Settle in, this one could get a little bit long. Just a few thoughts I have about the whole mess of a trying to apply the Director of Football role to the English club hierarchy. The idea of the "continental" approach to structuring a football club, involving a Director of Football making all of the transfer decisions above a "Head Coach" is seen as somewhat romantic in England at the minute, and a few clubs have experimented with this approach over the last couple of seasons. The main argument that is always put forward in support of it, is that it affords some stability through managerial change when it comes to player recruitment. That's all well and good, but if that is the main argument, then surely by affording a bit more job security to managers there isn't a need for such stability. The idea of taking away an aspect of the management job description in case you want to sack 8 managers a season is just absurd when you look at it that way. Also the idea that one guy buying the kind of players they like and expecting a "Head Coach" to adapt their ideas to the players pushed in their direction, you are actually at the whim of the knowledge of the Director of Football to buy players who are going to work together, in one system. (Like, oh I don't know, a manager would). People may say that you can still make this setup work with a long serving manager. Basically because the Director of Football gets to know the manager and their system and so can slot players into the system much better. Exactly. You know what the Director of Football is starting to sound like? A manager. By employing Directors of Football, the "Head Coach" essentially has their hand forced tactically. We've seen it at Leeds. We have played a diamond for 90% of games this season because no width was provided for any of our 3 managers. It doesn't matter whether or not the Director of Football is explicitly picking the tactics for games (as people believe Cellino is/was for us), they are doing it through their player selections. The "Head Coach"' has his hands tied. So what you end up with in this situation is a Director of Football who is essentially a manager, and then a "Head Coach" who is actually a cross between the traditional idea of an assistant manager and a first team coach. If that is the case, then why are "Head Coaches" under the Director of Football paid the same as managers are? And why are they held accountable and sacked after a (usually laughably short) run of poor games? The traditional manager wouldn't sack his assistant manager or attacking coach in the same situation would he? And of course, the "Head Coach" still employs a backroom staff to take training and the like. Because in his mind, he is a manager. It's just that the club think they are being all fancy by having a continental hierarchy. So he becomes a little bit more redundant. In fact, when you think about it. If you set up a scouting network to properly inform a Director of Football, you don't need a manager or a head coach. Just a backroom staff who can train the players that are brought in, to play in the tactical setup that the squad dictates. What happens then when there's a run of bad games? You sack the Director of Football. Why? Because he's the manager.
Excellent post [emoji106] ... the Director of Football role will be a contentious one for many years until it becomes a specialist role ... right now it is still misunderstood and poorly employed by club owners and chairmen who want to retain more control on the pitch The key reasons for a DoF are: 1) they are responsible for finding players who can fit into a system and style of play that the club desires ... this means the club and their supporters expect, e.g. a high tempo, short passing game so the club tries to get players who can fit into this and deliver on the pitch 2) the Manager or Head Coach is brought in to coach the players into understanding the club's philosophy, and then getting them to perform at a high level every game, playing the "right way" whilst also delivering results 3) by having the DoF and the owner/chairman decide on player recruitment, the club feels they have control over the players they end up with ... this means when the Manager is sacked, they are not stuck with a group of players signed by him, which means there is no loyalty issue, and the players aren't those with a different mindset as per the old Manager ... this means more consistency throughout the squad, and not a case of Mourinho having to try and take over a Warnock team and get them to pass the ball when they clearly don't have the ability to do this The biggest problem with having a DoF is that there is still too much input from an egotistical owner, and the DoF doesn't have the final say ... this becomes more of a problem at "smaller" clubs where the budgets aren't huge, because regardless of the "playing philosophy", the money isn't there to sign the players to make it happen Barcelona and Real Madrid have employed Head Coaches forever, with the DoF buying and selling players, and every season the President is allowed one marquee signing ... these clubs are in effect owned by the fans, who are members, and at the end of the President's tenure there is an election where the fans vote for the President to remain or be replaced, depending on results and SIGNINGS ... yes, the fans demand big name signings, and generally they always get them Now, these Spanish giants have a philosophy, entertain and win, all the time ... however, they have the money to support their philosophy, so they can have a Head Coach, because his squad will always be filled with incredible talent ... even so, not everyone can be a Head Coach, as seen when Mourinho went to Real and he couldn't get to grips with not having "his" players, but rather a squad put together for him For me, a DoF is a good thing as long as he is knowledgable about the game and has a good scouting network in place ... my reasoning is that if it is in place at a club like Leeds, where the money to buy whoever you want is not there, then good scouting will find talented young players to bring into the system and push the club on ... however, the biggest problem is still consistency, because Head Coaches get frustrated when things go wrong, owners never take the blame, and then the sackings keep coming, not helpful at all Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cheers Billy You make some good points about the reasons why this works when it has been established in a huge club (like Barca/Real). Obviously the money helps in those situations. And I actually think your example of Mourinho (classically a "manager") is a great example of everything I was trying to say above. He is a manager in the style that English clubs have had for years, and he couldn't get on with it. So unless we see a fundamental change in the organisation of English football clubs in general I think the DoF role will continue to fail. Of course, it would help if we had less crazy owners in English football. Can you imagine Salerno telling Cellino that he can make 1 marquee signing per season, isn't allowed to comment tactically, and has to leave all other signing to him?! Think he'd be on the scrap heap pretty sharpish!
Nice post Damned... I personally think we have signed poor quality players, we won't debate that as others disagree and it has been discussed at length many times before. Those that feel the players are okay seem to believe that it is the coaches fault, a better coach would bring the best out of them. Whilst I do not believe Redfearn is up to the task is he a bad coach when he has been responsible for developing the likes of Cook, Mowatt and Byram? I think it probably has more to do with the players not playing for him, not believing in him and knowing that Cellino calls the shots. We probably do have a divided dressing room, the lads Redfearn has worked with in one camp along with the likes of Murphy, Pearce and Austin and then in the other camp the Cellino signings. I hoped it would work, I wanted it to work, I was one of those that said managers in the past have signed us crap and deadwood why not give it a chance. Now I have seen it in operation I don't believe it will work but sadly we have no option.
Great points Ristac ... the thing with Redders and his Academy success is that it's a different ball game ... in the Academy it's all about nurturing, taking time with a young talent, preparing them for Senior football and helping them to understand the game so their natural ability comes through ... there is no pressure with regard to results, which is why we see up and down results like a 4-0 home win followed by a 6-2 away loss ... the Youth players respond to Redders in this environment because they know he is trying to help them succeed, and if they do well he has the power to recommend them for a Senior day out to show what they can do ... this is what the Youth players aspire to, so they work hard, listen to everything and hope they get a chance on the big stage to secure a well-paid future in football Running the First Team is a totally different scenario ... now you have players already earning (hmm, maybe being paid is more accurate) good money, a large portion of the squad are experienced players, and they have a different mindset ... there is severe pressure from the owner and the stands every week, and every club wants to beat Leeds ... the whole experience is hugely different to running the Academy ... Redders got stardust in his eyes when his caretaker stint delivered results, but the key thing is that there was no pressure, because everyone knew it was not going to be permanent ... the players could play with freedom because they knew they weren't trying to impress Redders, and of course Redders had nothing to lose so caution was not part of his agenda ... now that the role is the real deal, Redders has buckled a bit, and his over reliance on youngsters has simply been because he knows they still have the "we will die for Redders" mentality ... at least he has seen that the formation needed changing, and so far so good in terms of being solid and fighting for 90 minutes ... the tough thing for Redders, of course, is the fact that as Ristac says, he will not have a say in signing players ... yes, he may inform Cellino as to who he would like, but in all probability Cellino will still go and sign who HE wants based on recommendations from Salerno ... Pardew suffered because of this at Newcastle, because he very seldom got any of HIS targets in, and it will be interesting to see how his successor fares under this DoF system ... Bob Peeters has just been sacked at Charlton, yet he had no say in transfers, they were mainly conducted by the owner, who brought in a few loanees and permanents from the club he owns in Belgium, Standard Liege ... funny thing is that Peeters had actually been doing a very reasonable job at Charlton, but the owner obviously wants to see HIS players performing to HIS standards and be top of the League ... well, unless you have a billion to spend right now on players, then temper expectations and change the system It is clear that outside the Prem the DoF cannot work the way owners want it to, because the money isn't there to play "let's build a jigsaw" saw ... the Football League clubs need a proper manager who builds his team and then has a go at promotion, it's how it works in England, and at the lower levels there is also the ability factor that needs to be considered, because it's not that simple for players to join a club and play to a certain ethos ... if the skill isn't there, the ethos can't be delivered
Having read all 4 posts, all very good and all make good points for and against, and against and for. When Cellino first came in and mentioned how he was going to run the club I wasn't surprised, let's be honest, in anything any of us do we'd like to think our way would be the best way, but with experienced input from other employees or friends. I listened/read what he had to say, being honest, the English traditional way hadn't worked for over 10 years prior; so I was happy to let him do it his way to see what would happen. What we definitely got was the roller coaster ride most of us foresaw. We all read and contribute to this, and in some cases other forums, we all put our own views and opinions forward, and like to think ours is the best, and somewhat right opinion/view/suggestion/statement etc etc, in all fairness, Cellino is doing no different to what we are, just in a different situation. However, imo the 4 posts prior to mine, DamnedUnited, BillysStatue, DamnedUnited and Ristac all have something in common, they portray a catch 22 situation. One way brings out negatives in the opposing option, and visa versa, they also bring out positives in favour of each option, so which option would be the best option for the benefit of the club and team, there would be good arguments/debates for both sides. I agree Ristac, as far as Redders is not up to the task, there are more negatives against Redders than there are positives, however, you asked "is he a bad coach when he has been responsible for developing the likes of Cook, Mowatt and Byram?" I think there is a difference between someone who develops a young player, and someone who is responsible for coaching a player/s and bringing him on by ironing out the wrinkles etc, I think they are both a different set of required skills and abilities. I now believe Redders is limited to work in the academy. "I think it probably has more to do with the players not playing for him, not believing in him" during Redders temp role I couldn't have agreed with it, but, there was no reason to ask it back then..., now, I agree with it. Players are not stupid, they have eyes and they see things, they catch on. Some say it's a rift between the old team players and the Italians and new signings, it's been mentioned it was/is Warnock and Morison, let's be honest, we all know how Morison likes to errm, openly express his opinions, and was seen on a video clip to not celebrate when a goal was scored during one of Darkos games. Players probably know who Redders favourites are, and if there is a split, which I agree with you, I think there is, then Redders has done nothing to quell it and some, or most players are not very happy.
Hey Lover Boy ... spot on with player perception ... if the players don't BELIEVE in the manager or whatever you want to call him, then it is hard to get them to respond ... we saw it clearly with Hockaday, the most stupid appointment in the club's history ... Redders is suffering from the same syndrome, because he doesn't have the CV to give him that respect from the off, and now he is going back to "discarded" players who have something to prove to get a performance from the team ... interesting times, but it may just work out after all ... stranger things have happened
I've been saying this for years. D.O.Fs do not work in the British Game. People are only using this system because it's trendy and these new owners want to be trendy. In Britain you can not lump a person like Steve Bruce or Tony Pulis with player they don''t know. They tried this with Keegan at Newcastle and he walked out same with Curbishley at West Ham. If I was a manager and somebody told me that some one was going to pick my players for me, I would feel like i'd been given a big **** You, I don't trust you to pick players for the team. It's failed at Sunderland and it's failed/failing at Newcastle. I feel a bit sorry for Pardew having to see players come in from France and being sold on for a quick buck a couple of years later. It doesn't a stability to the team. It only makes a fast buck. Sometimes these coaches don't even know who they've got as well. They've just been given a name. I was watching a show and Scott Minto was guest. He was talking about his move to Benfica from Chelsea and on the first dday of training the Head Coach their had no clue who he was
It's more than likely, every pre-Celino player must realize they have a price tag on their head and a player from Italy waiting in the wings to take his place. The pre-celino player know they don't have a future at the club.
I don't think it's just the pre-Cellino players - EVERY player has a price, and not just at our club - practically everywhere. Money talks. Always has done, always will do.
