I find those first 2 questions hard to answer. As it has ofcourse everything do to with quality. Kerkez came in, and shown his talent from day 1, such guys would excel under any circumstances. Under his period we have had some amazing players. (Karlsson, Kerkez, Reijnders, Pavlidis, Sugawara). And you have to give Jansen credit for the development guys like them have made. One thing i would say is that we have been "carried" a lot by individual quality during his time, apart from a few great team perfomances like the Lazio games. Its often that we struggled to break a (lowtable) team down and that a Karlsson or Pavlidis had to do some magic to end with a narrow win. Jansen wasnt really able to let the team rise as a collective above the individual qualitys of some star players, which is Arne Slots big strength. Like i said earlier i think, Jansen rarely rotated between his starting XI. So it was always hard for players on the bench to play themself in the team. Also when certain players really didnt perform for a significant period. Often a random thing like injury/transfers/suspensions was needed for a player to get a chance. Reijnders was nearly off to Twente. And a guy like Gudmunddson (now shining in serie A) demanded a transfer out of frustrating on playtime. Can't really blame him for not bringing through academy guys, as there werent that many talents ready to make that step. If a young player is ready. He is willing to give him that chance, and not take him out after a few bad performances (refering back to the value Jansen gives to personal relations)
Yeah the tempo often was slow and ponderous. His stubborn choice to always play a working number 10 (who litteraly cant dribble, assist or do longshots) made us often quite predictable and unable to do quick counters or have linkup play through the middle. It would often result in passing the ball around in a questionable tempo. For then to trust on Karlsson or Pavlidis to do their magic. But at the same time it also makes you less vulnerable to concede counters and be run over. And have a solid foundation with players who are in 'sync' with eachother. Which is especially important for the overlapping fullbacks, which are basically the DNA of AZ. But thats where i sometimes missed a more dynamic coach. Who could read to game and adjust his gameplan. Maybe he didnt always have te players to make those changes.
I do think his tactics and ideas are partly based on English football (as thats his origin ofcourse). I think it fits better to a bit more physical football. The longballs and crosses we saw at AZ didnt always fit our team (lacking height and body). We are more a dominant possesion based team. But i cant say a lot about Sunderland.
AZ has a good internal structure. We like to train staff internally to make them used to our club philosophy.
And you have to conform yourself to that. No i wouldnt say any backroom staff has had a big influence. Overall at AZ you are more dependent on the transferwindows. One season you have a star team and beat Lazio, the season after you lose a ton of your best players. That is difficult for any coach. I dont see any obvious assistents Jansen would bring on the top of my mind.
