Igor the Interim

[DubSpur]

Up until 15 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but football has become a game of patterns and systems, with little room left for improvising. Old-school managers like Clough, Ferguson or Keegan would have no place in today's football, unfortunately. To be successful as a manager, you no longer need to know your players, think outside the box and devise a strategy according to your squad. You need to be able to implement an efficient system.

If your players can't adapt to different systems and/or managers then, quite simply, they're not good enough, regardless of their ability with a football.

That's what we're about to find out. Some people still think our squad should at least have us in midtable but the players couldn't/wouldn't adapt to Frank, they couldn't adapt to Tudor and unless something changes very quickly, they'll be playing in the Championship next season. They're not bad players per se, but they just don't fit into any system: they can't play three at the back, they can't play a very attacking game, they can't adapt to the opposition... well, we are where we are for a reason.

As for the managers, maybe I'm wrong but I think my explanation still beats 'he's incompetent', 'he's an idiot', 'he's a dinosaur' or 'he's trying to get us relegated on purpose' - arguments I've read many times over the years.

There have always been patterns in systems in football. Some come into and go out of fashion depending on what way the most successful teams of the moment are playing. What has changed is managers wanting players to stick to those patterns and less individualism in the game.
You still need to know your players and how they fit into a system. I'd say knowing your players is even more important now on a personal level as modern players need more handholding. Ferguson would adapt to any era, he was a master at motivation and ensuring that he had the correct people around him.

They adapted to Frank, it's just the system he had them playing lacked any creativity beyond putting a cross in. They won't adapt to Tudor if he keeps constantly playing players out of position doing roles they don't have the ability for.

 

[Mikey10]

One more chance this evening than he probably should have had to show that he can affect some level of change. Hopefully we see something. If we don't then we really have to make another change before Sunday.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Up until 15 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but football has become a game of patterns and systems, with little room left for improvising. Old-school managers like Clough, Ferguson or Keegan would have no place in today's football, unfortunately. To be successful as a manager, you no longer need to know your players, think outside the box and devise a strategy according to your squad. You need to be able to implement an efficient system.

If your players can't adapt to different systems and/or managers then, quite simply, they're not good enough, regardless of their ability with a football.

Just in the last week I've heard from Bale and the Chelsea manager that it's quite the opposite.

Getting to know your players as individuals is massive.

The strategy/system is 10% according to Rosenior.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Just in the last week I've heard from Bale and the Chelsea manager that it's quite the opposite.

Getting to know your players as individuals is massive.

The strategy/system is 10% according to Rosenior.

Then I suppose he's happy to change formation and his whole line-up from one game to the next? I don't watch Chelsea at all, so maybe he does, but I very much doubt it. There was a guy who was famous for using lots of players and different formations when I was a kid... Howard Kendall, maybe? Anyway...

The only manager I've seen in recent years who doesn't seem to rely on attacking patterns of play is Mourinho and nobody considers him an elite manager anymore.

I can think of many reasons why they'd say that. First of all, as a manager, you absolutely don't want to lose the dressing room. It's important to know your players as individuals, because that's the one thing you have to avoid at all costs (Frank says hi). Also, modern-day managers tend to make a difference between systems (ie formations) and philosophies (ie individual instructions, general intent). For instance, you could set-up your team in a 4-4-2 but if you instruct one of your forwards to drop down and tell your wingers to press the full-backs, you effectively play in 4-2-3-1. It's the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

It could also be because managers are more distanced from the everyday work on the pitch, these days. Wenger is the blueprint now. They have coaches for almost everything so yes, they most work as motivators but there's still a lot of detailed work being done on the training pitch and that's why most of these guys like to work with 'trusted people' (people who know what they actually want).

Now, if Bale wants to watch a Premier League game with me and tell me that the patterns of play aren't worked on in training and that players are given a lot of freedom, I'd be happy to entertain him, but he'll have a hard time convincing me.

Having said all that, I sound assertive because of my mediocre grasp of the English language, but all this is nothing but my opinion. I'm trying to explain the reasons why I came to these conclusions, but I can't claim any particular knowledge on the game. So, if that's a load of bull... then it wouldn't be the first time in my life I spouted nonsense!

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Then I suppose he's happy to change formation and his whole line-up from one game to the next? I don't watch Chelsea at all, so maybe he does, but I very much doubt it. There was a guy who was famous for using lots of players and different formations when I was a kid... Howard Kendall, maybe? Anyway...

The only manager I've seen in recent years who doesn't seem to rely on attacking patterns of play is Mourinho and nobody considers him an elite manager anymore.

I can think of many reasons why they'd say that. First of all, as a manager, you absolutely don't want to lose the dressing room. It's important to know your players as individuals, because that's the one thing you have to avoid at all costs (Frank says hi). Also, modern-day managers tend to make a difference between systems (ie formations) and philosophies (ie individual instructions, general intent). For instance, you could set-up your team in a 4-4-2 but if you instruct one of your forwards to drop down and tell your wingers to press the full-backs, you effectively play in 4-2-3-1. It's the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

It could also be because managers are more distanced from the everyday work on the pitch, these days. Wenger is the blueprint now. They have coaches for almost everything so yes, they most work as motivators but there's still a lot of detailed work being done on the training pitch and that's why most of these guys like to work with 'trusted people' (people who know what they actually want).

Now, if Bale wants to watch a Premier League game with me and tell me that the patterns of play aren't worked on in training and that players are given a lot of freedom, I'd be happy to entertain him, but he'll have a hard time convincing me.

Having said all that, I sound assertive because of my mediocre grasp of the English language, but all this is nothing but my opinion. I'm trying to explain the reasons why I came to these conclusions, but I can't claim any particular knowledge on the game. So, if that's a load of bull... then it wouldn't be the first time in my life I spouted nonsense!

Your English is excellent mate....don't sell yourself short

Do you need to know your players or not...... contradiction in your posts?

Maybe there's a shift? Maybe there's a move away from Pep ball?. Maybe at the higher levels you need to allow expression. Rosenior was saying that the reason the player connection was everything is because they are smart players already. They have high skill levels that don't need pigeonholing. That could annoy. So you get to know them, their attitude, the psychology....and you build two way trust.

Poch did this with us.

And it's true that not many managers can do this...and it's also true not many are given the time. (Good luck to Rosenior at Chelsea)

The system/tactics/philosophy approach will only take you so far....and up to a certain level it works.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

There have always been patterns in systems in football. Some come into and go out of fashion depending on what way the most successful teams of the moment are playing. What has changed is managers wanting players to stick to those patterns and less individualism in the game.
You still need to know your players and how they fit into a system. I'd say knowing your players is even more important now on a personal level as modern players need more handholding. Ferguson would adapt to any era, he was a master at motivation and ensuring that he had the correct people around him.

They adapted to Frank, it's just the system he had them playing lacked any creativity beyond putting a cross in. They won't adapt to Tudor if he keeps constantly playing players out of position doing roles they don't have the ability for.

Agreed. Probably a Gen Z thing.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Your English is excellent mate....don't sell yourself short

Do you need to know your players or not...... contradiction in your posts?

Maybe there's a shift? Maybe there's a move away from Pep ball?. Maybe at the higher levels you need to allow expression. Rosenior was saying that the reason the player connection was everything is because they are smart players already. They have high skill levels that don't need pigeonholing. That could annoy. So you get to know them, their attitude, the psychology....and you build two way trust.

Poch did this with us.

And it's true that not many managers can do this...and it's also true not many are given the time. (Good luck to Rosenior at Chelsea)

The system/tactics/philosophy approach will only take you so far....and up to a certain level it works.

Ha! Thanks for the kind words but it does look like I let myself down if it appears like there's a contradiction in my posts!

It's possible that I got my ideas completely wrong, but up until the turn of the century, I'd say the manager was doing a bit of everything: tactics, training, psychology, squad building and sometimes even scouting. Few people were good at all these things, but they had to be able to at least overview the work that was done in all these departments.

My feeling (I don't work in football) is that it works differently now. Basically, a manager and his team of coaches are almost one and the same but, more importantly, the information doesn't go down (from the manager to his coaches) but up (from the coaches to the manager). These managers receive a lot of information and, at the end of the day (or the week, in this case) they make 'informed decision' based on these feedbacks.

I think I read somewhere that Frank wanted to hire someone to specifically deal with disciplinary issues within the squad.

In that context, the manager can spend more time trying to get to know his players since he no longer has to deal with a myriad of small and big issues. From that point of view, Rosenior is correct. Basically, the manager is the figurehead for the whole 'technical staff'. Ideally, the players should want to play 'for him', like they played for Ferguson or Clough.

However, it looks to me like most managers (successful ones anyway) are indeed 'married' to a system. It's just that they don't have to implement that system themselves - they have coaches who do the ground work. Hence why, for instance, Terzic was convinced he'd do a better work than Klopp. But that doesn't make the managers more flexible or more willing to give leeway to their players. Some special players are given a bit more freedom but they are getting fewer and further between.

I think Rosenior is correct on one thing: there's a lot more tactical work being done with young players now than, say, 40 years ago for instance. But I think that in a lot of managers' mind, that only make them (the players) more flexible, not the other way round.

I think I already made that abuntantly clear but that's just my opinion. It would be interesting to interview a couple of managers and ask them about this - unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult than you'd think. Believe it not, I worked for a kids' football magazine a few years ago and trying to get an interview, even from relatively unknown players, was a job onto itself!

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Ha! Thanks for the kind words but it does look like I let myself down if it appears like there's a contradiction in my posts!

It's possible that I got my ideas completely wrong, but up until the turn of the century, I'd say the manager was doing a bit of everything: tactics, training, psychology, squad building and sometimes even scouting. Few people were good at all these things, but they had to be able to at least overview the work that was done in all these departments.

My feeling (I don't work in football) is that it works differently now. Basically, a manager and his team of coaches are almost one and the same but, more importantly, the information doesn't go down (from the manager to his coaches) but up (from the coaches to the manager). These managers receive a lot of information and, at the end of the day (or the week, in this case) they make 'informed decision' based on these feedbacks.

I think I read somewhere that Frank wanted to hire someone to specifically deal with disciplinary issues within the squad.

In that context, the manager can spend more time trying to get to know his players since he no longer has to deal with a myriad of small and big issues. From that point of view, Rosenior is correct. Basically, the manager is the figurehead for the whole 'technical staff'. Ideally, the players should want to play 'for him', like they played for Ferguson or Clough.

However, it looks to me like most managers (successful ones anyway) are indeed 'married' to a system. It's just that they don't have to implement that system themselves - they have coaches who do the ground work. Hence why, for instance, Terzic was convinced he'd do a better work than Klopp. But that doesn't make the managers more flexible or more willing to give leeway to their players. Some special players are given a bit more freedom but they are getting fewer and further between.

I think Rosenior is correct on one thing: there's a lot more tactical work being done with young players now than, say, 40 years ago for instance. But I think that in a lot of managers' mind, that only make them (the players) more flexible, not the other way round.

I think I already made that abuntantly clear but that's just my opinion. It would be interesting to interview a couple of managers and ask them about this - unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult than you'd think. Believe it not, I worked for a kids' football magazine a few years ago and trying to get an interview, even from relatively unknown players, was a job onto itself!

It's an interesting discussion for sure....perhaps we are seeing (at the moment) an inflection point in managing, coaching, systems, tactics etc.