Thomas Frank - Head Coach

[Muttley]

I think there has been a bit of hindsight revisionism here. IMO It was only really in the final and the second leg of the Frankfurt qtr final when we did this.... and on both occasions we only really did it after we went 1 goal up.

All I remember is Biss being our best player from the quarter to the final. He wasn't playing to Ange ball instruction either where he was expected to press high. I saw Ange's midfield 3 split left, right and centre many times and hunt together on the press. For me in those final stages of that comp we were way more selective in those tactics. You could possibly be right though. LOL - I won't be going back to watch those dreadful games.

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm a little surprised with @Muttley's view, I think I'm more aligned with @thfcsteff here

For me, we are adrift, certainly from an outside perspective
- Firing Ange was the right thing to do (I'll die on that hill) but it killed a lot of the upside of finally breaking the hoodo re trophies, it put us right back into that Spurs cycle of promise/decent but not great results/reboot that has been the last 30 years expect for the Harry & Poch timeframes
- Levy, good or bad, was a huge part of the club, and the predictability, e.g. if Levy was here and Frank lost the last two games plus say 1 in the next 3, we know what the result would be, now? if Franks stays bottom half of table, what's the decision, dead man walking for half a season?
- Old ownership with new story, do we really know what their vision is, Simon Jordon (yes, let's not have a if you like him conversation) is convinced they want to sell and moving Levy was part of that. Why is the money suddenly available? why not a month before summer window closed? so much unknown. Paratici possibly bailing also says something.
- And we are toxic, we have no connections anymore, no Levy to hate, no Son to love, a decent manager but not one that has people onboard and our rivals are in their best period in a decade.

And that's where I do have some sympathy for Frank, this job is a step up for him and there is way more than squad tactics to fix, where his old role, all of that was in place.

Indeed.

I do want to say that I absolutely hope @Muttley is right with regards to Thomas; as I always say we all benefit if so. And as you’ll have read in the thread I started a week ago, I too have sympathy for where Thomas finds himself, because I am damn sure he did not sign up for all the palavar which has been going on and is still going on above him.
So in that regard, I really, really want him to succeed on both the actual winning of things and style count.

The connections point is huge. It is why I fear the Lewis family might punt for the cheap heartstrings in the summer (as I’ve said, I adore him but don’t think he should come back).

I’ll say this; IF TF makes it through this turmoil, he can pretty much manage anywhere.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think that's my point that people aren't getting. Frank and any manager will have a philosophy. The reactive part to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition is at the fringe, not the core of their tactics. It's the tweaking that gets best of both worlds.

You seem to talk like Frank being reactive to the opposition is the core of his tactics. It really isn't. It's the last 20% to enable his own philosophy of how he wants his teams to play. I would argue that he hasn't found that formula yet based on what we've seen. It's in there somewhere though and he's waiting for the breakthroughs to happen.

I think we will eventually see Frank imposing his tactics on teams whilst constraining their own tactics. That is why he was hired and what you have to be in this current PL. Unfortunately, the PL has gone way too tactical and is becoming as dull as ditchwater, Even Pep has completely reined in all his free flowing football. It's functional, and Pep will be focusing more on the opposition than ever.

I think it’s pretty simple.
Do you want us to be a counter-attacking side or not?
Not ‘you’ per se, that’s a general ‘you’.
Because currently, I think the ceiling of Frank’s philosophy is to be a ruthlessly efficient counter-attacking side. Sit disciplined in mid to low blocks and strike precisely with a lower volume of overall chances and less possession per match than our opposition.
I harboured this hope that Frank had another tactical destination whereby he’d flower into a coach who took a more Pep (or prime Poch) approach (impose our style with a possession game that pays intelligent respect to the opposition but sees us with the ball more than not). So far I haven’t seen anything to suggest that, and as such, it is as unfair of me to expect it from him as it would’ve been to look for Eriksen from Sissoko.
I am going to try very hard to watch the second-half of the season based on who Frank is rather than what I wish he was. He is still our manager, and that requires support, regardless of personal wishes.

 

[parj]

No one is saying that from what I can see, I think people are talking about there being a balance. (From what I can tell from the boring nonsense of Ange v Frank)

Some people have made a decision on Frank in what is, for me, a small sample size given his Brentford team were fluid and played nice stuff. So be it

As for Iraola, I think he is a good manager but he would be suited to adapt his chaos ball, as exciting as it might be as a neutral, and I rate him. No way he goes to a Liverpool, City or Arsenal and that style is a success without some adaption IMO

I don't think Brentford were ever a proactive fluid team. I always saw them as a more counter attack team utilising long balls.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't think Brentford were ever a proactive fluid team. I always saw them as a more counter attack team utilising long balls.

You can be counter attacking and be fluid, they were very good at times under him.

 

[Raziel]

Genuine question - do you think Iraola is naive?

While question wasn't for me, I think we evaluated Iraola before Frank and left with concerns of injuries, burnout, unsustainable football and if that is true, well done to someone in the club decision making (although we might have had a better first 10-15 games.) Too many comparisons to Bielsa/Ange for my taste.

 

[Bishop]

I don't think Brentford were ever a proactive fluid team. I always saw them as a more counter attack team utilising long balls.

In the Championship where relative to their peers they had a better team they were.

 

[thfcsteff]

You can be counter attacking and be fluid, they were very good at times under him.

I think it’s a really interesting discussion, because it cuts to the heart of what people will or won’t accept. I agree, counter-attacking football can be fluid for sure, a devastating counter at pace which ends up with a goal as the prime example. But it comes down to whether you like that style. And that is individual taste I suppose…I think the initial point was that (Premier League era) Brentford were never a proactive side in the sense that they did not set out to impose their style and personality on the match more than negate the opposition and take advantage of the details/fine margin moments.

 

[billyiddo]

I think it’s a really interesting discussion, because it cuts to the heart of what people will or won’t accept. I agree, counter-attacking football can be fluid for sure, a devastating counter at pace which ends up with a goal as the prime example. But it comes down to whether you like that style. And that is individual taste I suppose…I think the initial point was that (Premier League era) Brentford were never a proactive side in the sense that they did not set out to impose their style and personality on the match more than negate the opposition and take advantage of the details/fine margin moments.

I guess the hope is that at a club like Brentford when in the PL you have to box clever (or can understand why you would) and as others have touched upon, when they were in the Championship the football was reportedly much different (not gonna pretend I watched them myself) so that leaves me open to the idea that the football can evolve over time.

I like that at Brentford he adapted to the challenges in front him when in the PL and I think that you could see an evolution of tactics there over the years they were in the PL. It didn't reach a level of free flowing football that we'd pine after but there was growth in their play as they got stronger and more used to the league. Which is why I'm not stuck in the 'what we see now is what we're gonna get' mindset

 

[thfcsteff]

I guess the hope is that at a club like Brentford when in the PL you have to box clever (or can understand why you would) and as others have touched upon, when they were in the Championship the football was reportedly much different (not gonna pretend I watched them myself) so that leaves me open to the idea that the football can evolve over time.

I like that at Brentford he adapted to the challenges in front him when in the PL and I think that you could see an evolution of tactics there over the years they were in the PL. It didn't reach a level of free flowing football that we'd pine after but there was growth in their play as they got stronger and more used to the league. Which is why I'm not stuck in the 'what we see now is what we're gonna get' mindset

I remember seeing some of their Championship games (my stepdad was a Brentford ST holder) and it is actually that which was the footballing reason I felt he could work here (I’ve already written why I think he was the right signing for this club the way we actually work). So yes, I cling to that hope despite not seeing even a hint of it thus far. I do feel a degree of sympathy with what he has to deal with around him, plus I have to remind myself of my own oft-scribed ‘Sissoko rule’ i.e. not to expect Sissoko to be Pirlo-esque…

 

[billyiddo]

I remember seeing some of their Championship games (my stepdad was a Brentford ST holder) and it is actually that which was the footballing reason I felt he could work here (I’ve already written why I think he was the right signing for this club the way we actually work). So yes, I cling to that hope despite not seeing even a hint of it thus far. I do feel a degree of sympathy with what he has to deal with around him, plus I have to remind myself of my own oft-scribed ‘Sissoko rule’ i.e. not to expect Sissoko to be Pirlo-esque…

I remember reading quotes from a player of ours a while back (couple/several seasons back I'm sure) saying that preseason is when you do most of your tactical work (in relation to your main setup) and that during the season you mostly do match prep and fitness - it could be, with that in mind, that Frank came in seeing us 17th in the table, 22 losses, x amount of goals conceded etc etc and made a decision about what was needed this season as a priority (eg focus on the defensive aspect) and with limited free weeks due to European football it has made expanding from that difficult. A game every 3 or 4 days must mean training amounts to recovery/fitness and then match prep with little time for much else...

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think it’s a really interesting discussion, because it cuts to the heart of what people will or won’t accept. I agree, counter-attacking football can be fluid for sure, a devastating counter at pace which ends up with a goal as the prime example. But it comes down to whether you like that style. And that is individual taste I suppose…I think the initial point was that (Premier League era) Brentford were never a proactive side in the sense that they did not set out to impose their style and personality on the match more than negate the opposition and take advantage of the details/fine margin moments.

I think its horses for courses and finding a balance, we have imposed ourselves on some sides based on their quality and not on others because we have been risk adverse, sometimes I admit, too much, but I think its a balance that will improve overtime. This squad should improve given the sounds from the board and that should see us improve, I know people don't believe so or think its overplayed, but this squad does need improvements and there are gaps everywhere currently.

NY rating 6/10 for Frank, work to be done, nowhere near the pearl clutching of "this style and manager will not work, get rid"

 

[Finney Is Back]

In the Championship where relative to their peers they had a better team they were.

Did you really watch much of Brentford in the Championship?

 

[Bishop]

Did you really watch much of Brentford in the Championship?

I didn't but I recall the chat at the time and many people who did watch them talked about their football evolution.

 

[metalgear]

I don't think Brentford were ever a proactive fluid team. I always saw them as a more counter attack team utilising long balls.

Brentford 24/25 Mbuemo Wissa Schade and Damsgaard were playing levels above our current lot.
Very fluid attack and lots of passes. Also more goals than Angeball. It was a working attack with Damsgaard in the top 5 for assists for the season, most of it coming in the final third. Was hoping for us to get at least 2 of the 4 with TF arriving.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Brentford 24/25 Mbuemo Wissa Schade and Damsgaard were playing levels above our current lot.
Very fluid attack and lots of passes. Also more goals than Angeball. It was a working attack with Damsgaard in the top 5 for assists for the season, most of it coming in the final third. Was hoping for us to get at least 2 of the 4 with TF arriving.

They played some decent stuff

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

No one is saying that from what I can see, I think people are talking about there being a balance. (From what I can tell from the boring nonsense of Ange v Frank)

Some people have made a decision on Frank in what is, for me, a small sample size given his Brentford team were fluid and played nice stuff. So be it

As for Iraola, I think he is a good manager but he would be suited to adapt his chaos ball, as exciting as it might be as a neutral, and I rate him. No way he goes to a Liverpool, City or Arsenal and that style is a success without some adaption IMO

What’s the right level of balance?

The reason I ask is because the history of football is littered with coaches that were looked upon as too extreme, until their particular system, philosophy or way of seeing the game actually ushered in something that a lot of other clubs followed. Balance isn’t hard. Everyone wants balance, but if everyone just did ‘enough attacking to score and enough defending to defend’ then you end up with all teams just playing at their level. But teams are looking for a strategic advantage.

Why did Southampton sack Adkins? He got them promoted, they played decent enough football, they made an ok start to life in the top flight. But they ended hiring a guy who flamed out of a mid table club in La Liga who didn’t speak the language. That guy played a much more extreme system, a much higher line, and a much higher expectation on pressing more often. To the point where the players themselves didn’t initially believe they could play that way, and didn’t think it was possible to be fit enough to do so. Why did Bournemouth sack Gary O’Neil? He’d done a decent job with them, and played ok football. It was nicely balanced, and everything was humming along nicely. They again hired someone who plays an extremely high, constant press.

The reason they make these changes is that these clubs don’t just want to risk playing to their level. Because with the competition as strong as it is in the Premier League, that might see you relegated. They are looking at ways to elevate themselves above their station, regardless of how much money they can spend. These systems have to do something more extreme that just being finely balanced, because in that more extreme application of tactical ideas they end up creating strategic advantages. Especially when you can compliment it with specific player types signed in the market, and specific training regimes to carry out those systems.

One thing I liked about Poch is that over his time with us he began to adapt game by game against other big 6 sides. It felt like a chess match where he’d look to spring a surprise on them. If often worked, and sometimes it didn’t like Son at LWB in the FA Cup semi to match Conte’s 3 at the back. I say this to say I’m not opposed to balance, and adapting, and being clever. But I think that’s a different conversation from calling some of these coaches naive.

The whole reason they are hired is to build a system to elevate the level of the club. Initially, the lack of balance is the point, so they can try and elevate themselves about their station. It takes being really specific about signings, training, and doing certain things which mean you can’t do other things. And that’s what Ange was doing with us. The whole point was that, like any system, if you get it right, it’s high reward. But needing such specific pieces means it’s also high risk. But it’s an attempt to have us elevate beyond our station. Frank is also an attempt to do that. I don’t think he’s actually attempting to make us play to our level. I think he’s going to extremes - extreme defensiveness and low tempo in certain phases. Much higher tempo and intensity in others. But it’s not balanced. And that’s also why it’s taken some time to start looking better.

I think to call these coaches naive is to misunderstand the point of why they are hired. I think if they reach the level that Poch did with us, where the foundations are so strong and we really have elevated beyond our level, then you start seeing these clever adjustments. Arguably Ange in Europa did this. But it’s not naive to have these more extreme systems. It’s the point, in order that these clubs elevate beyond where they would be if they stuck to playing nicely balanced football. Which ends up just reducing the likelihood of their success purely down to the quality of the players, with no tactical strategic advantage.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

What’s the right level of balance?

The reason I ask is because the history of football is littered with coaches that were looked upon as too extreme, until their particular system, philosophy or way of seeing the game actually ushered in something that a lot of other clubs followed. Balance isn’t hard. Everyone wants balance, but if everyone just did ‘enough attacking to score and enough defending to defend’ then you end up with all teams just playing at their level. But teams are looking for a strategic advantage.

Why did Southampton sack Adkins? He got them promoted, they played decent enough football, they made an ok start to life in the top flight. But they ended hiring a guy who flamed out of a mid table club in La Liga who didn’t speak the language. That guy played a much more extreme system, a much higher line, and a much higher expectation on pressing more often. To the point where the players themselves didn’t initially believe they could play that way, and didn’t think it was possible to be fit enough to do so. Why did Bournemouth sack Gary O’Neil? He’d done a decent job with them, and played ok football. It was nicely balanced, and everything was humming along nicely. They again hired someone who plays an extremely high, constant press.

The reason they make these changes is that these clubs don’t just want to risk playing to their level. Because with the competition as strong as it is in the Premier League, that might see you relegated. They are looking at ways to elevate themselves above their station, regardless of how much money they can spend. These systems have to do something more extreme that just being finely balanced, because in that more extreme application of tactical ideas they end up creating strategic advantages. Especially when you can compliment it with specific player types signed in the market, and specific training regimes to carry out those systems.

One thing I liked about Poch is that over his time with us he began to adapt game by game against other big 6 sides. It felt like a chess match where he’d look to spring a surprise on them. If often worked, and sometimes it didn’t like Son at LWB in the FA Cup semi to match Conte’s 3 at the back. I say this to say I’m not opposed to balance, and adapting, and being clever. But I think that’s a different conversation from calling some of these coaches naive.

The whole reason they are hired is to build a system to elevate the level of the club. Initially, the lack of balance is the point, so they can try and elevate themselves about their station. It takes being really specific about signings, training, and doing certain things which mean you can’t do other things. And that’s what Ange was doing with us. The whole point was that, like any system, if you get it right, it’s high reward. But needing such specific pieces means it’s also high risk. But it’s an attempt to have us elevate beyond our station. Frank is also an attempt to do that. I don’t think he’s actually attempting to make us play to our level. I think he’s going to extremes - extreme defensiveness and low tempo in certain phases. Much higher tempo and intensity in others. But it’s not balanced. And that’s also why it’s taken some time to start looking better.

I think to call these coaches naive is to misunderstand the point of why they are hired. I think if they reach the level that Poch did with us, where the foundations are so strong and we really have elevated beyond our level, then you start seeing these clever adjustments. Arguably Ange in Europa did this. But it’s not naive to have these more extreme systems. It’s the point, in order that these clubs elevate beyond where they would be if they stuck to playing nicely balanced football. Which ends up just reducing the likelihood of their success purely down to the quality of the players, with no tactical strategic advantage.

The right balance is what works for the manager and the club at the time

Im a firm believer that management is as much about timing and being the right person in the right place at the right time as anything else.

Ultimately you need to find a balance based on the sum of all your parts, we dont have the same parts as Brentford had in terms of balance but we have better players in many areas (they have in others).

For me its just about Frank to continue to find his feet and evolve the squad (it needs it regardless of manager).

He gets the season for me and always did

 

[parj]

Brentford 24/25 Mbuemo Wissa Schade and Damsgaard were playing levels above our current lot.
Very fluid attack and lots of passes. Also more goals than Angeball. It was a working attack with Damsgaard in the top 5 for assists for the season, most of it coming in the final third. Was hoping for us to get at least 2 of the 4 with TF arriving.

I never saw them as proactive fluid. I always saw them as a fluid counter attacking team. 24/25 a lot of teams were disjointed. Liverpool effectively ran away with the title -but only managed 84pts, Palace, Forest, Brighton, Brentford, Fulham were challenging for top6. I don't mean to take away from TF because of that, but I always saw them as counter attacking, and could see why Wissa and Mbuemo scored plenty of goals, and Damsgaard get plenty of assists.

But I think TF will cause an opinion split between the fans. I'm absolutely anti-pragmatic football, but that's cos Spurs and Barca are the teams I loved when I got into football and it wasn't pragmatic. However, if we showed anything about what TF wants to do then I could get on board, but right now I just see massive inconsistency. We still look like we can't see defend, and we still look like we can't attack - yet somehow get goals. Something has to improve.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I never saw them as proactive fluid. I always saw them as a fluid counter attacking team. 24/25 a lot of teams were disjointed. Liverpool effectively ran away with the title -but only managed 84pts, Palace, Forest, Brighton, Brentford, Fulham were challenging for top6. I don't mean to take away from TF because of that, but I always saw them as counter attacking, and could see why Wissa and Mbuemo scored plenty of goals, and Damsgaard get plenty of assists.

But I think TF will cause an opinion split between the fans. I'm absolutely anti-pragmatic football, but that's cos Spurs and Barca are the teams I loved when I got into football and it wasn't pragmatic. However, if we showed anything about what TF wants to do then I could get on board, but right now I just see massive inconsistency. We still look like we can't see defend, and we still look like we can't attack - yet somehow get goals. Something has to improve.

Agreed.

Reminds me of when Fabio supposedly ‘showed clips’ of Nuno’s Valencia playing nice football as a way to prove to Levy that Nuno would do it with us. I have to believe it was just nonsense to placate the fans rather than actually something serious that happened, because it would be crazy to me if it did.

You can find loads of clips of Frank’s Brentford playing nice stuff. Even Frank’s Spurs. The question and the test is around how often does it happen, or how often do they attempt to make it happen, within games.