Steve Round

[TRO]

15 hours ago, sne said:

Well he has his work cut out for him (and I understand it's a work in progress, even thou there has been very little as of yet)

So far we are anything but fast and dynamic or aggressive. Wouldn't say we are that strong or physical either except for Jedi, Terry and our new striker Samba.

But it's definitely not Tiki Taka, so he got that part right already.

well that is really funny, because despite the attempts to fix that, I totally agree with that.....and its something I am surprised at.....but its still early.

I think we still have too many that are competitively suspect.

even our attacking midfielders lose the ball far too easily.

maybe thats why Steve Round feels compelled to address it at club level, not just first team.

Edited August 9, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

I'd love to see the Vills way being in the mood of Kevin Keenan's Newcastle. 

Keegans Newcastle was dynamic too

Edited August 8, 2017 by TRO

[hippo]

13 hours ago, TRO said:

It has been reported in Birmingham Mail that Steve Round is being tasked with creating a playing style right through the club down to the under 12's

they are referring to it as the " Villa Way"

I would guess it will be music to the ears of many fans.

they seem to think it will take between 3-5 years to fully implement.

I hope its a success.

I was listening on the radio a while back. Richard Sneekes was saying that generally youth u23 is played in a less physical passing style of game. He said he was watching stoke u23 whilst pullis was the manager and was saying  how they played a neat passing game.  Basically its the norm. He was talking about because wolves under slobaken were making a big deal that all the wolves teams were playing in such way and the club were totally committed to it. ........

Its window dressing really, comments to makes us feel good - but in reality its nothing.

 

[villabromsgrove]

Wyness says that we have to build three teams, "one to get us up, one to keep us up and one to push on from there". I can only see Steve Bruce being involved in the "one to get us up". 

The football we are playing now is "Steve Bruce" football. It's his trademark and I don't think he's willing or able to change his type of football.

Steve Round has been tasked to come up with a "Villa brand" of football, and if he wants to keep his job it cannot be more of the painfully negative football that we currently have to witness. Therefore we have to look for a head coach in future rather than a manager. If the Villa hierarchy are going to dictate the playing style then coaches will have to be tailored to that style. SB will not fit the job description.

Just my opinion.

[Grasshopper]

Steve Round should be looking at what we have on player types, whats missing and the manager we have.

If it's not a good fit he should recommend a course of action to the board.

Either

1 - Tailor the players to the manager we have

or

2 - Tailor a manager to the players we have

Having a situation where both manager & players are a mis-match for each other, expecting one or the other/both to compromise and go "out of their zone" is going to be difficult to mould into a successful unit.

Anything other than a clear definition for what is the now, is delusional or denial.

Announcing future ideals when the now means promotion or bust is futile.

[hippo]

2 hours ago, villabromsgrove said:

Wyness says that we have to build three teams, "one to get us up, one to keep us up and one to push on from there". I can only see Steve Bruce being involved in the "one to get us up". 

The football we are playing now is "Steve Bruce" football. It's his trademark and I don't think he's willing or able to change his type of football.

Steve Round has been tasked to come up with a "Villa brand" of football, and if he wants to keep his job it cannot be more of the painfully negative football that we currently have to witness. Therefore we have to look for a head coach in future rather than a manager. If the Villa hierarchy are going to dictate the playing style then coaches will have to be tailored to that style. SB will not fit the job description.

Just my opinion.

in my opinion the head coach thing is fine at smaller clubs - but I can't see it working at villa. I always think the better villa managers are strong characters, Saunders, Taylor, MON, - The head coachy style of manager ,  RDM, Garde, always seem to struggle to stamp their authority on the dressing room.....Just my opinion of course.

[hippo]

1 minute ago, Grasshopper said:

Steve Round should be looking at what we have on player types, whats missing and the manager we have.

If it's not a good fit he should recommend a course of action to the board.

Either

1 - Tailor the players to the manager we have

or

2 - Tailor a manager to the players we have

Having a situation where both manager & players are a mis-match for each other, expecting one or the other/both to compromise and go "out of their zone" is going to be difficult to mould into a successful unit.

Anything other than a clear definition for what is the now, is delusional or denial.

Announcing future ideals when the now means promotion or bust is futile.

Having spent his career as coach or assistant manager my feeling is Steve Round will go along with the manager Wyness wants - I don't see him have the personality or authority to slam his fist on the table and say 'The next aston villa manager should be xxxxxx'  - I think he makes the minor decisions - but is more comfortable implemting someone else's plans....

Again just my thoughts...

[romavillan]

13 minutes ago, hippo said:

in my opinion the head coach thing is fine at smaller clubs - but I can't see it working at villa. I always think the better villa managers are strong characters, Saunders, Taylor, MON, - The head coachy style of manager ,  RDM, Garde, always seem to struggle to stamp their authority on the dressing room.....Just my opinion of course.

I think that's just a British perception, I wouldn't say Ancelotti, Capello, Sacchi etc. etc. had troubles commanding a dressing room. Personally I think having a director of football is going to become increasingly essential, and we definitely need a shake up in the coaching.

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, romavillan said:

I think that's just a British perception, I wouldn't say Ancelotti, Capello, Sacchi etc. etc. had troubles commanding a dressing room. Personally I think having a director of football is going to become increasingly essential, and we definitely need a shake up in the coaching.

no those guys won't have problems. But we won't get that calibre of head coach - we will probably getting some up and coming coach with experience at perhaps 1 or 2 clubs - like Garde who just crumbled under the pressure..

[romavillan]

Well, Garde got screwed by the club, the board had no interest in him at all longer term, there was no DOF in place for him to work with and no money for him. Once the players saw that he wanted players in Jan and the club gave him nothing the writing was on the wall. That's got nothing to do with the model working or not though.

The ONLY place where football is played to a high level that does no use the role of a head coach instead of a manager is the UK. That's it. The amount of manager's who live up to the ideal of someone coming in and creating a dynasty is less than a fraction of 1%. The head coach model, especially how it works over here is that they sign a contract for the length of a "project" the life cycle of a team, they come in build a side and go for whatever the squads goals. Coaches hang around at most for 4 or 5 years when successful and then look for another project. The long term goals are the responsibility of the DOF. Our current situation, when we hired Bruce was perfect for this kind of set up. First we should have got a good DOF with experience in building teams, coaching staff and applying an ethos club wide. He should then have hired the first set of coaching staff for the first goal, promotion. The longer term ideas of a playing style, being successful in the Prem, getting in to Europe, are the responsibilty of the DOF. Our first head coach would be tasked with getting us up. Then maybe a different coach better suited to the Prem would be tasked with keeping us up... etc. etc. The head coach can change without it being starting from scratch every time we change a manager. 

It's a much more stable way to work. It's only in the UK where it isn't normal, yet, it will be in 10 years no question. Hopefully Steve Round is going to implement that kind of structure for us too.

[Lord Willard]

The problem lies with Mums, teachers and society. Brain washing kids telling them it's the taking part that counters.... where's the killer instinct to be the best. When we're winning go for the jugular! 

[hippo]

50 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Well, Garde got screwed by the club, the board had no interest in him at all longer term, there was no DOF in place for him to work with and no money for him. Once the players saw that he wanted players in Jan and the club gave him nothing the writing was on the wall. That's got nothing to do with the model working or not though.

The ONLY place where football is played to a high level that does no use the role of a head coach instead of a manager is the UK. That's it. The amount of manager's who live up to the ideal of someone coming in and creating a dynasty is less than a fraction of 1%. The head coach model, especially how it works over here is that they sign a contract for the length of a "project" the life cycle of a team, they come in build a side and go for whatever the squads goals. Coaches hang around at most for 4 or 5 years when successful and then look for another project. The long term goals are the responsibility of the DOF. Our current situation, when we hired Bruce was perfect for this kind of set up. First we should have got a good DOF with experience in building teams, coaching staff and applying an ethos club wide. He should then have hired the first set of coaching staff for the first goal, promotion. The longer term ideas of a playing style, being successful in the Prem, getting in to Europe, are the responsibilty of the DOF. Our first head coach would be tasked with getting us up. Then maybe a different coach better suited to the Prem would be tasked with keeping us up... etc. etc. The head coach can change without it being starting from scratch every time we change a manager. 

It's a much more stable way to work. It's only in the UK where it isn't normal, yet, it will be in 10 years no question. Hopefully Steve Round is going to implement that kind of structure for us too.

A strong manager wouldn't have stood for that.

We are in the UK though

The rest of your post of I kind of agree with. The problem we have is attracting the right people - our choices last summer came down to Nigel Pearson, RDM , - Even David Moyes wasn't interested - so how on earth do we land a top coach ?  - Hence Bruce , at the time one of the better managers at this level - if/when he goes I shudder at the thought of some overseas coach coming in.

Gary Monk, David Wagner - were two 'coaches' who did well last season - but personally I don't think either would have done much had they got the villa gig instead of RDM.

I don't think round is a full blown DOF - I think likes being ' just out' of the limelight - I think he will only have nominal input in the next manager search. Personally I think jetting in another Remi Garde type will have equally disastrous results  - some would still blame the legacy of Bruce ...maybe but whose to blame matters not as the club descends into chaos with some hopelessly out of his depth foreign coach assuring us all he is 'instilling a new ethos' 

 

 

 

[TRO]

1 hour ago, romavillan said:

Well, Garde got screwed by the club, the board had no interest in him at all longer term, there was no DOF in place for him to work with and no money for him. Once the players saw that he wanted players in Jan and the club gave him nothing the writing was on the wall. That's got nothing to do with the model working or not though.

The ONLY place where football is played to a high level that does no use the role of a head coach instead of a manager is the UK. That's it. The amount of manager's who live up to the ideal of someone coming in and creating a dynasty is less than a fraction of 1%. The head coach model, especially how it works over here is that they sign a contract for the length of a "project" the life cycle of a team, they come in build a side and go for whatever the squads goals. Coaches hang around at most for 4 or 5 years when successful and then look for another project. The long term goals are the responsibility of the DOF. Our current situation, when we hired Bruce was perfect for this kind of set up. First we should have got a good DOF with experience in building teams, coaching staff and applying an ethos club wide. He should then have hired the first set of coaching staff for the first goal, promotion. The longer term ideas of a playing style, being successful in the Prem, getting in to Europe, are the responsibilty of the DOF. Our first head coach would be tasked with getting us up. Then maybe a different coach better suited to the Prem would be tasked with keeping us up... etc. etc. The head coach can change without it being starting from scratch every time we change a manager. 

It's a much more stable way to work. It's only in the UK where it isn't normal, yet, it will be in 10 years no question. Hopefully Steve Round is going to implement that kind of structure for us too.

That maybe so, but there has to be huge responsibility on the head coach/manager to deliver first team results.....that man will want to do things his way, if he is to be responsible for those results.

The overall structure thing is a good idea , but a DOF can breed unaccountability.....he is neither one thing or the other......and it can manifest " too many cooks spoil the broth"

i do believe a club like ours is too big for a conventional manager to focus on it all.....so i am not opposed to Steve Round, just cautious.

I think the main thing is barking up the right tree and on the back of 10 years of demise, we are in danger of speculating too much.

It is also useful to remind ourselves that there are many ,many functions of running a football club like ours......many,many teams too, at all levels.....all things to cause distraction or consume mental energy, its a big old organisation.

However at the very epicentre of it all is just one team.....The first team, where all the stuff mentioned gets its credence from......We have to get that bit right and usually all the rest falls in to place.

 

 

[romavillan]

@hippoyep I know villa is in the UK  I'm not saying getting a head coach type in now without doing the rest first is a good idea, I just think it should be our future.

 

@TRO Over here, if you are head coach and you lose 3 or 4 on the bounce with a good team, you will most likely need a win next game or you'll be looking for a job. First team results is the ONLY responsibility of the head coach. Team building, the academy, the rest of the club he has an input but it's not his bag.

I don't agree that just getting the first team right means the rest falls in to place automatically. We had a good first team doing well not so long ago, the rest was still amateur hour with respect to our competition. 

[hippo]

To me a head coach can come in - do crap - but then say 'ah but im changing the ethos here' - its surprising how many people are taken in by that.

 

 

[AshVilla]

I dread to think what manager this guy is going to bring in to replace Bruce as I assume he will have some role in the decision making process.

He's done such a good job already with backing Bruce in the first place.

[sidcow]

3-0= - SB

[Jareth]

I'd like to know if the player recruitment and departures has gone through Steve Round in order to maintain stability if and when managers leave. I hope so, because it's quite a good squad and there is now a chance for Round to appoint someone who can help implement the 'villa way' he has been talking about for the youth set-up and above. 

[terrytini]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I'd like to know if the player recruitment and departures has gone through Steve Round in order to maintain stability if and when managers leave. I hope so, because it's quite a good squad and there is now a chance for Round to appoint someone who can help implement the 'villa way' he has been talking about for the youth set-up and above. 

I have strong doubts about him, particularly recruitment.

Whilst I see a case for Terry and Whelan, they don't exactly scream ' clever scouting'.....and the less said about Samba the better.

If you then add in January's signings - which may or may not work without Bruce but certainly haven't worked with him - it's a rather tame CV so far !

[hippo]

On 12/08/2017 at 16:57, AshVilla said:

I dread to think what manager this guy is going to bring in to replace Bruce as I assume he will have some role in the decision making process.

He's done such a good job already with backing Bruce in the first place.

I don't see him being involved as much as people think. Despite his title I don't think he is senior staff member at VP - he's vaguely involved in non first team coaching, and physio and fitness. I don't see him having a recommendation to the board as to whom are next manager will be.