Thomas Frank - Head Coach

[Yiddo]

No, Villarreal themselvesminimised their shots on target. We were fortunate in many ways, including VDVs foul at the end. If you want to bring Ange back into this if he was managing last night people on here would be going on about how poor the football was and how lucky we were.

Let's not try and dress it up differently because we have a different manager....

Not trying to dress up differently, just stating a fact, we look better defensively this season than last season. If you are going to have a meltdown every time someone compares this season to last season then i’m afraid you are going to be in for a bumpy ride.

 

[carl]

No, Villarreal themselvesminimised their shots on target. We were fortunate in many ways, including VDVs foul at the end. If you want to bring Ange back into this if he was managing last night people on here would be going on about how poor the football was and how lucky we were.

Let's not try and dress it up differently because we have a different manager....

I think after 2 years fans would've been entitled to moan about how poor the football was (and it was bad).

Frank will need a while yet before we can start judging.

 

[braineclipse]

Containing to me is pretty much playing in a low block with limited outlets, beyond set plays and stringing together 3 or 4 passes for a decent counter.

You could argue a high press is a type of containment, as you are containing your opponent in their defensive third. But the real aim of a high press is to force a mistake from your opponent nearer to their goal, and so, limiting the number of players they have to then rectify losing the ball to you. It's an offensive move by nature, due to a team commiting 3-4 players to the high press (ie further up the field), doesn't feel like containment at all.

It didn't feel or look like Bournemouth were containing us...it felt and looked like they were bearing down on us constantly and suffocating us. Flipping things to their advantage constantly. Winning possession and making good use of it.

Playing teams that do this extremely well is difficult. It's almost like you are better off NOT having the ball, and playing them at their own game.

Maybe we'll put them, Brighton, Fulham, Palace, Forest etc in a 'Smart' or 'PATW' (punching above their weight) category.

Yeah, many different and useful ways of categorising these things. For me there's a difference with what Bournemouth do (high press, look to get those high turnovers) and City/Guardiola as another example (also pressing, but looking to dominate possession overall).

Guess the difference is in part club size and expectations. Bournemouth I think would take a 0-0 against us, whereas City would look to take increasingly more risk on the ball at 0-0. So Bournemouth more about containment than overall domination of the ball and game.

In the Bournemouth game it certainly felt like us having the ball at the back was better for them than them having the ball at the back.

I like that PATW description. Often a clear plan, well drilled, but different ways of going about it. If we can get consistent performances in those games (too) we'd have come a long way.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I’m just reading things that right now Frank is concentrating on getting us defensively solid (which seems to be working although there are bigger tests to come) and perhaps the attacking element hasn’t been as much of the focus. I’m sure it will be as we progress.

 

[Legohamster]

I’m just reading things that right now Frank is concentrating on getting us defensively solid (which seems to be working although there are bigger tests to come) and perhaps the attacking element hasn’t been as much of the focus. I’m sure it will be as we progress.

Beat me to it.

We were a complete mess all over the place last year. It makes most sense to make us tougher to beat and defend properly before moving further up the field to address the other issues, some of which I imagine can't be resolved in house and require players moved on and in

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Yeah, many different and useful ways of categorising these things. For me there's a difference with what Bournemouth do (high press, look to get those high turnovers) and City/Guardiola as another example (also pressing, but looking to dominate possession overall).

Guess the difference is in part club size and expectations. Bournemouth I think would take a 0-0 against us, whereas City would look to take increasingly more risk on the ball at 0-0. So Bournemouth more about containment than overall domination of the ball and game.

In the Bournemouth game it certainly felt like us having the ball at the back was better for them than them having the ball at the back.

I like that PATW description. Often a clear plan, well drilled, but different ways of going about it. If we can get consistent performances in those games (too) we'd have come a long way.

Enjoying reading this discussion!

Frank mentioned on the Amazon post match that he saw a 4-1-5 shape on offence as a way of pinning Villarreal’s back 4 back, and a way to get us overloads and offensive advantages.,,and that obviously necessitates the more direct play and in turn the midfield not dropping deeper to progress the ball in a way we might be used to,

I think the question for me is, is this ultimately going to be the benefit and the drawback of Frank, or is he ultimately going to get us to a place where our offensive game is a lot more fluid too, and it’s just that he believes in starting with the defensive foundations first?

The benefit / drawback is the adaptability, the pragmatism, the willingness to go more direct, the preference for more physical players and time spent crafting set piece routines. We’ll win a lot like that, particularly when we successfully counter an opposition who is more set in their ways, but I think there’s a chance we’ll see a lot of games like last night, because relatively speaking Frank will spend less time working on that fluidity than other coaches. When it works, we can look like we have a clear cutting edge. When it doesn’t work, it can look a bit stodgy,

Listening to people that know him from the Brentford days, he clearly built defensive foundations first, particularly after they were promoted, and then layered on more of the attacking approach. So maybe he’ll speed run a similar evolution with us. We certainly don’t have 3 years to look more fluid, and I think Frank knows that. And the good thing is his focus on defensive solidity has proved out so far. He’s clearly capable of coaching it.

So that’s what I’m curious about as the season goes on. Do we have a ceiling because we don’t sufficiently break down teams down? Does the foundation of defensive solidity and trust in the attacking players and some game specific plans see us through enough? Or does he build more of the attacking fluidity quickly during the season? That will then determine whether Frank is unequivocally a supremely well suited coach for us specifically compared to others, or whether we’ve just entered into different trade offs than we had with the previous coach.

 

[thfcsteff]

It feels very simple to me.
Frank (as many have said here - me included) realises that the quickest way to buy time to grow a squad is to tighten the fundamentals. That starts with keeping things tight defensively. He has been fortunate to have the first-choice defensive core fit. Long may that continue. Given that we are without Madders and Deki for a long time, he is clearly finding the blends which work best in midfield and attack. I am not sure he will have a clear view until the end of October TBH...I will say this, IF he gets a result at Brighton, he will be en route to cracking the most massive of conundrums for us. He's already approaching things from the right perspective. I'll accept some disjointed performances if that's the price!

 

[braineclipse]

Enjoying reading this discussion!

Frank mentioned on the Amazon post match that he saw a 4-1-5 shape on offence as a way of pinning Villarreal’s back 4 back, and a way to get us overloads and offensive advantages.,,and that obviously necessitates the more direct play and in turn the midfield not dropping deeper to progress the ball in a way we might be used to,

I think the question for me is, is this ultimately going to be the benefit and the drawback of Frank, or is he ultimately going to get us to a place where our offensive game is a lot more fluid too, and it’s just that he believes in starting with the defensive foundations first?

The benefit / drawback is the adaptability, the pragmatism, the willingness to go more direct, the preference for more physical players and time spent crafting set piece routines. We’ll win a lot like that, particularly when we successfully counter an opposition who is more set in their ways, but I think there’s a chance we’ll see a lot of games like last night, because relatively speaking Frank will spend less time working on that fluidity than other coaches. When it works, we can look like we have a clear cutting edge. When it doesn’t work, it can look a bit stodgy,

Listening to people that know him from the Brentford days, he clearly built defensive foundations first, particularly after they were promoted, and then layered on more of the attacking approach. So maybe he’ll speed run a similar evolution with us. We certainly don’t have 3 years to look more fluid, and I think Frank knows that. And the good thing is his focus on defensive solidity has proved out so far. He’s clearly capable of coaching it.

So that’s what I’m curious about as the season goes on. Do we have a ceiling because we don’t sufficiently break down teams down? Does the foundation of defensive solidity and trust in the attacking players and some game specific plans see us through enough? Or does he build more of the attacking fluidity quickly during the season? That will then determine whether Frank is unequivocally a supremely well suited coach for us specifically compared to others, or whether we’ve just entered into different trade offs than we had with the previous coach.

Same to you mate.

I think for the shorter term it will be more about individual brilliance, particularly Kudus and Simons (assuming he settles in and steps up quickly), as well as Bergvall and a few others not quite at that Kudus/Simons level (yet).

I think we will remain somewhat hampered by our lack of ball playing ability deep in midfield, but that's a price worth paying for defensive solidity. But certainly potential for significant improvements in our attacking fluidity regardless of who plays in midfield. It is one of the harder things in football to get right, so only natural that it takes time. Particularly with the first focus being on defensive solidity and set pieces.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Same to you mate.

I think for the shorter term it will be more about individual brilliance, particularly Kudus and Simons (assuming he settles in and steps up quickly), as well as Bergvall and a few others not quite at that Kudus/Simons level (yet).

I think we will remain somewhat hampered by our lack of ball playing ability deep in midfield, but that's a price worth paying for defensive solidity. But certainly potential for significant improvements in our attacking fluidity regardless of who plays in midfield. It is one of the harder things in football to get right, so only natural that it takes time. Particularly with the first focus being on defensive solidity and set pieces.

Indeed. I’m fairly optimistic we’ll get there under Frank, in terms of being able to build on the defensive solidity with more attacking fluidity. And regardless I think we’ll continue to get results that will see us in the top 6 at a minimum this year.

I’m trying to think of another example where a coach has come in to a top 6 club and done this sort of phased ‘get the defence sorted first, then layer on the attacking combinations’ approach. And I guess that’s why I question whether in reality at this level, with the goal of us progressing to challenging consistently for the biggest prizes, whether it’s going to be an approach that gets us beyond batting at the par of our squad. As I said, I’m fairly confident that it will, but I have this open question in my mind of whether we ever get the fluidity in the same way that we would with other coaches that prioritise it more.

Said another way…if Frank succeeds with us (by that I mean gets us challenging consistently for the biggest prizes, or even let’s say as close as Poch was getting us), I think it puts him on a level above a lot of other coaches, and makes the ideas of devotions to systems and philosophies completely ridiculous and redundant. Because that’s the argument that those coaches on the other side of the debate will have, that you need to drill these things in so that you can consistently break teams down. It’s also the case that it’s so rare that a coach gets all the players he needs to play his perfect system, so some degree of adaptability is arguably always required. If he doesn’t succeed, and just has us batting at par or worse…I think it will show that the system / philosophy crowd has some merit. If Frank can get the same output in terms of attacking fluidity, while being pragmatic and flexible and getting better than expected results in the time building up to that, then he will have done a supreme job.

 

[braineclipse]

It feels very simple to me.
Frank (as many have said here - me included) realises that the quickest way to buy time to grow a squad is to tighten the fundamentals. That starts with keeping things tight defensively. He has been fortunate to have the first-choice defensive core fit. Long may that continue. Given that we are without Madders and Deki for a long time, he is clearly finding the blends which work best in midfield and attack. I am not sure he will have a clear view until the end of October TBH...I will say this, IF he gets a result at Brighton, he will be en route to cracking the most massive of conundrums for us. He's already approaching things from the right perspective. I'll accept some disjointed performances if that's the price!

Think there's some improvements that can happen fairly naturally, no need for that much in terms of changes or extra work on the training ground. Simons and Kolo Muani settling in, Udogie returning to match fitness giving us a left footed LB option, Solanke returning.

On the flip side there will be new challenges. Injuries, need for rotation, less time on the training ground to work on stuff.

Even if we don't improve our attacking play much by the end of October we should still be in a good place with those fundamentals well in place and a really good squad to choose from.

I know Frank has done well in the Championship with a lot of fixtures, but this is very much a higher level. How well and how quickly he can produce further improvement will be interesting to see. Ultimately I care more about that or happens and to what extent it happens than how quickly, it's his first season.

 

[braineclipse]

Indeed. I’m fairly optimistic we’ll get there under Frank, in terms of being able to build on the defensive solidity with more attacking fluidity. And regardless I think we’ll continue to get results that will see us in the top 6 at a minimum this year.

I’m trying to think of another example where a coach has come in to a top 6 club and done this sort of phased ‘get the defence sorted first, then layer on the attacking combinations’ approach. And I guess that’s why I question whether in reality at this level, with the goal of us progressing to challenging consistently for the biggest prizes, whether it’s going to be an approach that gets us beyond batting at the par of our squad. As I said, I’m fairly confident that it will, but I have this open question in my mind of whether we ever get the fluidity in the same way that we would with other coaches that prioritise it more.

Said another way…if Frank succeeds with us (by that I mean gets us challenging consistently for the biggest prizes, or even let’s say as close as Poch was getting us), I think it puts him on a level above a lot of other coaches, and makes the ideas of devotions to systems and philosophies completely ridiculous and redundant. Because that’s the argument that those coaches on the other side of the debate will have, that you need to drill these things in so that you can consistently break teams down. It’s also the case that it’s so rare that a coach gets all the players he needs to play his perfect system, so some degree of adaptability is arguably always required. If he doesn’t succeed, and just has us batting at par or worse…I think it will show that the system / philosophy crowd has some merit. If Frank can get the same output in terms of attacking fluidity, while being pragmatic and flexible and getting better than expected results in the time building up to that, then he will have done a supreme job.

I'm optimistic too. Get the defending sorted first was the default until Klopp and Pep did it differently imo.

Football seems a bit cyclical and reactive. A systems coach or two does really well so that's the way, a more flexible coach or two does well and that's the way to do it.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, there's a place for either approach. It's about what your starting point is and how well that plan is executed.

I think our starting point was good for Frank and I'm optimistic about the execution.

On attacking play he seems to succeed more on the quality of players and (key point) developing players to reach that level. Rather than having a very set way of playing and needing players that fit those needs and drilling a system over time. Bit Poch like in that regard imo. We imo have some really talented players, both players who are already really good capable of stepping up a level and some younger players more on the potential side than current ability. In that regard too he seems a really good fit.

Looking at what he got out of Mbuemo, Toney, Wissa etc at Brentford. Or even Damsgaard (clearly talented, but struggling to get to consistent performances). I think he's looking at our creative and attacking players thinking there's even more talent and potential than he had at Brentford and he should be able to get a lot of really good things out of this group.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Said another way…if Frank succeeds with us (by that I mean gets us challenging consistently for the biggest prizes, or even let’s say as close as Poch was getting us), I think it puts him on a level above a lot of other coaches, and makes the ideas of devotions to systems and philosophies completely ridiculous and redundant. Because that’s the argument that those coaches on the other side of the debate will have, that you need to drill these things in so that you can consistently break teams down. It’s also the case that it’s so rare that a coach gets all the players he needs to play his perfect system, so some degree of adaptability is arguably always required. If he doesn’t succeed, and just has us batting at par or worse…I think it will show that the system / philosophy crowd has some merit. If Frank can get the same output in terms of attacking fluidity, while being pragmatic and flexible and getting better than expected results in the time building up to that, then he will have done a supreme job.

I'm optimistic too. Get the defending sorted first was the default until Klopp and Pep did it differently imo.

Football seems a bit cyclical and reactive. A systems coach or two does really well so that's the way, a more flexible coach or two does well and that's the way to do it.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, there's a place for either approach. It's about what your starting point is and how well that plan is executed.

I think our starting point was good for Frank and I'm optimistic about the execution.

On attacking play he seems to succeed more on the quality of players and (key point) developing players to reach that level. Rather than having a very set way of playing and needing players that fit those needs and drilling a system over time. Bit Poch like in that regard imo. We imo have some really talented players, both players who are already really good capable of stepping up a level and some younger players more on the potential side than current ability. In that regard too he seems a really good fit.

I was always a believer that a 'systems' approach (klopp pep etc) was the way to go. Maybe that belief is held because they simply won?.
From our POV it's a harder gig because the league is so competitive, and if the system requires many many top players, other clubs will buy them before you do. (for many of the reasons we've done to death). The other issue is, with a 'systems' approach you 'reveal' yourself. Your cards are on show, and every week you think you have the strongest hand. Once again, the level of the league has got better, and the level of manager has got better. They're smart, tactically astute and your easily studied.

And Frank himself falls into that category of smart manager. His approach is that of being flexible and adaptable. Simply the same approach he had at Brentford but with more resources and better players.
It's an interesting approach as by the nature of it, WE ourselves don't become predictable.

I'm feeling he might be a good match for the stage of the cycle we're at. The club's plan of going back to younger players and now adding players with experience (still relatively young though) feels ideal for him. Theres so much potential there.

I do worry about the prep time...judging by his interviews (the Carrick one is good btw) he's super detailed. Perhaps some stuff can become engrained so only needs occasional re-enforcement every now and then. And even though we have different game plans, perhaps we use the same one for teams that are similar, so not necessarily unique every week.

I'm right behind Thomas.... he's laser focussed, a student of the game, speaks well and, most importantly, a decent human being,

 

[Muttley]

I'm optimistic too. Get the defending sorted first was the default until Klopp and Pep did it differently imo.

Football seems a bit cyclical and reactive. A systems coach or two does really well so that's the way, a more flexible coach or two does well and that's the way to do it.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, there's a place for either approach. It's about what your starting point is and how well that plan is executed.

I think our starting point was good for Frank and I'm optimistic about the execution.

On attacking play he seems to succeed more on the quality of players and (key point) developing players to reach that level. Rather than having a very set way of playing and needing players that fit those needs and drilling a system over time. Bit Poch like in that regard imo. We imo have some really talented players, both players who are already really good capable of stepping up a level and some younger players more on the potential side than current ability. In that regard too he seems a really good fit.

Looking at what he got out of Mbuemo, Toney, Wissa etc at Brentford. Or even Damsgaard (clearly talented, but struggling to get to consistent performances). I think he's looking at our creative and attacking players thinking there's even more talent and potential than he had at Brentford and he should be able to get a lot of really good things out of this group.

Interesting that you talk about Pep and Klopp doing it differently. What I've noticed is those 2 clubs have evolved their tactics year by year and they are more direct themselves. As I've said a few times, I think the best managers map their strategy to what's happening in the league and then they throw in some disruptors themselves. I believe that these top clubs had to change because the officiating changed. Howard Webb has not been a great PGMOL leader. He has been no better than Mike Riley who was an absolute weasel. Webb has not addressed the dark arts, he has not corrected all the VAR issues, his team are not giving yellows and reds and he has let the entire league become more physical. He needs his P45. The PL is now dull as ditchwater as a football spectacle and Howard is a big part of the why.

In my mind, Frank has got his tactics spot on whilst guys like Ange will always struggle with being too idealistic. The purist in all of us probably crave for Ange's methods to work but the pragmatist know they won't. Even Pep changed. Frank is looking at how this current PL operates and his own squad's talents and he knows which tactics to deploy. I think there is more scope for entertaining football as Spurs evolve, but no way Frank will risk it in his own defensive third and will be cautious in the middle third. What Frank will do though is make the forwards the biggest focus like he's always done with his teams. We've seen him put together everything from BMW to the Mbuemo/Wissa combo.

I crave for more entertaining football in the PL. It is a multi-faceted problem.

 

[braineclipse]

I was always a believer that a 'systems' approach (klopp pep etc) was the way to go. Maybe that belief is held because they simply won?.
From our POV it's a harder gig because the league is so competitive, and if the system requires many many top players, other clubs will buy them before you do. (for many of the reasons we've done to death). The other issue is, with a 'systems' approach you 'reveal' yourself. Your cards are on show, and every week you think you have the strongest hand. Once again, the level of the league has got better, and the level of manager has got better. They're smart, tactically astute and your easily studied.

And Frank himself falls into that category of smart manager. His approach is that of being flexible and adaptable. Simply the same approach he had at Brentford but with more resources and better players.
It's an interesting approach as by the nature of it, WE ourselves don't become predictable.

I'm feeling he might be a good match for the stage of the cycle we're at. The club's plan of going back to younger players and now adding players with experience (still relatively young though) feels ideal for him. Theres so much potential there.

I do worry about the prep time...judging by his interviews (the Carrick one is good btw) he's super detailed. Perhaps some stuff can become engrained so only needs occasional re-enforcement every now and then. And even though we have different game plans, perhaps we use the same one for teams that are similar, so not necessarily unique every week.

I'm right behind Thomas.... he's laser focussed, a student of the game, speaks well and, most importantly, a decent human being,

I don't think there will ever be a right way to go. Many different ways of going about it in a good way. But having a fairly clear identity I think is a good thing.

Yeah, prep time and being flexible with little time to prepare while also having to integrate more ways of playing will be a challenge, but also a benefit to have multiple ways.

He's imo come in at a very good time where I think several approaches could be good, including his.

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting that you talk about Pep and Klopp doing it differently. What I've noticed is those 2 clubs have evolved their tactics year by year and they are more direct themselves. As I've said a few times, I think the best managers map their strategy to what's happening in the league and then they throw in some disruptors themselves. I believe that these top clubs had to change because the officiating changed. Howard Webb has not been a great PGMOL leader. He has been no better than Mike Riley who was an absolute weasel. Webb has not addressed the dark arts, he has not corrected all the VAR issues, his team are not giving yellows and reds and he has let the entire league become more physical. He needs his P45. The PL is now dull as ditchwater as a football spectacle and Howard is a big part of the why.

In my mind, Frank has got his tactics spot on whilst guys like Ange will always struggle with being too idealistic. The purist in all of us probably crave for Ange's methods to work but the pragmatist know they won't. Even Pep changed. Frank is looking at how this current PL operates and his own squad's talents and he knows which tactics to deploy. I think there is more scope for entertaining football as Spurs evolve, but no way Frank will risk it in his own defensive third and will be cautious in the middle third. What Frank will do though is make the forwards the biggest focus like he's always done with his teams. We've seen him put together everything from BMW to the Mbuemo/Wissa combo.

I crave for more entertaining football in the PL. It is a multi-faceted problem.

Klopp was always direct imo. I agree most top managers will evolve (or be left behind - see Mourinho). But was talking about Klopp and Pep as the exception in that they didn't focus on making teams defensively solid first, whereas that was mostly the norm before them. Just my impression.

I think "idealism"/purist/dogmatic is a valid and good approach too, if done at the right time at the right club. Plenty of managers that have been more dogmatic and succeeded, just like more flexibility managers have.

I think Pulis is an interesting example with that. Very much dogmatic, very set way of playing and succeeded at a good level (for Stoke) for quite a while. And more than one similarity with him and what's now in fashion. High pressing mixed with periods of defending deep, set pieces, long throws, very direct. If he had the best players available for that style how far could they have gone? I think very far.

Before that (or at the same time?) Mourinho was winning it all with defense first, throwback to the Italian sides winning turgid 1-0s back in the day. That became the thing to do.

Similarly (but different style) Bielsa. High press and the man marking. Critiqued by many, but now all of a sudden more man marking high pressing is in fashion.

Then Pep-ball or Kloppball was in fashion. And "everyone" had to do something like that, with few exceptions. I think it's an illusion to think the solution has now been found and everyone should just do this or that. It's as much about how to exploit what is in fashion as to copy it imo. And both flexibility and dogmatism can be strengths.

Now probably isn't the time for a Pulis type. So many teams focusing on physicality and set pieces he would struggle to get that edge. Perhaps the next successful dogmatist will do something different though. Perhaps a possession heavy tiki taka like approach will be the way to gain an edge? Who knows, there are many answers as long as the execution and timing is right.