John Terry

[Spoony]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

They had been working in coaching roles, i believe which made the transition more comfortable for them.

John clearly hadn't had the same experience behind the scenes and intimated so.

but who knows, they might just be more suited to it.

Frank and Stevie G.....just look a bit more articulate to me.

I actually didn’t know that. I think with the experience JT is getting if things don’t work out with DS I’d give him a go. Experience doesn’t seem to count for much looking at our last million appointments...

[TRO]

47 minutes ago, Spoony said:

I actually didn’t know that. I think with the experience JT is getting if things don’t work out with DS I’d give him a go. Experience doesn’t seem to count for much looking at our last million appointments...

Its tricky, there are examples on both sides of the argument of managers who have done well with other managers players....and not.

its also tricky...is success or failure down to the manager or the players or both.

I am from the view of gradual improvement is key, little bits you see as you go along, like "blimey thats good, wasn't doing that last week".... you can almost see the BMH work, when its working right.

I don't see that.

These short runs of good play and then runs of turgid stuff, is just a symptom of things not right for me.

I don't profess to know the answer, i suspect its a bunch of factors, that are not right.

Whoever the manager is, it will take a concerted effort from many key individuals at the club, to get this right.

 I would like to see moving forward, not much money spent, because i think big money represents negative pressure on all concerned, even us.....There have been examples of teams as diverse as Norwich and Cardiff have shown, modestly bought players, who fit the role can form a team to get you out of this league.....Quality as we call it can easily be negated in the Championship, if the desire and willingness to compete is not there.

I hope we have a rethink in the Summer as to what we really need and hope the scouts and powers that be ,can identify and secure the right ones.

Edited February 10, 2019 by TRO

[AntrimBlack]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

Its tricky, there are examples on both sides of the argument of managers who have done well with other managers players....and not.

its also tricky...is success or failure down to the manager or the players or both.

I am from the view of gradual improvement is key, little bits you see as you go along, like "blimey thats good, wasn't doing that last week".... you can almost see the BMH work, when its working right.

I don't see that.

These short runs of good play and then runs of turgid stuff, is just a symptom of things not right for me.

I don't profess to know the answer, i suspect its a bunch of factors, that are not right.

Whoever the manager is, it will take a concerted effort from many key individuals at the club, to get this right.

 I would like to see moving forward, not much money spent, because i think big money represents negative pressure on all concerned, even us.....There have been examples of teams as diverse as Norwich and Cardiff have shown, modestly bought players, who fit the role can form a team to get you out of this league.....Quality as we call it can easily be negated in the Championship, if the desire and willingness to compete is not there.

I hope we have a rethink in the Summer as to what we really need and hope the scouts and powers that be ,can identify and secure the right ones.

I am pinning my hopes for our future on the signings of Guilbert and Kalinic. They are undoubtedly two for the future, and possibly the only signings that they were convinced about that they were actually able to get in the window.

[Dave J]

On 07/01/2019 at 09:11, Stevo985 said:

I see a lot of people laying blame at John Terry for the state of the defence. People asking what he does during training and doesn't he coach the defenders and that sort of thing.

 

Seems to be a misconception that John Terry is our defensive coach. He isn't. He's assistant manager. His remit will be far more than coaching the defence.

That's not to say he won't have a hand in it. I'm positive he will be involved in the defence, that would be natural. But just seems to be a widespread opinion that that's his only job.

What! If you really believe this - then I'm afraid it's a case of  more fool you imo. This appears that  Your   just splitting hair tbh with you.

i'd want to know why the best English defender of the last generation and on the pay roll - would not be defensive coach.

I don't blame Terry - it might simply be the players cannot follow his instructions and for all we know it might be his insight that lead to us signing Mings?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Dave J

[villalad21]

Experience in managment is overrated.

Either you're good or you're not. Zidane and Eddie Howe best example of that.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

Experience in managment is overrated.

Either you're good or you're not. Zidane and Eddie Howe best example of that.

I don't think its overrated....but I do think its just one factor.

I understand your point, but "experience" is worthy of its claims IMO......maybe Monks experience has just kicked in?

The problem is IMV......You have to have a grip on a lot more other factors too for the job to be complete

you shouldn't get a Million a year for being single dimensional.....They have to earn their status.

[NIVillan]

19 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Experience in managment is overrated.

Either you're good or you're not. Zidane and Eddie Howe best example of that.

Zidene was in coaching in the Real Madrid setup years before he took the main role

Eddie Howe messed up at Burnley but learnt from the experience and went back to Bournemouth.

Both had much more previous experience than Terry would

[Zatman]

Zidane was B coach for about 18 months and wasnt very successful 

[hippo]

23 hours ago, Dave J said:

What! If you really believe this - then I'm afraid it's a case of  more fool you imo. This appears that  Your   just splitting hair tbh with you.

i'd want to know why the best English defender of the last generation and on the pay roll - would not be defensive coach.

I don't blame Terry - it might simply be the players cannot follow his instructions and for all we know it might be his insight that lead to us signing Mings?

I think the point is that he is an assistant to smith. But smith hasnt handed the coaching of the defence over to JT in its entirety.

 

 

[Dave J]

51 minutes ago, hippo said:

I think the point is that he is an assistant to smith. But smith hasnt handed the coaching of the defence over to JT in its entirety.

 

 

No I appreciate this much - but tbh I can't see him cutting his teeth in many other aspects of the game.

I really do hope this is where he is focussing his expertise - I think we would really see the benefits of this in a year or so time - especially from the younger professionals 

[bannedfromHandV]

Managers just click at certain times with certain clubs, you can be a great manager but have shit resources and you can be a shit manager with great resources. 

IMO there's no magic formula to getting it right when it comes to appointments. 

In all honesty, I think it's largely completely overhyped in terms of their importance. It's the 11 players on the pitch that win or lose a game. 

[Dave J]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Managers just click at certain times with certain clubs, you can be a great manager but have shit resources and you can be a shit manager with great resources. 

IMO there's no magic formula to getting it right when it comes to appointments. 

In all honesty, I think it's largely completely overhyped in terms of their importance. It's the 11 players on the pitch that win or lose a game. 

You are right in so much that a manager cannot compensate for individual errors or poor decision making - but managers choose what system they employ and what players may or may not fit the chosen style - and therefore they certainly do have an influence over how a team set up collectively and individually.

[Stevo985]

On 11/02/2019 at 16:51, hippo said:

I think the point is that he is an assistant to smith. But smith hasnt handed the coaching of the defence over to JT in its entirety.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying. You're right, that was my point.

Terry was a good defender. He should be influencing the defence positively.

But that's not his sole job, it's not entirely his responsibility. He is assistant to Smith. That entails more than just coaching the defence.

 

I thought it was a pretty obvious point to be honest  

[tomav84]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Thanks for clarifying. You're right, that was my point.

Terry was a good defender. He should be influencing the defence positively.

But that's not his sole job, it's not entirely his responsibility. He is assistant to Smith. That entails more than just coaching the defence.

 

I thought it was a pretty obvious point to be honest  

exactly...you dont send defensive coaches to watch other games, their remit is much more broad such as opposition scouting and deciding the overall training regimes. yes dean smith calls himself head coach, but someone has to take the training sessions whilst he's dealing with media, transfers, player issues etc and that responsibility falls to the assistant. he's not purely going to focus on the defence. i would actually argue that were he 100% focused on the defence, it would be performing much better - but that's not his job, and would be a demotion if it were

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

exactly...you dont send defensive coaches to watch other games, their remit is much more broad such as opposition scouting and deciding the overall training regimes. yes dean smith calls himself head coach, but someone has to take the training sessions whilst he's dealing with media, transfers, player issues etc and that responsibility falls to the assistant. he's not purely going to focus on the defence. i would actually argue that were he 100% focused on the defence, it would be performing much better - but that's not his job, and would be a demotion if it were

Ultimately, John Terry wants to be a manager. He's taken the role of Assistant to learn how to be a manager. That would include all aspects of it.

I doubt he would be happy being pigeon holed as defensive coach.

 

Like I said, being one of the premier league's best ever defenders means that of course he will be involved with the defensive coaching. And he SHOULD be having a positive influence. But his role is not defensive coach. So people saying stuff like it's his only job and if the defence is crap then what is he doing are a bit misguided.

That was my original point.

[A'Villan]

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Ultimately, John Terry wants to be a manager. He's taken the role of Assistant to learn how to be a manager. That would include all aspects of it.

I doubt he would be happy being pigeon holed as defensive coach.

 

Like I said, being one of the premier league's best ever defenders means that of course he will be involved with the defensive coaching. And he SHOULD be having a positive influence. But his role is not defensive coach. So people saying stuff like it's his only job and if the defence is crap then what is he doing are a bit misguided.

That was my original point.

Terry is responsible for implementing schemes and developing players. He is also tasked with formulating and supervising skill training programs for individual players.

So while I see and agree for the most part with your points, it's not all that misguided to suggest that he is responsible for the defense. It is in his job description.

One of the major roles in his job description is to identify and report any deficiencies requiring urgent attention to the head coach.

Now, while I have never met an assistant coach who's authority extends beyond that of the head coach and therefore any finger pointing needs to be directed at the head coach, I have also never come across an assistant coach who didn't have serious input and involvement in the way a team goes about itself.

Being a great defender is largely about the ability to anticipate and react to opposition play, how you communicate with your team and your fitness levels and how you manage exertion. Being a player, or defender in Terry's case, is rather spontaneous even with the best attempts to have rehearsed and coordinated efforts influence what's happening.

Being a coach might as well be a different ball game, the roles are that different. Maybe Terry becomes a good coach, it's yet to be seen. My point is that a great player does not become a great coach by default. No doubt being an exceptional player will bring insight and know-how that is invaluable to a coaching role, however the ability to dissect it and come up with methods of conveying it to others so that those skills and strategies are implemented effectively, is a very different challenge.

 

[A'Villan]

On 12/02/2019 at 04:52, bannedfromHandV said:

Managers just click at certain times with certain clubs, you can be a great manager but have shit resources and you can be a shit manager with great resources. 

IMO there's no magic formula to getting it right when it comes to appointments. 

In all honesty, I think it's largely completely overhyped in terms of their importance. It's the 11 players on the pitch that win or lose a game. 

Their importance is certainly not to be underestimated or overlooked. I think that it's an underappreciated role. Perhaps misrepresented at times as well though.

Tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today. A coach does all the preparation in order for a player and their team to develop. Individual skills and team coordination.

From Under 6's grassroots football through to the Premier League, the quality of instruction received will determine the cohesion and ability of a team.

How good a player gets is determined by how much they invest in their talent and that is partly down to their own ingenuity, but mostly the inspiration they get from others (coaches).

 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

So while I see and agree for the most part with your points, it's not all that misguided to suggest that he is responsible for the defense. It is in his job description.

 

I agree. Which is why I didn't say that. In fact I specifically said that he should be influencing the defence.

All I said was that wasn't his sole job. He has other responsibilities. His job title is not "Defensive coach"

[A'Villan]

39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree. Which is why I didn't say that. In fact I specifically said that he should be influencing the defence.

All I said was that wasn't his sole job. He has other responsibilities. His job title is not "Defensive coach"

Yeah, I'm with you. Sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying. I guess I just wanted to chime in and say that Terry needs to be accountable for our defensive performances.

While it's ultimately not up to him whether or not we press or sit deep, play this or that formation,  or even select certain players, he's responsible for the team too and will even have a say in those things and his input is part of the process that enables the head coach to make better and informed decisions.

Because he is tasked with formulating the drills necessary to develop skills and implement game plans he is at the core of how we go about our business.

[villalad21]

There's only so much he can do defensively as an assistant manager.

At the end of the day it's DS who sets up the tactics. DS have a offensive style telling his fullbacks to bomb forward so you're always gonna be vulnerable to counter attacks.