D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Irrelevant:
Mainz was Klopps first appt, Allardyce had had 4 previous appointments.
Mainz was Klopps first appt, Allardyce had had 4 previous appointments.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Not every post has a hidden agenda.Yeah I got that this time
Swango1980
Well-known member
It is not THAT irrelevant. I assumed that highlighting Klopp's stats was simply a way of saying he had a decent record. Therefore, if that is the case, is it any better than Allardyce's time at Bolton. I didn't realise there was a strict condition that it HAD to be the managers first appointment. What other conditions make it relevant. Does the stat only apply if the manager has nice teeth and floppy hair?
Or, are you just looking for yet another argument?
GB72
Money List Winner
I know that this is a naive question and one that I will be probably be humiliating myself with but when did it change from managers moving to a club and working on a formation and tactics to suit the players that were there and develop existing talent to managers having to be given a number of transfer windows to buy in the squad of players that play the style and formation that he wants to impose on the team.
With regards Potter, I can see why he would stay at Brighton for the time being. The sort of clubs that may show interest at the moment seem to be basket cases behind the scenes whereas Brigthon seems pretty stable in that regard.
With regards Potter, I can see why he would stay at Brighton for the time being. The sort of clubs that may show interest at the moment seem to be basket cases behind the scenes whereas Brigthon seems pretty stable in that regard.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
So 2 people answer you and you only come back at me! Back on ignore!
That is a very good question. I think the advent of the PL changed matters because it dropped in a big pile of cash to all clubs involved. Suddenly, developing a team became less necessary as you could just buy one. You could try to be the club that went gently but if all the others around you were buying their team then you could be left behind. You can still get that in the lower leagues but it is harder the higher up you get.
There is definitely a mindset change to the point you make and to answer the question, I'd go mid to late 90's for other teams to follow the big boys in this change.
Swango1980
Well-known member
You were the only one who said it was irrelevant. But, if you feel better by ignoring people who have a decent comeback to your post, go ahead
Swango1980
Well-known member
I used Wiki as well, just thought of Big Sam as he isn't exactly one that seems to be highly regarded by fansDid you just know that? What made you think of big sam?!
If we stuck to just first clubs only (pauls imposed restrictions), Klopp would have a similar record to Steve Bruce, Frank Lampard and Roy Keane (well, Roy Keane lost 41%, but had a slightly higher win rate of 42%), but not as good as Eddie Howe or Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.
To be honest, I'd imagine most managers who have been in the game a long time, even these less fancied ones, have had a generally decent start to their management careers. It is probably what gave them the momentum to get more jobs after being moved on from their first club, and even if they have bad spells at other clubs, the fact they have had some track record of "relative" success, other clubs will give them a chance.
GB72
Money List Winner
It does sort of confuse me when clubs hire in World Class Manager 'A'. He comes in and says 'I play a 4-5-1 system and I need these players'. Response 'but we have just spent 3 years developing a squad based on playing 5-3-2 and been recruiting expensive players for that. Can you not work with these professional sportsmen and adapt your tactics to fit in what we have got. I am sure that you train and develop these players a bit as well'. World Class Manager 'No, we will only play the one way that I use at every club, you will buy me the players I need as until then I will be playing what we have out of position in my formation and we will not be great'. Club gets out chequebook.
Again, you know I am not a massive football follower but clubs get in a new manager and the results are not great and the pundits are all 'well he needs a few transfer windows'. To my mind, that is not the case, if he cannot get what he has got playing better than the last bloke then he is not as good a manager.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
with Arsenal it came very slowly as the transition from the George Graham era to the Wenger era. Wenger inherited a great defense and worked on ways to extend there careers whilst adding a few big names attacking wise (eg Bergkamp). As it progressed Wenger for many years mainly bought young and mainly cheap with a view to developing with the odd bigger purchase. This started to change towards the end of his tenure as money was thrown at problems (money that had come from huge increases in tv revenues mainly), partly as a reaction to the amount the likes of Chelsea were by now spending. As things continued to get worse more money got badly thrown at the problem every 6 mths and still is being. The ironic part is that any strength Arsenal have currently is through the younger players that have come through the ranks rather than the hundreds of millions theyve frittered away time after time
2 big differences now from 5+ years ago for me, is that most clubs now have money to spend (through tv monies and foreign owners) and moreso the last year or two is that the English clubs have more buying power than almost all the continental teams (bar a handful)
with respect to Potter, think Ive said this before, think hes on a journey with Brighton and that the jobs hes been linked with recently (Spurs, Arsenal, Everton, Villa etc) arent enough of an upgrade to take the risk of jumping ship and the bigger jobs that may be seen as worth jumping for he hasnt been offered (and he doesnt appear to be keen to move just for more money). Be interesting to see if he does go if one of the current top 3 were to come asking. Winning stuff with Brighton as the end of the project hes been on be far more fulfilling than buying it at a so called bigger club and expect a far better working environment. not as if Tony Bloom hasnt got money, he just spends it more efficiently than most others thats all!
I wouldn't disagree. I think it also means that the club have not done their due dilegence when hiring as if the manager is tied to a different formation to the one your club likes and will not change then they are not right for your club. There is certainly more rigidty in that sense now.
I think you are more of a rugby man. Does that not apply to coaches there as well to an extent? Coaches have a style and they ask the players to play to that style? Do you think Eddie Jones adapts to his players for example, Warren Gatland or even Shaun Edwards the same, or do they expect them to bend? (my rugby knowledge is limited so this is a genuine question and I am asking about coaches who seem to me to be quite rigid in their styles)
GB72
Money List Winner
I think that you have a slightly off example there in that those managers are at international level and so with no recruitment cost, they can pick a style and fill the spots with suitable players. Then again, you look at Shaun Edwards. The french have not changed the playing staff so much as he has taught those that are there better tactics and techniques and the difference is showing. My team, the Tigers have a few new players in but out new management set up is working with a large number of the same players and have moved from bottom to top of the league. The main differences, the attitude of the manager, out conditioning coach and the wonderful Mr Sinfield dealing with defence.
Equally, rugby does not have as much felxibility in selection. You still pick to fill the same 15 positions and it is not as if you can pick more wingers or an extra centre. Yes, you can pick types of players but there is little flexibility in where they play.
That said, rugby is also not hampered by transfer fees and so if a player does not fit, he can be invited to go and find another club and we are not losing out on a transfer fee, just on wages until he does.
I guess from a footballing point of view, the confusion is based on managers not being expected to make improvements with what they have got, the expectation has become that they there is less pressure to do well until they have had a chance to buy half a new team and, on the back of that, the impression that improvement can only come from buying new players and not developing the existing ones. Managers seem to have become judged by what they buy rather than how they train and now the develop and what tactical knowledge they have. That is not managing to me.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I think there are managers with different approaches, and it all depends on the club as well. I think Pochettino was a manager who worked with what we had at the time and got a lot more than the sum of those parts. Whereas Jose and Conte who we've gone for recently are more the other kind that you speak of, who want to bring in ready-made players. The first type of managers are harder to come by, plus the latter are a quicker fix for clubs that have the money for it. And as we said at the top of this, clubs don't have the patience to wait and see if their new manager is the type who can build over 3 years or whatever. They want immediate success (and immediate pay-off). Those kind of managers who can improve players over time are the likes of Potter who end up at the likes of Brighton. Just like Poch made his name at Southampton before moving to Spurs. The lower and mid-table clubs will take the gamble on these managers as they don't have the money for the immediate kind anyway.
Edit: another point in this though is that players seem to be less flexible than they used to be. You used to have a midfielder who could perform a number of roles, now you have a defensive midfielder, or a box-to-box, or an attacking midfielder, and you need different players to perform each of those apparently. Back in the day you'd have full backs like Gary Neville and Stuart Pearce who could play centre back if needed, nowadays, you cannot really imagine Trent Alexander-Arnold or Reece James playing centre back can you?
GB72
Money List Winner
It is a good point that there does appear to be less flexibility in players these days. Not sure if that is down to the club, their training or the players themselves but the days of being defined as a defender, midfielder or forward are long gone.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Dont agree on the last part. Reece James has played centre half this year, at Arsenal both full backs can play centre half, most attacking players are able to play central or wide. Stuart Dallas has played pretty much everywhere bar in goal for Leeds lol. Traore played wingback, out wide and centre forward before heading to Spain. Plenty of players flexible enough to do, more a case of clubs having bigger squads meaning they are asked to do so less often imo
(Be a good job at Arsenal as with how few we have left most of them are gonna be out of position at some point rest of this season lol)
Orikoru
Tour Winner
James has filled in on the right of a back three, it's not quite the same as the way Pearce used to do it in a back four. But I'm talking the way a manager will come and say, "I want to get rid of this ball-winning holding player, and bring in a deep-lying playmaker - whereas back in the day they would just train the player to play a different way rather than replace them. Someone like Patrick Vieira could have played defensively, or more attacking, or a bit of everything. Then look at Paul Pogba today, who can seemingly only play on the left side of a three-man midfield and nothing else. I blame Makelele, he has a lot to answer for.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
dont get me wrong there are some inflexible, typecast players, but theres plenty with more than one string to their bow, even Kane could play in midfield if needed
look at the standard man city set, full backs play either side, centre halves cover for full backs if injured and anyone in midfield forward could end up anywhere on the field pretty much, defensive mids cover at centre half, only have 1 striker so they play him out wide etc
going back to the side Viera played in at Arsenal, thy were actually one of the lest inflexible in terms of players covering other roles i can think off albeit the midfielders were expected to be box to box and do all the role in one
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
So West Brom sack their manager due to his defensive style of player and appoint
Steve Bruce ?????????
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60238539
Steve Bruce ?????????
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60238539
4LEX
Well-known member
He must also be sick and tired of coaching the side, dominating games and seeing chances missed because the board won't back him with a top striker? I can't watch Brighton anymore as it's always the same. Create 10 chances and take none or 1 at best. He's better than finishing mid table with an xG of CL level sides and an actual GS of relegation sides like Watford.
Canary_Yellow
Journeyman Pro
Bruce Rioch signed Bergkamp, not wenger.
