Completely agree. But on the early indicator bit: Clearly if you are challenging for the title and have 5 narrow wins in the first 10 matches you've likely got 4 or 5 more points than your play deserves which makes it more likely you will win the title. But that isn't an indicator that you will continue to win close matches.
It could be. For instance, lots of last minute goals could indicate superior fitness levels (which will benefit a team in a 38-game marathon), superior substitutes (which granted the wealthiest teams tend to have), and at a deeper level - it could indicate a manager who is tactically astute and knows how to react to the changing patterns of a game more effectively than most other managers. All of these are totally realistic elements that will almost inevitably help a team grind out more wins than opposition teams who lack all of the above.
Conte press conference more interesting than usual, maybe because of the Italian journalists. One point of note from Conte. Italy applys more pressure from media than England does.
Talksh*te this morning linking us with Sarri , please let this be a wind up or a very early April fools prank
If we go down that route AGAIN then Tuchel is the obvious candidate and a manager who might get us playing attractive football.
Under the current set up, they're all temporary appointments anyway. I can't get charged up about sacking Conte, especially given Paratici's precarious position. The next appointment won't last longer than Mourinho or Conte. I'll eat my extra extra extra large hat, if the next coach starts a third season. First, let's see if we need a DoF. If so, appoint one and then let him look for a coach. That relationship is absolutely critical.
We’re probably not actually too far different from most other clubs when it comes to changing managers (I think!). Very few tend to last more than three seasons, I think there’s only about five teams in the Prem off the top of my head where a manager is beyond their third season. Brutal business the manager game but also quite unsurprisingly considering what’s at stake nowadays.
In the last 20 years, the three managers who have really improved the club and team have all lasted longer than that. They need time to build something, because it won't be bought for them. That's not a problem...unless you appoint managers like Mourinho...or Conte....or Tuchel. That lot gave Arteta time and backed him over a number of seasons, irrespective of some ordinary performances. Our only route to success is to do something similar.
Agreed but managers also need to give the club reasons to stick with them and show signs they are indeed building something potentially special, that's what Jol, Redknapp and Pochettino all did. Performances, results and league finishes were relatively promising so it made sense for the club to persist. Arteta's situation feels a bit unique because it's not often a big club would persist with mediocre performances and league finishes over multiple years. Much as I hate saying it, Arsenal finishing 8th, 8th and 5th under Arteta is pretty shoddy by their standards, their persistence has paid off now though because they look genuinely capable of lifting that league title at the end of the season but I'd say this scenario is perhaps more of an exemption than an example to follow. There's so much at stake nowadays especially financially for clubs to persist too long with underperforming managers, how long is too long is open for debate as many will have differing ideas but I think when both results and performances are bad for extended spells, it's hard to want to persist.
Arteta survived the lows at Arsenal because they won the FA Cup, if not for that then they would have got rid of him.
The purpose of a DoF is set the agenda for long-term on-pitch activities. In time scales that by definition transcend the duration of any particular manager (more so in the modern era of the game) . From the academy (what technical abilities are those emerging from the pipeline expected to have before they can join the senior squad) , to player scouring/purchase.
And because the club decided to go with youth and accept some leaner times. The likes of Martinelli, Saka, Odegaard and Saliba would get less time elsewhere. Virtually everyone was slagging them off for paying £25-30m for Ramsdale. It's currently working out well for them. Let's not forget that they're consciously picking a rapist every week, though. They're also risking burnout by playing a lot of the same, young players constantly.
Yesterday's Standard reported that Conte ignored doctor's advice and came back to work early Yeah, that;s one of those things that could look really bad if coming back early leads to a pair of dismal nonformances...
The latter by necessity forced the former. Only CL starvation has forced them to this position. Soton in contrast have had to have their academy etc delivering a regular stream of talent (whether long stays or sold on for big money) as a bottom line. The optimum position is therefore continually to have good times financially + an Ajax/Soton-esque academy.
And that last part is also the aggravating part, as the path from our academy to first team was apparently built by somebody playing Cities Skylines after a three-day ketamine binge The fact that not only did we see the likes of Edwards, Madueke et al leave as they couldn't see a path into the first team, but we never seemed to have a Johnnie Jackson or Jamie O'Hara who had a spell in the first team due to somebody being injured is certainly aggravating in retrospect, because there's a ton of "What if...?"s such as Josh Onomah getting a run of games when Dembele was out injured
