At the risk of talking out of my arse, I'll give it a try. Element of philosophy: Squad harmony and good man-management How Laudrup departed from it: By not stamping out cliques developing in the squad, leaving the players to devise their own training, swanning off on a (regular) basis.
I keep reading about how Laudrup swanned off on a regular basis. Where is the proof of this? Who on here can know that to be a FACT? I think a lot of rubbish has been written about Laudrup,especially by one individual who claims to know the daily ins and outs of the Club. There's been a lot of scurrilous,self serving nonsense/gossip doing the rounds,and I for one think that is so pathetic.
Thanks Aswan. I appreciate your point. Let me play devils advocate and push back a little if I could. I am not looking to defend Laudrup, but for clarification. Since much of what is "common knowledge" is more supposition and rumor than hard fact, I am going to try to keep this as generic as I can. 1) Squad Harmony: Given the scenario of a player going around the manager to an executive, what fraction of squad harmony is the duty of the manager versus executive management. Or in other words: a) is this a function of an organization's culture, b) who is responsible for setting the culture of the organization (IMO the CEO); c) is it the duty of one "mid-level" person - the manager - to harmonize the squad within a culture that appears "broken"; d) does that manager, any manager, typically have the authority to do that in any organization (without authority they cannot be responsible). 2) What aspects of man-management were different about Laudrup from others -- e.g. Martinez, Sousa, Rogers, Monk or anybody else you can compare with in the game (I don't see this as needing to be confined to the Swans). 3) Is it known, i.e. is there a quote on record, that states that players were left to devize their own training. Are we talking about personal fitness, skills, or tactics, or all of the above. Is there a norm in the English clubs that differs from the European clubs with respect to these items 4) Is it known, i.e. is there a quote on record, that states that Laudrup was absent without leave ... and how would you define "swanning". I have a personal interest that I may mention in about 9 months in opinion on (1), (2) and parts of (3), that have nothing to do with the Swans.
I'm sure that when Laudrup came in he stated that it was the players responsibility to get themselves fit. I could be wrong, but that philosophy would explain why it took Bony so long to get fit and that he had to hire extra help etc. Wasn't Laudrup a frequent pundit on Danish tv? Maybe Mikra can clear that one up, and didn't he usually fly on a separate plane to the squad? Things I've heard that I'd like clarification on if anyone has any.
Laudrup not being able to man management is a myth, brought the best out of a lot of players wbile dodging knives in his back from afew witb their own agenda .
Vetch, Yankee - lets get one thing clear; I don't know Laudrup, I've never spoken to him and I've never been managed by him so anything I say can only be hypothetical and based on hearsay, intuition and the odd snippet of things that have been reported in the press which may or may not be true. 1) A lot has been said about Monk & Williams going behind Laudrup's back and straight to Huw Jenkins. How they stabbed Laudrup in the back etc. Let's take a hypothetical example whereby a group of factory workers on a production line make red widgets made of metal and paint them red. There's a tried and trusted way of doing this. A new line manager comes in and insists that they paint them yellow first before they paint them red which takes twice as long and production suffers as a result. The workers consult with the line-manager pointing out that it's completely unnecessary to paint them yellow first but the line-manager still insists they do it. Are the workers justified in by-passing him and going to the factory owner? Well, I would say yes. 2) Can only work with impressions on this one. My impression is that Michael Laudrup is a genuinely 'nice guy', very polite and was a great footballer. Those qualities don't translate very often into that person being a good man-manager. A long time ago, I had a personal profile done at work. You had to answer about 30 different scenarios by multiple choice about how you would react/what you would do. The results were staggeringly accurate about your personality and one of the criticisms about me was - 'Dislikes confrontation and is therefore likely to be over-tolerant of under-achievers'. Just wondering if Laudrup might also fall in this category. My impression is that Brendan Rodgers was a very good man-manager and I also think that Garry Monk will be the same (completely against popular opinion seemingly). 3) I've certainly come across this mentioned on a forum or possibly in the press but I can't provide links. 4) Apparently he got sacked ultimately for 'swanning off' to Paris for x days (3 or 4 were intended?) after the West Ham defeat instead of getting the team on the training ground after a dismal performance. Valley has cited other cases. I know all of this probably means zilch.....but you did ask.
So basically nobody has a clue why Laudrup was sacked then ? A club run by the fans for the fans eh ? ...
My thoughts exactly! I think Laudrup could have been a victim of Mobbing: INTRODUCTION In the organizational structure of football clubs, many different factors such as economical problems, role-conflict in club, relations between footballer, supporter and sports media which have impacts on negative experiences of trainers can be mentioned. One of these factors is mobbing. According to Leymann (22), mobbing is to be emotionally harassed, exposed to unfair accusations, indignities, suffered from general disturbances for an employee or a group by other employees, and then to be inactive for working. The researches about mobbing reveal that an employee or a group is emotionally disturbed in a systematic way due to psychological pressures which the factors such as jealousness, intolerance, antipathy, competition, different personalities, races and opinions cause (8,25,15,32,11,23). As Leymann (22) describes this process as emotional abuses, unfair accusations, insulting behaviors, slanders, general disturbances for an employee or a group by other employees and finally inactiveness. According to some research results, when persons’ psychological pressure levels increase, the possibility of developing negative behaviours increases in psychological, physical and social aspects because of these pressures (2,6,7,16). Based on the reasons of mobbing or the mobbing results from which conditions and factors, above mentioned explanations and evaluations firstly show that violence is a multi-dimensional case. In this process, mobbing behaviors are cases which can occur in all sport clubs without considering any league and status differences, football clubs which are groups including individuals’ relations and group dynamics, producing their own values, are activity fields to analyze mobbing effectively (31). Mobbing behaviors experienced in the football field have not been determined in a detailed way up to now, which requires such a work to be done. In this context, the frequency for these types of actions directed to trainers has been examined; in football clubs the existence and characteristics of this case have been determined here. From this viewpoint that research findings would guide the relevant persons to observe at which dimensions and frequencies the football trainers face mobbing actions and to create a productive working environment in the football clubs, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the mobbing perceptions of the football trainers differ in age groups, license types, graduation levels and training years. Cengiz et al. 2013, Turk J Sport Exe 2013; 15(1): 88–94 © 2013 Department of Physical Education and Sport, Selcuk University http://www.turksportexe.org/resimler/2013003-20130518-010419.pdf
if this is the start of GM signings then it is going to be a long season. No better than what we have, I hope Monks thinking isnt that well he is out of contract and free and is Arsenals second choice so must be good, http://www.givemesport.com/463879-arsenal-goalkeeper-a-transfer-target-for-swansea?autoplay=on
Try saying something positive about Garry Monk instead of lampooning him at every possibility. For example: Monk realises Tremmel isn't up to it and is looking to replace him this summer. Not too hard.
I would if he was replacing him with someone better, but its not. You can rose colour it all you like but I am being realistic.
Fabianski has played 31 times in over 6 years for Arsenal. He is no first choice. God forbid he becomes our first choice keeper.
Aswan,just by way of clarification,my Post No.82 was not directed at you. Your reference to "hypothetical, hearsay,and press snippets",possibly contributed to Laudrups' demise. There are some on here who soak up such garbage, and happily accept it as reality,especially if it enhances their own agenda's.
Well that's why there was so many complaints from the players and staff about him. Now why would they do that if they were enjoying working under laudrup? And why would the club sack him for god sake if he was doing a good job...come on get real and stop burying your head in the sand for god sake trying to prove something that you know you cant.....Jinxs sacked the man the same man he took on so how and why was he sacked. you have all read the reports from players so what did you want to happen. Keep him and have a team in disarray and not playing to the standard they know they can or get rid of the problem once and for all....well we did the latter and now the club could not be happier and the players are playing good football again and they are behind monk 100%.....why was they not behind laudrup 100%...something was not right was it...get real.
Your hero Brendan Rodgers knew f**k all about Swansea but he did well for us - despite having bombed at Reading.
