We Could Do Worse

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
royalbarclayfan

royalbarclayfan

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2011
6,030
1,105
113
Denmark
I know he´s politely declined
The job Alex Neil left behind,
But we could do worse than Alan Irvine
If better should be hard to find

Since the Irvine bus has been parked
Instructions appear to have been harked,
And whether it´s he or Webber or both
The upturn in form has been marked

Already the title Head Coach
Has put one off making an approach,
It had no appeal for Michael O´Neill
The Irishman we looked to poach

Managers won´t like sharing the role
However much we might cajole,
So it may take time to find the right peg
To fit into our vacant hole.
 
Morning Dave, no, I´m sure it´s almost certain he won´t be, but I still think we could do worse. ;) Can´t really see him getting any other sort of role at the Club, though, can you, the new coach is likely to bring his own folk in - but no doubt we´ll see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: canary-dave
Also think the situation with Michael O´Neill, where he´s dismissed the idea out of hand, will be one we´ll come up against, several more times yet. A manager postion, with total control, would be far easier to fill than a head coach who is only, in effect, going to be a number two. I´m not against the idea of sharing the work load, but it does have its drawbacks.
 
Last edited:
royalbarclayfan said:
Also think the situation with Michael O´Neill, where he´s dismissed the idea out of hand, will be one we´ll come up against, several more times yet. A manager postion, with total control, would be far easier to fill than a head coach who is only, in effect, going to be a number two. I´m not against the idea of sharing the work load, but it does have its drawbacks.
Click to expand...

Alternatively it could be all positive, the only candidates who will be interested will be forward thinking managers/coaches who are not too proud to listen and collaborate with other people. The managers who are dismissing it out of hand are likely control freaks and unless we can find the best (Not on our budget!) then I think HC's who can work with others is the way forward. Too many managers are utterly focused on the short term because their job depends on it, that may not entirely change with a HC, but at least we should have an ongoing strategy with the SD.

Bah!
 
  • Like
Reactions: canary-dave
General Melchett said:
Alternatively it could be all positive, the only candidates who will be interested will be forward thinking managers/coaches who are not too proud to listen and collaborate with other people. The managers who are dismissing it out of hand are likely control freaks and unless we can find the best (Not on our budget!) then I think HC's who can work with others is the way forward. Too many managers are utterly focused on the short term because their job depends on it, that may not entirely change with a HC, but at least we should have an ongoing strategy with the SD.

Bah!
Click to expand...

I don´t disagree with you Melchy, I just think it could go either way, that´s all. We´ve tried the ´single leader´ model for years now, with varying degrees of success/failure, so I´m not at all averse to trying the ´multiple leader´ variety. If Webber can find someone who he can work with, and they can agree on the basic strategies and principles, I see no reason why it shouldn´t work swimmingly, but two people sharing the same job are likely to have more friction than one person doing it alone. I think a lot will depend on Webber ( being the higher ranked) not getting himself involved in areas where he has no competence, because any friction between them will probably only end one way, a departure for the head coach, and a succession of head coach sackings won´t do us any more good than a succession of manager sackings has done over the years.

The recipe for success certainly lies just as much with Webber being able to work with the coach, as the other way round - I´ll reserve judgement on that for the moment.
 
Last edited:
royalbarclayfan said:
I don´t disagree with you Melchy, I just think it could go either way, that´s all. We´ve tried the ´single leader´ model for years now, with varying degrees of success/failure, so I´m not at all averse to trying the ´multiple leader´ variety. If Webber can find someone who he can work with, and they can agree on the basic strategies and principles, I see no reason why it shouldn´t work swimmingly, but two people sharing the same job are likely to have more friction than one person doing it alone. I think a lot will depend on Webber ( being the higher ranked) not getting himself involved in areas where he has no competence, because any friction between them will probably only end one way, a departure for the head coach, and a succession of head coach sackings won´t do us any more good than a succession of manager sackings has done over the years.

The recipe for success certainly lies just as much with Webber being able to work with the coach, as the other way round - I´ll reserve judgement on that for the moment.
Click to expand...

Indeed like any appointment it could go either way. We are pinning a lot of hope on Webber and that is dangerous. His direction like any managers could be wrong and instead of just one manager being fired and starting again, we could have multiple managers/patsies paying the price for Webber before realising that he might be the problem.
I hope and am optomistic that that won't be the case. Webber seems to have his head screwed on. I would think he at all times has a mini list of HC's that he would like to work with, because he just has an air of due diligence. I really believe that assuming his general choices have no objection to the structure (No guaranteeing that, but I would hope again that he has good information suggesting they would to even make a list) they will also coach football of a certain style that tallies with what webber wants. So again cutting risks. I very much doubt we will end up with a british manager as culturally they will be more suspicious of the management model. That isn't a problem for me as such, but if the foreign coach has little experience of English or even championship football then the risks increase again.
I'm excited by the change and the massed cull that has been a long time coming. but it is tinged with caution because as you rightly say, there is greater potential for friction with two cooks on the football side. If they can keep to their own duties and resist interference in the others job, then I think it is very much the way forward. As both will be professionals I would expect them to be able to do so.

Bah!

p.s. that signature of yours is getting longer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: royalbarclayfan
General Melchett said:
Indeed like any appointment it could go either way. We are pinning a lot of hope on Webber and that is dangerous. His direction like any managers could be wrong and instead of just one manager being fired and starting again, we could have multiple managers/patsies paying the price for Webber before realising that he might be the problem.
I hope and am optomistic that that won't be the case. Webber seems to have his head screwed on. I would think he at all times has a mini list of HC's that he would like to work with, because he just has an air of due diligence. I really believe that assuming his general choices have no objection to the structure (No guaranteeing that, but I would hope again that he has good information suggesting they would to even make a list) they will also coach football of a certain style that tallies with what webber wants. So again cutting risks. I very much doubt we will end up with a british manager as culturally they will be more suspicious of the management model. That isn't a problem for me as such, but if the foreign coach has little experience of English or even championship football then the risks increase again.
I'm excited by the change and the massed cull that has been a long time coming. but it is tinged with caution because as you rightly say, there is greater potential for friction with two cooks on the football side. If they can keep to their own duties and resist interference in the others job, then I think it is very much the way forward. As both will be professionals I would expect them to be able to do so.

Bah!

p.s. that signature of yours is getting longer!
Click to expand...

That is nicely summed up, GM. I like the new structure because the SD is looking long-term (much like McNally did) while the HC is looking short-term in the form of current season success. If it works well, as we all hope it does, then the short-term planning dovetails with the long-term perspective related to bringing young players on as with the Southampton model. The potential weakness, as you say, is that SW could turn out to be the problem and that would take us back to square one. As for the HC, I think he will probably be non-British, but that needn't mean he doesn't know English football. Rosler, for example, or someone like him has both qualities and he has said that he prefers the SD/HC setup. The key will lie in the SD/HC relationship and though there are some potential pitfalls, there are some potential gains as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM Fan and canary-dave
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back