Rival Watch™ 2014-2015 Special: The Tactical Genius

...and you know this how exactly?

The whole DoF issue is one I don't agree with, as it doesn't sit in this country imo.

It's existed in Europe for a long while, primarily because they've always sacked managers every 10 minutes, and allowing every new manager to build his own squad wasn't financially practical.

However, for me, in this country, the manager should be the manager, not merely a first team coach and I'll explain why.

Using a business analogy, if you take over running a business that's struggling, one of the first things you'd do would be to assess your team. You'd make judgements about anyone who you considered to be a weak link. You'd then set about replacing them, you'd seek out replacements, but you'd probably be guided by HR, who'd want to add some science to the recruitment process rather than relying on your gut instinct. They maybe do psychometric testing or assessment centres. They'd provide you with some candidates that the stats and career history showed they should be capable of doing the job, then you'd make your final decision on who to hire.

The man YOU ended up hiring, would always have a sense of gratitude towards you for having faith in him, he'd be your man, your choice and part of your team.

The problem with the entire DoF structure is that that gratitude and sense of loyalty would be to the DoF as opposed to the coach. So what happens if the coach isn't having a player? He'll likely go back to 'his' man i.e. the DoF and tell him that the coach is a donk and **** stir behind the scenes, as he knows it was the DoF who put his faith (and reputation due to the resource involved) in him. So he can sit back, ride it out and wait for the coach to be canned. See Spurs for further details, as the same group of players, all bought by Baldini, are now on their 3rd coach in 18 months. While the man responsible for the debacle is still on the payroll.

A good manager needs to have ultimate control, but be guided by others with different skill sets. So when it comes to recruitment, a stats man, a top scout and a financial bod (CEO probably). On the training ground, quality defensive and attacking coaches to supplement his input and give a more balanced outlook.

 

Rodgers is far from being a tactical genius FFS.

His team selections and substitutions in matches have been baffling. Is he making the best of the players available? I am very doubtful he is and he is the one who brought them so he must know how to use them surely.

 

Who's saying he's a tactical genius? That's hilarious. As you rightly say, his tactics have been and continue to be baffling. He came with a plan that didn't fit the players he had so he's adapted, adapted and adapted.

 

So a different fixture against a different team in a completely different competition, somehow proves your point that Villarreal weren't a great side?

Keep on digging indeed, as you're embarrassing yourself here.

 

Well done, start with CL and then move on to EL when your first post was ripped apart

 

You're right in that this country is slow to adopt this structure but it is happening. In the modern game, the only 2 real standout successes of delivering whilst having full control are Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. It's extremely rare for anyone to succeed these days without having the proper structure.

The problem with giving the manager that level of control is simply that - they have TOO much control. Who will challenge them? The role of the DoF is merely to add another layer in the structure and segregate that power. Successful structures allow managers to come and go WITHOUT the team changing their underlying philosophy and style.

This country is pretty clueless to these structures and modern thinking in general so the media will continually point to AVB and Baldini as their case study. It's a shame they don't point to the great AC Milan of the late 80's and new millenium, or Barcelona, Juventus, Real Madrid etc etc.

You do make some good points and I sense you're old school in your thinking (no disrespect intended) but there are far more success stories of teams with a DoF structure in place than managers with complete autonomy.

 

That's the key though isn't it, as a great manager understands that whilst he demands the ultimate say, he'll surround himself with people who bring a different perspective.

Look at Ferguson, the most successful manager of the modern era. As bombastic as he was, he still had the nous to bring in quality people to coach his side and bring new perspectives to the table. He didn't just stick with the same No.2 he changed them, and each time the team changed with it, adding layers to an already powerful machine.

You don't need another layer of management, you just need to hire the right manager

 

any idea of how long before they was given complete control? managers don't get a lot of time these days, and fergie had 5 yrs to build and challenge, and wenger is still living off what he originally done at arsenal, managers don't get time now days.

was it where they had complete control from day one, or did it take the club 5 yrs or so to have faith to do that type thing? and if so how are managers now days supposed to survive when most are lucky to get 2-3 seasons.

 

maybe they have the right manager, just he doesn't have the desire/ability to see that he needs help in certain areas.

 

.

 

Tobes - you're right that Ferguson is one of the best managers in the history of the game.

But he's more exception than the rule.

Both Wenger and Ferguson had to earn that level of autonomy. In fact, since Dein left Arsenal and Wenger took full control, Arsenal regressed.

There are still far more examples of successful Head Coaches, than Managers.

 

This is the thing - clubs will be here forever. Managers, staff, players come and go.

That's why it's far more important to have a structure in place where the club is not reliant on one person, be it player or manager.

The DoF is someone who will facilitate this and ensure the right style of 'manager' comes in when the other departs.

 

Brilliant input

Not just my opinion btw....

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11671/7590220/moyes-uefa-hot-balls-cost-us

 

Both fair points, but the last line I take issue with, as that's not a fact in the UK, where the model has largely delivered nothing.

 

He also said the same thing at Man Utd

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...s-after-Manchester-Uniteds-latest-defeat.html

How come there's always a conspiracy for him to manage **** teams?

 

Agree not in England. But I'm talking football in general which is obviously a larger sample size.

 

But on the continent its the standard practice so if everyone's using it then some automatically have to be 'successful'.

Over here, it's only been selectively adopted and the success rate has been zero.

 

But there is a reason why they use it.

Man City and Chelsea have adopted this approach and have achieved a lot of success - Mancini, Pellegrini, Mourinho, Ancelotti.

It could be the reason why there is a small pool of quality British coaches, because they are taught in an environment where they are expected to the manager, do everything and have complete control. Foreign 'managers' become coaches and that is their primary concern. Just a hunch.

 

So because they couldn't agree neither got what they wanted? Instead they got punished for not agreeing?

In reality, we shouldn't have bought any of them. We should have targeted a ready made replacement that would provide movement, energy and effort. Not one of those fit the bill, Lacazette could become that player in time but we needed an immediate impact.

 

Lacazette is where Torres/Suarez were when we signed them (maybe at a slightly lesser level). He would have been far better than Lambert/Balotelli and his playing style is similar to Suarez. It was a no brainer.

Now the lad is banging them in.