It seems as good a time as any to take stock. Clearly the players are the Club’s main investment but the manager at the end of the day is the one person that can make or break that. Most would agree that the last 5 years have been among the most, if not the most, successful in Fulham’s 133 year history. In that time we have had 3 managers. This is my ’potted’ assessment of each : Hodgson imposed a system that the players came to understand and, once they had, it was like a comfort blanket. A well oiled machine with everyone knowing their role. Poor at making tactical substitutions and tactically, single minded. Not keen on change. Solid but unimaginative back up team. Hughes may have come in with the intention of making changes but I reckon that after his famous meeting with the players where he agreed to revert to Roy's system he effectively knew that he wouldn't be staying long. Egotistical and poor communicator. Multitude of ‘yes’ men as back up team. Jol gives the impression of being genial but he will do things his way and stubborn to the point of shunning players who cross him. Contrarily he has vision and able to communicate this to players. The question that hangs in the balance is whether players he buys have the quality to deliver his expectations. Young, vibrant back up team. If I was looking for evolution , with a dash of flair thrown in, Jol and his team, would get my vote,
I think Hodgson was more nuanced in his tactics than you give him credit for, but in broad terms he played the way he played. What he was good at was making small adjustments in response to what he saw on the pitch that sometimes had a big effect. I'm thinking of the way he got the team playing further forward after half-time against Hamburg and turned the game round as an example of how 4-4-2 remained 4-4-2 but was played differently. I've never thought Hughes' back-room team were yes men, rather they were unequivicably Hughes' men: people who he knew were loyal to him first and foremost. Ironically, that solid relationship probably enabled them to not be yes men: both sides knew they could safely disagree without it being misinterpreted. Of course, that's just my perception from the outside so I could be entirely wrong. You're probably right about when he decided he would be moving on. I'd agree with your assessment of Jol too. He has the potential to be the best of the lot. Just a shame that it looks like we won't get to see how his team might have blossomed with Dembele pulling the strings. The next few days (and weeks) may well determine what Martin Jol's Fulham legacy is.
Dembele was always going to move Captain. I agree that Jol is the best of the lot so far. I like him, very Fulhamish! Black and white in terms of saying how things are. Hopefully our excellent scouting network can unearth a little gem or two on the continent. But let's not kid ourselves, we've always been a stepping stone for really good players.
