The groupthink of modern day football types

[Duck Egg]

The Scott Parker quote interests me, as it's almost word for word what Howard Kendall said when he took over a struggling Man City. Make yourself hard to beat before owt else.

Mate of mine runs a team and decided to buck the trend of them all copying the pro sides by pulling everyone back at corners. He's 2 short, nippy players "hopeless at heading", so why leave em in there? On corners all his team were under instructions to clear it upfield and the nippy lads would hopefully gsin possession and start a counter attack.  He said the confusion amongst the opposition was pretty funny as they then had to leave 3 or 4 back rather than the usual 1.

[ianofcleveleys]

4 hours ago, desperado said:

A good post which offers the alternative perspective.

I think as always there’s a balance, and @paulhanley makes some good points about not losing some of the more traditional aspects of our game and over-complicating things in the modern game.

However we have to be very careful this doesn’t come across as a narrow-minded generational moan.

When I first came into PE teaching/Coaching in the late 80s/90s, I was forever faced with being told this is how it should be done with old traditional methods, very little openness to change and adapt.

My early experiences of our academy weren’t great, turning down kids because they weren’t tall enough or big enough.

A lot of changes have been for the better, kids are being coached much better now than they were 30/40 years ago. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that our fortunes on the international stage are better too.

A really interesting topic and debate, thanks to Paul for kicking it off and the knowledgeable contributions that have followed. 

I sometimes feel a bit of a dinosaur outsider watching a game with it's own new identity and parlance, but one overly complicated and over thought, with over emphasis on data and numbers, a game played on laptops at the expense of feel, instinct and what you see with your own eyes. 

There's no doubt in my eyes that some current managers get so immersed in their philosophy they can't see and respond to what's happening under their nose and become more rigid and inflexible than their predecessors (he's a 10, he's not an 8, he's a 6, we recruit to a system, blah blah blah). 

I laugh at times at the clubs who appoint new managers having been sold a dreamy presentation about 'philosophy' and the 'project', fawn over it for a bit till the team has a bad run and hovers near the drop zone. Then, it's all binned off and a saviour brought in who can stop the rot, no matter how.

However, I know I'm not as close to or informed as many on here who have coached, do coach or have kids in junior football, academies etc. I can see there's no doubt that some aspects of current methods are producing more and better footballers that are improving standards right through the league. I watched a L2 game live the other week and the standard, level of ability and the way they were trying to play was way better than when I used to see a lot of L2 around a decade ago. Where I draw a line is when managers in the lower divisions persist with trying to turn hairy arsed defenders in their late 20s and 30s into sophisticated pass masters, the result being laughably bad goals being given away every other week. 

I suppose where I'm at is there's a lot of current day football that frustrates me but there is clearly some good work being done at all levels of the game to drive up standards and move us forward with the rest of Europe and the World.

Great topic and debate

 

[Dimron]

1 hour ago, Casino said:

id better start with rioch is in my top 4 bolton managers, probably 2nd, maybe 3rd, poss 4th depending on my mood

 

While we were pulling off giant killings, we still only got promoted through the play offs

And lets be honest, we got lucky on the day

Would rioch have got dogs abuse had we failed, probably not

Were they just different times?

 

Similarly, when we decided not to turn up v watford, my recollection is the stick was aimed the players, not at the manager...was it todd?

 

Whats changed?

Similarly, when we decided not to turn up v watford, my recollection is the stick was aimed the players, not at the manager...was it todd?

I'm pretty certain it was Rioch... if you were there I was the one who smuggled his puppy dog into the stand and he was trotting around and being fussed while we were enjoying the 3-0 away win...

[Dimron]

12 minutes ago, ianofcleveleys said:

A really interesting topic and debate, thanks to Paul for kicking it off and the knowledgeable contributions that have followed. 

I sometimes feel a bit of a dinosaur outsider watching a game with it's own new identity and parlance, but one overly complicated and over thought, with over emphasis on data and numbers, a game played on laptops at the expense of feel, instinct and what you see with your own eyes. 

There's no doubt in my eyes that some current managers get so immersed in their philosophy they can't see and respond to what's happening under their nose and become more rigid and inflexible than their predecessors (he's a 10, he's not an 8, he's a 6, we recruit to a system, blah blah blah). 

I laugh at times at the clubs who appoint new managers having been sold a dreamy presentation about 'philosophy' and the 'project', fawn over it for a bit till the team has a bad run and hovers near the drop zone. Then, it's all binned off and a saviour brought in who can stop the rot, no matter how.

However, I know I'm not as close to or informed as many on here who have coached, do coach or have kids in junior football, academies etc. I can see there's no doubt that some aspects of current methods are producing more and better footballers that are improving standards right through the league. I watched a L2 game live the other week and the standard, level of ability and the way they were trying to play was way better than when I used to see a lot of L2 around a decade ago. Where I draw a line is when managers in the lower divisions persist with trying to turn hairy arsed defenders in their late 20s and 30s into sophisticated pass masters, the result being laughably bad goals being given away every other week. 

I suppose where I'm at is there's a lot of current day football that frustrates me but there is clearly some good work being done at all levels of the game to drive up standards and move us forward with the rest of Europe and the World.

Great topic and debate

 

The coaches can only do  so much with the raw product they are presented with... I remember being out on Tonge Moor Park until it was dark playing footie... under inflated balls and coats for goal posts... 99% of kids don't do that any more. They are driven to "hot house" lessons once or twice a week.

I first spotted this when we signed Kachunga.. I was sat behind the goal at Cambridge when we first played him... I was really impressed by his off the ball running and getting into space but after a few more viewings I realised he didn't have that final touch, he was a product of his coaches. Sadly I think Charles is similar... runs into all the spaces but needs a couple of touches for that final kill.

This is where we are... football is going to be about two banks of Romanesque legions marching against each other where individuality, brilliance and passion is frowned upon, but betting is king. 

There are still "football families" who do produce these players who can skin you like the ball is tied to their laces... the  Flitcrofts  and over here in Lincoln, we have the Frecklingtons and Crombies

[desperado]

39 minutes ago, ianofcleveleys said:

A really interesting topic and debate, thanks to Paul for kicking it off and the knowledgeable contributions that have followed. 

I sometimes feel a bit of a dinosaur outsider watching a game with it's own new identity and parlance, but one overly complicated and over thought, with over emphasis on data and numbers, a game played on laptops at the expense of feel, instinct and what you see with your own eyes. 

There's no doubt in my eyes that some current managers get so immersed in their philosophy they can't see and respond to what's happening under their nose and become more rigid and inflexible than their predecessors (he's a 10, he's not an 8, he's a 6, we recruit to a system, blah blah blah). 

I laugh at times at the clubs who appoint new managers having been sold a dreamy presentation about 'philosophy' and the 'project', fawn over it for a bit till the team has a bad run and hovers near the drop zone. Then, it's all binned off and a saviour brought in who can stop the rot, no matter how.

However, I know I'm not as close to or informed as many on here who have coached, do coach or have kids in junior football, academies etc. I can see there's no doubt that some aspects of current methods are producing more and better footballers that are improving standards right through the league. I watched a L2 game live the other week and the standard, level of ability and the way they were trying to play was way better than when I used to see a lot of L2 around a decade ago. Where I draw a line is when managers in the lower divisions persist with trying to turn hairy arsed defenders in their late 20s and 30s into sophisticated pass masters, the result being laughably bad goals being given away every other week. 

I suppose where I'm at is there's a lot of current day football that frustrates me but there is clearly some good work being done at all levels of the game to drive up standards and move us forward with the rest of Europe and the World.

Great topic and debate

 

Great balanced post 👏👏

[wakey]

2 hours ago, ianofcleveleys said:

A really interesting topic and debate, thanks to Paul for kicking it off and the knowledgeable contributions that have followed. 

I sometimes feel a bit of a dinosaur outsider watching a game with it's own new identity and parlance, but one overly complicated and over thought, with over emphasis on data and numbers, a game played on laptops at the expense of feel, instinct and what you see with your own eyes. 

There's no doubt in my eyes that some current managers get so immersed in their philosophy they can't see and respond to what's happening under their nose and become more rigid and inflexible than their predecessors (he's a 10, he's not an 8, he's a 6, we recruit to a system, blah blah blah). 

I laugh at times at the clubs who appoint new managers having been sold a dreamy presentation about 'philosophy' and the 'project', fawn over it for a bit till the team has a bad run and hovers near the drop zone. Then, it's all binned off and a saviour brought in who can stop the rot, no matter how.

However, I know I'm not as close to or informed as many on here who have coached, do coach or have kids in junior football, academies etc. I can see there's no doubt that some aspects of current methods are producing more and better footballers that are improving standards right through the league. I watched a L2 game live the other week and the standard, level of ability and the way they were trying to play was way better than when I used to see a lot of L2 around a decade ago. Where I draw a line is when managers in the lower divisions persist with trying to turn hairy arsed defenders in their late 20s and 30s into sophisticated pass masters, the result being laughably bad goals being given away every other week. 

I suppose where I'm at is there's a lot of current day football that frustrates me but there is clearly some good work being done at all levels of the game to drive up standards and move us forward with the rest of Europe and the World.

Great topic and debate

 

reminds me of something Robbie Keane said when he was at Liverpool.

He'd had a pretty rough start in terms of getting a run and scoring goals, and by his own admission was finding things tough.

One game, it clicked and he played well and scored a couple (think he may have been hooked when on a hat-trick, but maybe mixing that bit up with another story).

He went in on Monday buzzing, only to have a meeting with the analyst bloke who pulled his performance apart based on the stats.

Needless to say, he wasn't reflecting positively on the experience.

[DaveTheRave]

2 hours ago, Dimron said:

Similarly, when we decided not to turn up v watford, my recollection is the stick was aimed the players, not at the manager...was it todd?

I'm pretty certain it was Rioch.

It was Todd.

[Dimron]

33 minutes ago, DaveTheRave said:

It was Todd.

Rioch... just double checked, I was there but we didn't blame the manager.

Most weird day I've ever had in going to footie matches... lots of beers prior, singing and takin the piss at 3 nil up and then 15 mins later walking out through those allotments at the back with "Your not singing anymore" ringing in our ears... I can still see the look of shock in Paddy's face when that pen went in.

[Casino]

4 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Rioch... just double checked, I was there but we didn't blame the manager.

Most weird day I've ever had in going to footie matches... lots of beers prior, singing and takin the piss at 3 nil up and then 15 mins later walking out through those allotments at the back with "Your not singing anymore" ringing in our ears... I can still see the look of shock in Paddy's face when that pen went in.

Im on about a play off final

Against a team in yellow

We only had to turn up to win

[ianofcleveleys]

If we get to the play off final we could do with facing a team that plays in anything other than yellow... 

[DaveTheRave]

23 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Rioch... just double checked, I was there but we didn't blame the manager.

Most weird day I've ever had in going to footie matches... lots of beers prior, singing and takin the piss at 3 nil up and then 15 mins later walking out through those allotments at the back with "Your not singing anymore" ringing in our ears... I can still see the look of shock in Paddy's face when that pen went in.

I thought we were on about the 1999 play off final.

[perth_white]

4 hours ago, DaveTheRave said:

I thought we were on about the 1999 play off final.

Playoff against Watford was Todd. The Rioch match also referenced was when we were 3 nil up at Watford on 80(ish) minutes and capitulated to lose 4-3.

[Eddie]

14 hours ago, ianofcleveleys said:

A really interesting topic and debate, thanks to Paul for kicking it off and the knowledgeable contributions that have followed. 

I sometimes feel a bit of a dinosaur outsider watching a game with it's own new identity and parlance, but one overly complicated and over thought, with over emphasis on data and numbers, a game played on laptops at the expense of feel, instinct and what you see with your own eyes. 

There's no doubt in my eyes that some current managers get so immersed in their philosophy they can't see and respond to what's happening under their nose and become more rigid and inflexible than their predecessors (he's a 10, he's not an 8, he's a 6, we recruit to a system, blah blah blah). 

I laugh at times at the clubs who appoint new managers having been sold a dreamy presentation about 'philosophy' and the 'project', fawn over it for a bit till the team has a bad run and hovers near the drop zone. Then, it's all binned off and a saviour brought in who can stop the rot, no matter how.

However, I know I'm not as close to or informed as many on here who have coached, do coach or have kids in junior football, academies etc. I can see there's no doubt that some aspects of current methods are producing more and better footballers that are improving standards right through the league. I watched a L2 game live the other week and the standard, level of ability and the way they were trying to play was way better than when I used to see a lot of L2 around a decade ago. Where I draw a line is when managers in the lower divisions persist with trying to turn hairy arsed defenders in their late 20s and 30s into sophisticated pass masters, the result being laughably bad goals being given away every other week. 

I suppose where I'm at is there's a lot of current day football that frustrates me but there is clearly some good work being done at all levels of the game to drive up standards and move us forward with the rest of Europe and the World.

Great topic and debate

 

Pretty much exactly where I’m at, Ian. There are plenty of elements that show progress of the game, you only need to look back through the decades to see how it happens continuously and then how poor it can make football from 30+ years ago look.

There are 2 things that piss me off more than anything:

1 - the robotic nature of how most teams now play, caused by an over reliance on statistics and data. It’s all very NFL, which in my opinion is far more suited to it as its play by play and formulaic. Average managers now have access to any statistic they want, which can tell them how a team should play a match on paper (sound familiar!?). It completely removes consideration of the fact that there are 22 humans on the pitch, all of which have emotions, make mistakes, forget things, make hundreds of decisions every minute and so statistics alone can’t dictate how a match will end.

The human element of football management appears to be disappearing and essentially you have a load of similar types that just ‘coach’ a robotic system that is driven by data. 

It’s why in my opinion, when a team is struggling and they sack their manager, they usually lean back towards a manager that is a bit more old school. It’s not because they’re tactically better, it’s because they’re the ones that know how to lead people, they can get that extra 5% out of players that makes the difference. They don’t need the stats, they know whether to put an arm round, whether to give a kick up the arse, how to create a siege mentality etc. Those modern managers that can do both are few and far between and stand out like a sore thumb (Klopp, Pep being the obvious ones).

2 - when did flexibility and adaptability become so unfashionable? It’s kind of linked to #1 but it baffles me how so many younger managers are so dead set on their own brand, philosophy and way of playing that they cannot move an inch from it.

The obvious example is someone like Russell Martin - play his way in the Championship and Southampton are good enough to be successful, but to then stick to the exact blueprint in the Prem, despite literally giving a goal away in every other game, is lunacy. But it’s his brand and clearly he wasn’t going to entertain the fact that Southampton would be more successful in the Prem by adapting that way of playing. Van Nistelrooy seems to be another that is doing really daft things with Leicester and there are countless others that are trying to stick to an ideology without having the resources to do so.

The other one that is slightly different but really surprised me - Amorim. Again, he’s got his formation, his style of playing, it’s an Amorim team, we play this way. Successful with Sporting because he had the players to do it well, but to then come to United and try and implement the same thing from day 1 is crazy - you don’t have the players to do it. Starting against Newcastle with 2 centre mids that can’t run because that’s the system you play, despite the fact you know you’ll get destroyed (which they did) is just mental. He might go on to be successful, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t get the best out of what you’ve got, use the next window to bring in players that fit your preferred system, slowly move towards it and then in summer do the same again. You’ve got more chance of winning football matches by getting the best out of what you’ve got.

One young manager who seems to have a brilliant balance of their style but with a really good amount of flexibility and pragmatism is Kieran McKenna at Ipswich. Played some really nice, expansive stuff as they came up the leagues, but has now realised that they need to tweak it and try to be hard to beat in the Prem, and it’s working to some extent. He’s someone that has the best chance to go to the top, whereas your likes of Martin, Van Nistelrooy (and Evatt to some extent) will get found out too often to get to the top.

Edited January 6, 2025 by Eddie

[Dimron]

10 hours ago, DaveTheRave said:

I thought we were on about the 1999 play off final.

Forgot that one... best way, another weird game

[Casino]

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 

It’s why in my opinion, when a team is struggling and they sack their manager, they usually lean back towards a manager that is a bit more old school. 

do they

obviously not being english doesn't stop you being old school  but it feels like loads of teams jump from one foreign manager to another

 

by old school are you meaning warnock

 

[Eddie]

7 minutes ago, Casino said:

do they

obviously not being english doesn't stop you being old school  but it feels like loads of teams jump from one foreign manager to another

 

by old school are you meaning warnock

 

I mean when teams in the Prem are in trouble and they tend to go for a short term rescue appointment (Allardyce, Warnock, Moyes etc.).

It’s not long term, and I’m not saying they’re better managers, they certainly wouldn’t work long term, but they tend to be able to squeeze more out of a squad in the short term which I’d put down to man management.

[perth_white]

21 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Forgot that one... best way, another weird game

Was chatting with my mum recently about that game and couldn't understand why I didn't go. She showed me a picture of us all waiting for the coach down, no recollection of it at all and I was sober that day too. Odd game.

[wakey]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

I mean when teams in the Prem are in trouble and they tend to go for a short term rescue appointment (Allardyce, Warnock, Moyes etc.).

It’s not long term, and I’m not saying they’re better managers, they certainly wouldn’t work long term, but they tend to be able to squeeze more out of a squad in the short term which I’d put down to man management.

Dyche at Everton being another recent example.

Dying out though simply for the fact that there aren't that many old school managers kicking about any more (anywhere near the top end of the game - still a few lower down).

[Dimron]

2 hours ago, perth_white said:

Was chatting with my mum recently about that game and couldn't understand why I didn't go. She showed me a picture of us all waiting for the coach down, no recollection of it at all and I was sober that day too. Odd game.

It was very strange, All I can recall was I went into my usual boozer near Wembley and didn't see a single White shirt... everyone in yellow giving me queer looks... no recollection of the football at all, like I wasn't there... did it really happen?

[perth_white]

37 minutes ago, Dimron said:

It was very strange, All I can recall was I went into my usual boozer near Wembley and didn't see a single White shirt... everyone in yellow giving me queer looks... no recollection of the football at all, like I wasn't there... did it really happen?

Records show it did but I'm like you, simply can't remember the game at all. I can usually remember snippets from every game (popcorn chicken at Mansfield in Rioch's promotion season, Super John's disallowed goal at Stoke, Branny fucking his knee and then taking a goal kick at Derby) but this is a blank.

[Cheese]

I have absolutely zero recollection of last year's play-off final defeat, never mind one from 25 years ago.

[gonzo]

Eidur missed a pan full of chances in the first half. 

We should've been 2-0 up. It wasn't as one sided as folk remember.

They just upped it in the 2nd half and scored a belter. 

Remember Alan Smart crying like a girl when he scored.

[Johnnyrotten]

It was the 2nd half that was very poor from us, we were easily the better team in the 1st half, it didn't even come close to the Oxford performance.  Still don't know how we didn't score.  A similarity between the 2 games was the opening goals, on another day they go wide or get saved, but of course they both fluked their way into the top corner.

 

[paulhanley]

Some good thoughtful posts on here yesterday and today. Most folk seem of a similar mind - the way the game has developed is good but the baby has gone out with the bathwater in certain instances. 

Maybe at some point there'll be a measure of revisionism.

I also agree with those who have pointed out that man-management skills seem on the decline in favour of people who are one dimensional tacticians. Reminds of a Cloughie saying "There's a lot of crap talked about tactics by people who wouldn't know how to win a game of dominoes" . 

 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

I think the danger comes from over-relying on science and data.

Doesn't seem to help us on injuries. 

Saying that, BSA employed it, and our injuries tended to be lessened. 

Lots of options for players to try.

It didn't stop him trusting players and using good man management skills though.