be questioned at that stage.
If it was the injuries that caused such unpalatable form (not saying it is or it isn't btw) then the same reasoning would have to be offered to Frank?

The top and bottom of it was Frank wasn't the answer to Ange....but Ange wasn't the answer to Ange either.
Click to expand...

Well mate, we'll never know because we never did take the gamble to see what a European trophy-winning group could do between them.
 
Raziel said:
Worse than ours, it just doesn't matter

Brentford last 5 leagues finishes -> 10th, 16th, 9th, 13th, 3rd in Champ (7 position spread with highest outside Europe and includes Championship season)
Brighton last 5 league finishes -> 8th, 11th, 6th, 9th, 16th, 15th (10 position spread with highest position in European spot)
Bournemouth last 5 league finishes -> 9th, 12th, 15th, 2nd in Champ, 6th in Champ (6 position spread and 2 seasons in championship)

These clubs have one objective, don't get relegated, and their magic/data driven systems really don't stand up to scrutiny, it basically is build a system around the club that minimizes the reliance on manager/players that has a buffer (6-10 positions), and yes, try to do smart recruiting but lets be clear, Sarr, Bergvall, Grey, Vuskovic, Moore would all be hailed if signed by one of these clubs because they would get the luxury of game time regardless of dips in form because the goal isn't so high.
Click to expand...
You do like to massage "stats" and arguments to suit your agenda, don't you?

First you say that their "hit ratio" is less than ours, and then follow it up with an irrelevant reference to their league position... without of course linking those positions to their financial clout... and finally referring to young players when the argument was about coaching appointments.

During the time we chopped and changed 5 managers since Poch left, Brighton have had three and Brentford two - and two of those were poached by other clubs... so, no! Their hit ratio with regards to managerial appointments is nowhere even close to being worse than ours. And the reason is simple... they are run far better than we are... despite being - in your words - the "trash" of the Premier League.
 
thfcsteff said:
15 of last season's (still very poor) 18 losses were by one goal. Not exactly being 'swept aside' now is it.
Click to expand...
No, but you are talking results I’m talking about the whole deal. We looked gutless, similar to this season. Teams more or less just had to score a goal to win the game.

A myth of ever that Ange went out to win games on the front foot etc. it was just chaos without any structure. Losing that many games 1-0 doesn’t really suggest this gung ho attacking football.
 
Mabspurs said:
Really? What's the "hit ratio" at Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth?
Click to expand...
Bit early to say on Bournemouth? Iraola struggled at first, in part because of the big change from the previous style to his? What would they do next?

Arguably a bit early to say on Brentford too. Frank was there a long time, they seem to have succeeded with the replacement, but that's one managerial change in the PL. I do think they will do well on that regard, they have a clear plan and strategy.

Brighton for sure. Again a club with seemingly a clear plan and strategy.

To me it seems very likely that Brentford and Brighton wouldn't even consider doing the equivalent of going from Ange to Frank. Forest would (Nuno to Ange to Dyche). Several other clubs would. But not those better run clubs.

To me hiring Frank is an example of us being poorly run (we're poorly run in some ways, not all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back