We don't know it's as black as that, do we? I suspect most of us welcome the use of analytics as part of the recruitment process rather than, say, a manager buying players who have played for him in the past or were recommended to him by a mate's mate. Furthermore, like any modern enterprise under a forward thinking, young CEO, I'd hope there is a more collegiate atmosphere at QPR: maybe I'm naïve but I would expect there to be some discussion between the various personalities involved in the talent spotting and recruitment process rather than diktats handed down by Nourry. I find it hard to believe that Marti has been shut out of it completely. Any sane person could see that as a disaster waiting to happen. To suggest that is absolutely the case, to me, that's just the Nourry haters speaking. (For me, the jury is still out on the man.) Similarly, with the style of play. Do we want to be switching from Ainsworth-ball to Beale-ball and back again every few months? Whilst we have a style of play which is mandated, very sensibly, through the ranks, I would expect there to be some flexibility and some development over time. That consistency is sensible, rather than Nourry being dictatorial. Marti certainly showed some flexibility from his first (expansive) principles in playing a style more suited to the players at his disposal. I would expect him to be have been part of the discussion on our style of play and how it should move with the times. We don't know that he was excluded and I would be surprised if he were entirely excluded. The question, I suppose, is Marti's degree of involvement which I can't speak to. For sure, the present situation is deplorable, has been handled badly and needs a prompt resolution. But I wouldn't yet assume that the whole place is falling apart under a rigid, incompetent, despotic CEO.
All 'ifs' and 'maybe's'. This style of play talk is absolute garbage. It takes good quality players, easily adaptable who, unfortunately cost money to buy. Every team plays to their strengths and that's generally with the players available to them. A coach can do little more than set them up and coach them in and out of play. Pep or Klopp wouldn't get a tune out of this team because the bottom line is that the players aren't of the best standard. Some are good at best, the rest average and poor.
Just to play Devils Advocate Bob, if the players are as average/poor as you suggest above, how do you explain our mid table purple patch last season? Surely it's the manager who gets the best out of the playing squad no?
I said (my opinion) some are good at best,most are average/poor. A mid table purple patch as you call it, would suggest the players may have been playing at their limits as more often than not it was absolutely garbage to watch, even when we had that little streak it was poor football. That could well have been the manager getting the best out of them.
Just trying to look for positives Bob It's not all doom, we ended safe despite all the injuries and managerial upheaval We have equal hope for a better next season than to expect certain relegation
That's all you can do mate. Always pull the positives out. The season is yet to start, the transfer window has only just opened, we just need a coach now.
Maybe not entirely garbage: I would hope, at a minimum, that the ethos is that we don't want to play hoof ball, like under Ainsworth; that we aspire to something more pleasing on the eye in order, for example, to attract and retain fans. Warburton was very explicit about QPR being in the entertainment business and I think he delivered on that. From what has been said, very clearly, I would expect the style guidelines to go into more depth than my simple "hoof ball" example above so that we try to attract and recruit players capable of playing in that style. This might mean that we would try extra hard to retain the services of, for example, Koki Saito and pass on the opportunity to recruit a lumbering giant like Matt Smith. Those "Style of Play" guidelines might also influence our choice of manager: from the Ange Postecoglou school of thinking or the Kieran McKenna school? Nevertheless, I agree that it would be ridiculous to try to be too prescriptive because having lofty ideals expressed down to a detail level is one thing but trying to meet them with our current squad and our current budget is hardly realistic.
Norwich failure rejects us... https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwic...rwich-city-boss-thorup-rejects-qpr---reports/
I know manager/coach turnarounds are a regular thing but we really aren't the most attractive option to any available. Probably pay less and with our recent history of sackings then we would be the last resort amongst other managerless teams.
I think you're selling us short Bob. We're a struggling team in one of the top leagues in Europe...if a young coach fancies making a name for himself, with the potential of a move to a bigger club after a couple of good seasons, then I think we could be a good fit for someone who wants a challenge. Our model is the stumbling block, but get the right man in and it could all click.
Hopefully that would/could be a case but with the average championship manager reign being around 9 months then it's just a constant merry go round. I totally understand the club's plan due to this statistic. If I'm being totally honest we are where we are because it's where we deserve to be. A top half league finish would be a massive achievement in my eyes.
one of my favourite Ian Holloway quotes: ‘football management is like making love to a mermaid - you’ve got to aim for a top half finish’
Thank **** for that, he's a tactical mug. His teams may score alot of goals, but they also let in hatfuls. With our defence , his style would've relegated us without question. We need someone with at least a modicum of defensive ideas. We all might want to see great attacking, expansive football, but I don't want it at the cost of relegation.