New ideas

[milo]

How long do people think that it takes for a manager and his coaching team to get a team playing in a new way? How long does it take to bed in new tactics?

 

[southstand1882]

How long should it take? A few weeks. They are PROFESSIONAL footballers after all

How long will it take? A few months probably ...

 

[SUIYHA]

If your new tactics involve a midget up front with two holding midfielders behind him that can't pass the ball....forever.

 

[milo]

If your new tactics involve a midget up front with two holding midfielders behind him that can't pass the ball....forever.

We all know that is not the tactic that AVB wants to play, he has just been hampered by not having the players in place early and Ade not being match fit because he didn't have a pre-season.

So anyway, back on topic. Now that the squad is in place, how long should we expect to wait before the new tactics start to take shape and bear fruit?

 

[chicken_badge]

A good question at this moment in time! Might be useful if people could also give examples of how long it took someone to drastically change the status quo at a club. I'd be interested to know, for example, how long it took:

* Barcelona to master their game under Guardiola
* Ditto Swansea and Rodgers
* Chelsea under Jose
* Norwich under Lambert (didn't they cruise to promotion after a terrible start?)

The example ive got a clearer idea of is Big Sam at West Ham

Clearly this isn't a direction we want to go in but the fact is, Allardyce went in there, ripped up one way of playing and enforced his own style. This led to success (promotion) in a relatively short space of time. But maybe it's a lot easier to change a system if you are doing something crude like a long ball game. So he turned it around well within a season, maybe as little as three months?

 

[Spursalot]

How long should it take? A few weeks. They are PROFESSIONAL footballers after all

How long will it take? A few months probably ...

I'm not sure that should make a difference...


Some professional footballers are just good at one or two things, they may never pick up a new system properly.


It's more about how adaptable they are, which will vary greatly from person to person.


Edit: Footballers aren't always a very intelligent bunch..

 

[Spursalot]

A good question at this moment in time! Might be useful if people could also give examples of how long it took someone to drastically change the status quo at a club. I'd be interested to know, for example, how long it took:

* Barcelona to master their game under Guardiola
* Ditto Swansea and Rodgers
* Chelsea under Jose
* Norwich under Lambert (didn't they cruise to promotion after a terrible start?)

The example ive got a clearer idea of is Big Sam at West Ham

Clearly this isn't a direction we want to go in but the fact is, Allardyce went in there, ripped up one way of playing and enforced his own style. This led to success (promotion) in a relatively short space of time. But maybe it's a lot easier to change a system if you are doing something crude like a long ball game. So he turned it around well within a season, maybe as little as three months?

Swansea and Barca were playing like that before Guardiola and Rodgers, they provided minor tweaks and not a major revolution..

 

[DHSF]

What AVB has done wrongly in my opinion is try to change too much too soon.

I was listening to Laudrup the other day who basically said that he carried on from where Rodgers left off and just tweaked a few things. Thats why they have hit the ground running this season.

What AVB has done was to demolish the building and destroy the foundations then start again.

Change takes time but I think you can implement change whilst being successful and without having to destroy the previous version of the team so to speak.

 

[milo]

What AVB has done wrongly in my opinion is try to change too much too soon.

I was listening to Laudrup the other day who basically said that he carried on from where Rodgers left off and just tweaked a few things. Thats why they have hit the ground running this season.

What AVB has done was to demolish the building and destroy the foundations then start again.

Change takes time but I think you can implement change whilst being successful and without having to destroy the previous version of the team so to speak.

This thread is not about what AVB has done wrong, if you want to talk about that you are spoilt for choice of other threads where that is being discussed. This isn't just about Spurs, Rodgers is changing things at Liverpool and Lambert at Villa too, how long does it take to get those ideas across and see the players start to be comfortable with them?

 

[Jordinho]

I remember when Santini came in we started out in an extremely defensive style while the players were settling in, playing for the draw, hoping to snatch a win. He jumped ship before we could see where he was taking us though.

Jol immediately changed it to include Carrick and that worked well enough.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

What AVB has done wrongly in my opinion is try to change too much too soon.

I was listening to Laudrup the other day who basically said that he carried on from where Rodgers left off and just tweaked a few things. Thats why they have hit the ground running this season.

What AVB has done was to demolish the building and destroy the foundations then start again.

Change takes time but I think you can implement change whilst being successful and without having to destroy the previous version of the team so to speak.

It's ok for Laudrup to not change much at Swansea, because his style pretty much matched what Rodgers was doing pretty closely. A superb appointment from them.

 

[milo]

I remember when Santini came in we started out in an extremely defensive style while the players were settling in, playing for the draw, hoping to snatch a win. He jumped ship before we could see where he was taking us though.

Jol immediately changed it to include Carrick and that worked well enough.

Do you think that it was recognisably a Jol side from the off or did it take time for his ideas to take hold?

 

[Jordinho]

Do you think that it was recognisably a Jol side from the off or did it take time for his ideas to take hold?

Can't really remember, but the first two league matches were the Charlton and Arsenal losses.

 

[milo]

Can't really remember, but the first two league matches were the Charlton and Arsenal losses.

Hold was lucky to have the option of Carrick to come into the side. I thought that Sean Davis played quite well under Santini but his injury really opened things up for the change of style.

 

[DHSF]

This thread is not about what AVB has done wrong, if you want to talk about that you are spoilt for choice of other threads where that is being discussed. This isn't just about Spurs, Rodgers is changing things at Liverpool and Lambert at Villa too, how long does it take to get those ideas across and see the players start to be comfortable with them?

Hang on I wasn't criticising him. I didnt misunderstand the question - I made a comparison between AVB and bringing in the Laudrup example so not sure of the first sentence.

Laudrups interview intrigued me as he seemed to have come along with new ideas however instead of destroying what had already existed he tweaked what was already in place and im sure he will continue tweaking until he gets to the desired state that he wants his team in. Phased approach as it were.

I dont think its ever as cut and dried as how long it takes to bring in or implement new ideas... there are two things to take into account a) the approach to implementing those new ideas Is it a phased approach for example Laudrup or is it a 'destroy the building and start again' approach which AVB is doing. Whilst the former would show continuity and will mean success while changing the latter will mean starting again but both would take time. b) Was the previous 'regime' successful? People are much more receptive to taking on board new ideas if the older regime was unsuccessful (hence the honeymoon phase). If people are more receptive less time would be needed to implement those changes as ultimately players and staff etc will be the ones carrying out those ideas.

In a business context I have seen change management go horribly wrong simply because the new Management just came in and implemented their ideas without any idea of what the current set up was like, the strengths and weaknesses of personnel and key staff themselves. I have also seen change go very well because they took the phased approach. Lets be honest new ideas is change. Its similar im sure in a football team.

In a footballing context it seriously is about the buy in from the players, the staff, the hierarchy and the fans. Do you believe in the new ideas. Do you think there needed change and these new ideas? If it aint broke no need to fix it...

 

[milo]

That should read Jol not hold

 

[DHSF]

It's ok for Laudrup to not change much at Swansea, because his style pretty much matched what Rodgers was doing pretty closely. A superb appointment from them.

That is true. I dont know if Laudrup has the same philosophy

You know what Swansea have done so damn well... appoint Managers that have had similiar philosophies. It all started from Martinez who built the foundations, then Sousa, then Rodgers and now Laudrup - all seemingly have the same philosophy, tactics and playing style.

Each Manager appointed was appointed with the thinking that they were just a continuation from the previous Manager which means continuous success and none of the transitional period.

 

[Spursalot]

Saying what someone has done wrong is not criticising them?

 

[Jordinho]

Might have been a bit similar to when Redknapp came in. Under Santini we played with Mendes and Davis as our CMs, but when Jol took over he put Carrick in and let everyone play with a bit more freedom perhaps?

 

[DHSF]

Saying what someone has done wrong is not criticising them?

Spamalot