Premier League

[Mattyblue]

We must be at crossed purposes as I agree with your point, it’s obvious why some two bit manager at some two bit club has some lumbering centre half attempting suicidal passes to his also lumbering goalkeeper, it’s also obvious why a seven year old is being taught to play that way at Reading’s academy - but why this tactic in the first place, why not the plethora of other tactical approaches pre or around the same time as Pep-ball.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:16 by Mattyblue

[KentExile]

10 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

We must be at crossed purposes as I agree with your point, it’s obvious why some two bit manager at some two bit club has some lumbering centre half attempting suicidal passes to his also lumbering goalkeeper, it’s also obvious why a seven year old is being taught to play that way at Reading’s academy - but why this tactic in the first place, why not the plethora of other tactical approaches pre or around the same time as Pep-ball.

 

I genuinely don't know how to answer that other than it helps the players and coaches involved at whatever level get their next job/role higher up the level, which again comes down to money.

If you are asking why this particular brand of football over (to put an extreme) Allardyce or Dycheball... because that is what the clubs at the top of the ladder want, as it sells more merch, subscriptions, foreign audiences, etc, which again is purely finance driven, supply and demand.  None of it is with any thought to fans of middling or lower league teams.

Edited Wednesday at 11:25 by KentExile

[Mattyblue]

Do even foreign fans actually enjoy these tactics? Or more the fact is the Premier League, it’s a hype train, its Ultimate Team, it’s Liverpool, it’s Salah, could be any kind of tactic really, as a spectacle, it ain’t, most of the time.

Edited Wednesday at 11:30 by Mattyblue

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Do even foreign fans actually enjoy these tactics? Or more the fact is the Premier League, it’s a hype train, its Ultimate Team, it’s Liverpool, it’s Salah, could be any kind of tactic really, as a spectacle, it ain’t, most of the time.

The fact that it is selling, for increasingly more each time it is sold, will be taken that the answer to that is a yes

It would be interesting to see Sean Dyche have a run of insane luck in the stock market, become the richest man in the world, and buy a Prem club that he wanted to play his way, how quickly other clubs would pivot when they realised producing the next no nonsense centre back, or giant target man was the most profitable source of income, or how soon before "hoofball" was described as "the right way to play"

Edited Wednesday at 11:42 by KentExile

[Mattyblue]

‘Direct long passing’

[Wheelton Blue]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Wrong. As @KentExileexplained the director of football will pick a head coach who suits what the club philosophy and ethos whether its bringing through young players or playing a certain way or keeping a team. 

Out of interest, who do you think is currently dictating/defining the  'philosophy' and 'ethos' at BRFC?

[KentExile]

2 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Out of interest, who do you think is currently dictating/defining the  'philosophy' and 'ethos' at BRFC?

Waggott, via his proxy, Gestede, its all finance driven

[Wheelton Blue]

45 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Waggott, via his proxy, Gestede, its all finance driven

You think that Waggott is telling Eustace how to set the team up?

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

You think that Waggott is telling Eustace how to set the team up?

No, a broad ethos/philosophy is not the same as micro managing how to set up a team, its a set of broad guidelines designed to increase profits

Should you wish to know my thoughts, please feel free to read my posts from earlier today, I don't want to bore people (especially myself) by repeat posting

Edited Wednesday at 12:57 by KentExile

[Wheelton Blue]

27 minutes ago, KentExile said:

No, an ethos/philosophy is not the same as how to set up a team, its a set of broad guidelines designed to increase profits

Should you wish to know my thoughts, please read my posts from earlier today, I don't want to bore people by repeat posting

My original question was asked of Chaddy after reading his statement '...the director of football will pick a head coach who suits what the club philosophy and ethos whether its bringing through young players or playing a certain way or keeping a team'.

But anyway, seeing as you've jumped in....

In my opinion, the club has neither a playing ethos nor philosophy.

They do have a strategy, which is to penny pinch at every opportunity to cut costs. One which is purely financially driven as you say, but not with any view to improve the club long term.

They do not have a playing ethos/philosophy, however, which is what Chaddy was alluding to. If they did, then the playing style introduced under JDT would still exist.

The playing style is IMO dictated solely by Eustace based on the players he has. His remit will be to 'make do with what we give you, we don't care about style'. Players aren't recruited based on whether they fit a playing style; rather because they're cheap.

So all this talk of 'Directors of football, 'ethos', 'philosophy'... is moot in our case.

It does goes to show though, that with the right manager, teams can be successful despite not having this 'modern' DOF claptrap. 

[Claytons Left Boot]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

If you are asking why this particular brand of football over (to put an extreme) Allardyce or Dycheball... because that is what the clubs at the top of the ladder want, as it sells more merch, subscriptions, foreign audiences, etc, which again is purely finance driven, supply and demand.  

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with this mate.

Hypothetical, I know, but if Liverpool and Man City switched to playing 4-4-2 with two wingers, two up top, with a faster, more direct way of playing and then had success say at Champions League level, they would sell just as much merchandise with this ‘new’ style of play as with the way they both currently play.

Success and trophies drives crowds, attendances, tv audiences, subscriptions etc., not a particular style of football.

Unfortunately, a significant percentage of folk are like sheep. The football industry is no different and as soon the game morphed into this ‘modern’ way of playing via the Continentals, all the sheep followed suit. 

It will change at some point, hopefully, but I would guess not for some considerable time.
 

[KentExile]

5 minutes ago, Claytons Left Boot said:

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with this mate.

Hypothetical, I know, but if Liverpool and Man City switched to playing 4-4-2 with two wingers, two up top, with a faster, more direct way of playing and then had success say at Champions League level, they would sell just as much merchandise with this ‘new’ style of play as with the way they both currently play.

Success and trophies drives crowds, attendances, tv audiences, subscriptions etc., not a particular style of football.

Unfortunately, a significant percentage of folk are like sheep. The football industry is no different and as soon the game morphed into this ‘modern’ way of playing via the Continentals, all the sheep followed suit. 

It will change at some point, hopefully, but I would guess not for some considerable time.
 

No problem at all with hypotheticals, they help us to simply state what we mean

If the hypothetical Man City/Liverpool 4-4-2 you described brought that level of success in todays game then yes, I would agree wholeheartedly 

 

Edited Wednesday at 13:25 by KentExile

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

My original question was asked of Chaddy after reading his statement '...the director of football will pick a head coach who suits what the club philosophy and ethos whether its bringing through young players or playing a certain way or keeping a team'.

But anyway, seeing as you've jumped in....

In my opinion, the club has neither a playing ethos nor philosophy.

They do have a strategy, which is to penny pinch at every opportunity to cut costs. One which is purely financially driven as you say, but not with any view to improve the club long term.

They do not have a playing ethos/philosophy, however, which is what Chaddy was alluding to. If they did, then the playing style introduced under JDT would still exist.

The playing style is IMO dictated solely by Eustace based on the players he has. His remit will be to 'make do with what we give you, we don't care about style'. Players aren't recruited based on whether they fit a playing style; rather because they're cheap.

So all this talk of 'Directors of football, 'ethos', 'philosophy'... is moot in our case.

It does goes to show though, that with the right manager, teams can be successful despite not having this 'modern' DOF claptrap. 

It seems that you broadly agree with my earlier posts then 😉 

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, KentExile said:

In fairness, the head coach would be asked in his interview before he accepted the job if he can deliver "x brand of football" etc, and he will have replied that he could.

I do have some sympathy with managers/head coaches who are already in situ when a Director of Football is brought in by the club.

 

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Wrong. As @KentExileexplained the director of football will pick a head coach who suits what the club philosophy and ethos whether its bringing through young players or playing a certain way or keeping a team. 

Club philosophy and ethos, its just nonsense business speak.

Im still none the wiser as to how it is possibly more sensible to get the director of football to decide the style of play and not the head coach.

Should be a case of the head coach comes in, decides how he wants to play, and then the club is built around that.

[KentExile]

52 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 

Club philosophy and ethos, its just nonsense business speak.

Im still none the wiser as to how it is possibly more sensible to get the director of football to decide the style of play and not the head coach.

Should be a case of the head coach comes in, decides how he wants to play, and then the club is built around that.

Old school managers, were football people first, and possibly had little or no understanding off business/finance.  You may get lucky and get a Fergie etc, but the chances of that are slim

Directors of Football have generally (at a minimum) done courses etc on the business side of things, and are also (at properly run clubs) likely to be around for longer than a manager/head coach, the lifespan of which is probably well under 2 years.

I think you are overstating how much the Director of Football drives the style of play.  It is more a set of broad guidelines/goals/targets that the head coach agrees to operate under/meet before he accepts a job offer.  Which is very similar to any number of job roles in any number of businesses around the World

So from a clubs perspective*, they are getting a long term plan/vision, and someone who is both football & business savvy, & not going to drive the club off a financial cliff like Harry Redknapp did with Portsmouth back in the day.

* Obviously a club still has to make the right appointment, which requires them having knowledgeable people running the club in the first place, (but those running a club are always going to think that they know the right thing, even if its a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, rather than them actually having genuine insight)

Edited Wednesday at 14:29 by KentExile

[roversfan99]

33 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Old school managers, were football people first, and possibly had little or no understanding off business/finance.  You may get lucky and get a Fergie etc, but the chances of that are slim

Directors of Football have generally (at a minimum) done courses etc on the business side of things, and are also (at properly run clubs) likely to be around for longer than a manager/head coach, the lifespan of which is probably well under 2 years.

I think you are overstating how much the Director of Football drives the style of play.  It is more a set of broad guidelines/goals/tagets that the head coach agrees to operate under/meet before he accepts a job offer.  Which is very similar to any number of job roles in any number of businesses around the World

So from a clubs perspective, they are getting a long term plan/vision, and someone who is both football & business savvy, & not going to drive the club off a financial cliff like Harry Redknapp did with Portsmouth back in the day.

* Obviously a club still has to make the right appointment, which requires them having knowledgeable people running the club in the first place, (but those running a club are always going to think that they know the right thing, even if its a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, rather than them actually having genuine insight)

I understand the reasoning behind having someone to help to spread the workload and add more expertise to the off the field stuff. 

Its the idea of a director of football being the one telling any head coach how to play. Drivel about an ethos or principles is exactly that. The head coach should come in, analyse what he has, the circumstances etc and decide how he wants to set up. He should then feed back and say I want x and y and the director of football can then work around that.

Southampton are a good example. They had a very strong team in the Championship, so such a style made sense. When they came up suddenly they go from one of the best technical sides in the division to the worst. The "ethos" demands continuing with a style that clearly isnt effective.

The effect of the current setup is that nearly every club wants to play "the right way" as a club isnt going to have plans of playing more direct football even if it is effective, so you get loads of teams playing a style they clearly cant pull off.

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Its the idea of a director of football being the one telling any head coach how to play. Drivel about an ethos or principles is exactly that. The head coach should come in, analyse what he has, the circumstances etc and decide how he wants to set up. He should then feed back and say I want x and y and the director of football can then work around that.

Southampton are a good example. They had a very strong team in the Championship, so such a style made sense. When they came up suddenly they go from one of the best technical sides in the division to the worst. The "ethos" demands continuing with a style that clearly isnt effective.

The effect of the current setup is that nearly every club wants to play "the right way" as a club isnt going to have plans of playing more direct football even if it is effective, so you get loads of teams playing a style they clearly cant pull off.

Do you think Russell Martin was "forced/told" to play in that style at Southampton?  Or that he was employed because he had previously played that style at both Swansea and MK Dons?  And in my opinion, Martin was not particularly successful at either of those clubs either

For the record, I think Russell Martin, and by extension, the people in charge at Southampton, were idiots to assume that they could play that way in the Prem with the squad at their disposal and not be exactly where they are in the table.  At least the Dingles didn't sack Kompany for effectively doing what he had agreed to do, and they got their "reward" in the compensation payment from Bayern in the summer 

Edited Wednesday at 14:47 by KentExile

[roversfan99]

7 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Do you think Russell Martin was "forced/told" to play in that style at Southampton?  Or that he was employed because he had previously played that style at both Swansea and MK Dons?  And in my opinion, Martin was not particularly successful at either of those clubs either

For the record, I think Russell Martin, and by extension, the people in charge at Southampton, were idiots to assume that they could play that way in the Prem with the squad at their disposal and not be exactly where they are in the table.  At least the Dingles didn't sack Kompany for effectively doing what he had agreed to do, and they got their "reward" in the compensation payment from Bayern in the summer 

We will never know if they would have changed their naive approach, but even if they wouldnt, that might be a byproduct of knowing that in this backwards modern day, clubs tend to be only interested in managers who play that way.

[simongarnerisgod]

the southampton board should have seen what was coming,mr wonderful had the best squad in the championship by far and only just got them promoted through the play offs ( and that was because leeds did a complete bottle job in the final) southampton should have walked the championship last year

[Wheelton Blue]

49 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Do you think Russell Martin was "forced/told" to play in that style at Southampton?  Or that he was employed because he had previously played that style at both Swansea and MK Dons?  And in my opinion, Martin was not particularly successful at either of those clubs either

For the record, I think Russell Martin, and by extension, the people in charge at Southampton, were idiots to assume that they could play that way in the Prem with the squad at their disposal and not be exactly where they are in the table.  At least the Dingles didn't sack Kompany for effectively doing what he had agreed to do, and they got their "reward" in the compensation payment from Bayern in the summer 

When the next man is appointed, we'll then know the answer to that question. 

[Upside Down]

9 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

I get how it’s happening/the mechanics of it and why managers feel like they have to play it, but why has this totally unsuited tactic for most players taken over the game in the first place? Because Pep can make it look good with world class players? Just really weird and shows the herd like mentality of the game.

You answered your question there.

We'll see what the next fad is in a year or two and then all of a sudden that will be the 'right way' to play as that's what's in vogue.

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Club philosophy and ethos, its just nonsense business speak.

Im still none the wiser as to how it is possibly more sensible to get the director of football to decide the style of play and not the head coach.

Should be a case of the head coach comes in, decides how he wants to play, and then the club is built around that.

The lack of understanding here is quite surprised here. 

Why don't you understand that the Director of Football is selecting the head coach based on what they want as a club whether its bringing through Youth or certain playing style. Then it's down to head coach to get the results. For example GB picked JDT for the Rovers head coach cos of his playing style and he will bring through youth. Same as Southampton picked Russell Martin as their head coach cos they wanted to played that style and selected him based on that he played that style.

 

4 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

When the next man is appointed, we'll then know the answer to that question. 

Southampton wanted to play the pep style after the PL relegation and picked Martin to play this way. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6000531/2024/12/17/russell-martin-inside-southampton-sacking?source=user-shared-article

 

[roversfan99]

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The lack of understanding here is quite surprised here. 

Why don't you understand that the Director of Football is selecting the head coach based on what they want as a club whether its bringing through Youth or certain playing style. Then it's down to head coach to get the results. For example GB picked JDT for the Rovers head coach cos of his playing style and he will bring through youth. Same as Southampton picked Russell Martin as their head coach cos they wanted to played that style and selected him based on that he played that style.

 

Southampton wanted to play the pep style after the PL relegation and picked Martin to play this way. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6000531/2024/12/17/russell-martin-inside-southampton-sacking?source=user-shared-article

 

I do understand that. The problem is you have no critical faculty. I think the common approach of having a director of football choosing the tactics usually based on snobbery of "playing the right way" leaving the head coach forced to stick with that regardless of circumstances to be totally backwards.

Southampton is a great example. Martin appointed, then due to the "ethos" sticks to a style the players clearly cant play at this level and keep getting smashed. He loses his job.

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I do understand that. The problem is you have no critical facultycritical faculty. I think the common approach of having a director of football choosing the tactics usually based on snobbery of "playing the right way" leaving the head coach forced to stick with that regardless of circumstances to be totally backwards.

Southampton is a great example. Martin appointed, then due to the "ethos" sticks to a style the players clearly cant play at this level and keep getting smashed. He loses his job.

Yet again, you lack of understanding that Director of Football is picking the head coach based on what they and the owner want. It's their choice. 

Martin will never change style. That's the way he plays. He wouldnt change at Swansea or MK Dons. That's his way

[roversfan99]

Im not misunderstanding, I fully understand. Im saying I dont agree with it.