Dean Smith

[Mr.Messy]

DS is the Head Coach, I'm glad he does the coaching and not delegate.

[villalad21]

52 minutes ago, Mr.Messy said:

DS is the Head Coach, I'm glad he does the coaching and not delegate.

I can see football moving in this direction.

With all the top clubs having a director of football, i can see managers being a thing of the past in the coming years.

[KentVillan]

21 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Ferguson didn't do any of the coaching. He delegated and trusted the people around him.

There is not one correct formula in how to successfully manage a football club.

Delegation isn't giving people full autonomy to do whatever the f**k they want. There is always accountability for the more senior person, and somebody as successful as Alex Ferguson would have been aware of the daily training plans, even if he wasn't directly coaching the players.

Nowadays, because clubs tend to want more control over transfers / contract negotiations / business decisions, there is much more time for the "manager" / "head coach" to focus on coaching, so that's what they do. It doesn't mean they aren't delegating tasks to specialist coaches or assistants.

The secret edges that were available to managers in the past are harder to find now. Gone are the days when you could unearth a Roy Keane, a Les Ferdinand or an Ian Wright playing in front of a few hundred fans (Jamie Vardy is the exception that proves the rule). It used to be possible to transform an English football club by just clamping down on the drinking culture. Now most players look after themselves without any encouragement.

So nowadays, the only way to consistently outperform your budget is through better player psychology, better coaching, better tactical preparation, and better in-game decisions. That's why the game is moving towards the head coach model. Let the club focus on the long-term strategy, and let the coach focus on the players.

The trick is to give the head coach complete authority over his areas of responsibility, and to listen to his advice on what the club needs going forward, while not letting him pursue quick fixes in transfer market. I see Purslow, JGP and Smith as a good example of this setup. Our setup isn't really that different from what United had under Fergie -- just that some of Fergie's responsibilities are handled by Purslow and JGP, and some of Kidd / McLaren / Queiroz / Phelan's responsibilities are taken on by Smith. The point is that under the old Villa model, nobody was doing some of the stuff that needed doing.

Edited April 5, 2019 by KentVillan

[KenjiOgiwara]

I still think continuity is everything in football. There are so many great coaches, but everyone involved in the game are impatient, so it's hard to build anything. 

[TRO]

48 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I still think continuity is everything in football. There are so many great coaches, but everyone involved in the game are impatient, so it's hard to build anything. 

but you wouldn't want continuity if things are not going right......continuity is only usually good, when there is incremental progress.

It takes time for us mere mortals to be sure things are not working, we only have results and performances on match day to go by....when training can tell you so much too....maybe transfer activity is a clue too.

[TRO]

On 03/04/2019 at 17:35, Dave J said:

I think you are absolutely correct - I am a Smith fan, but I honestly believe without Jack we would have little chance of promotion.

out of balance I would add - that every team in this league misses a fit Jack .

Derby Have had a similar problem missing Mason Mount.

[KenjiOgiwara]

29 minutes ago, TRO said:

but you wouldn't want continuity if things are not going right......continuity is only usually good, when there is incremental progress.

It takes time for us mere mortals to be sure things are not working, we only have results and performances on match day to go by....when training can tell you so much too....maybe transfer activity is a clue too.

I would cause that's the whole point. Managers need time. It's very rare they are so shit at their job they can't get it right with time. If you can't stand by them 2-3 years when results are tanking, then you shouldn't be in charge of signing managers. I obviously refer to owners.

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I would cause that's the whole point. Managers need time. It's very rare they are so shit at their job they can't get it right with time. If you can't stand by them 2-3 years when results are tanking, then you shouldn't be in charge of signing managers. I obviously refer to owners.

I thinks its a number of factors.

• Getting your best players back
• January signings settling in
• The managers overall thinking to our playing style and getting the players to implement it.

I still think in the main its driven by having the best players and I think we made some good signings in defence in January....but your point about giving managers time to implement their playing style philosophies is right.

Edited April 5, 2019 by TRO

[Vive_La_Villa]

Wow just looked back at late feb on this thread and some wanted him gone. 

What a difference a month can make! 

[villalad21]

13 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I would cause that's the whole point. Managers need time. It's very rare they are so shit at their job they can't get it right with time. If you can't stand by them 2-3 years when results are tanking, then you shouldn't be in charge of signing managers. I obviously refer to owners.

You would have sticked by Lambert, McLeish, Sherwood and Bruce then?

[KenjiOgiwara]

8 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

You would have sticked by Lambert, McLeish, Sherwood and Bruce then?

Are you unable to read what I've written? 

If it's my English that's bad I'll help you along. 

No. No. Yes. No. Should have given McLeish more time, but I just didn't like him as a person, so that's my flaw. 

[lexicon]

You honestly would have given Sherwood more time? He's the worst manager we've had in the last 25 years, hands down. An absolute fraud of a man who nobody wants to hire now, for good reason.

[villalad21]

15 minutes ago, lexicon said:

You honestly would have given Sherwood more time? He's the worst manager we've had in the last 25 years, hands down. An absolute fraud of a man who nobody wants to hire now, for good reason.

Going to be be entertaining to follow him at QPR, if he get's the job

Edited April 6, 2019 by villalad21

[Jareth]

26 minutes ago, lexicon said:

You honestly would have given Sherwood more time? He's the worst manager we've had in the last 25 years, hands down. An absolute fraud of a man who nobody wants to hire now, for good reason.

How unfair, he had pashun. 

[Risso]

Don't forget the hand signals.  Never forget the hand signals.

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

You honestly would have given Sherwood more time? He's the worst manager we've had in the last 25 years, hands down. An absolute fraud of a man who nobody wants to hire now, for good reason.

Could well be, but we will never know. He could also have kept us in the PL. The point isn't whether a previous manager is good or bad, the point is that when you hire a specific person to get a job done based upon what's said in an interview, then you should probably give that person the tools and time to get it right, or enough time so that have a remote chance of getting there work in. Sherwood had 28 matches in charge, Garde 23, RDM 12. The notion that you should demand a manager to get the football right in an already struggling club, with 0 or 1 transfer window, with limited money, and less than 30 matches is just absurd. It takes time. 

I honestly wish owners would follow every sacking they made. 

 

[Pelle]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Could well be, but we will never know. He could also have kept us in the PL. The point isn't whether a previous manager is good or bad, the point is that when you hire a specific person to get a job done based upon what's said in an interview, then you should probably give that person the tools and time to get it right, or enough time so that have a remote chance of getting there work in. Sherwood had 28 matches in charge, Garde 23, RDM 12. The notion that you should demand a manager to get the football right in an already struggling club, with 0 or 1 transfer window, with limited money, and less than 30 matches is just absurd. It takes time. 

I honestly wish owners would follow every sacking they made. 

 

I agree with you, but there are exceptions. Sherwood was one of them. AML was a poor choice. Not because of his ability but because he had relegated sha twice and would always have a big part of the fans against him from day one, afraid that he'd do the same with us.

RDM was one that I thought should've been given some more time.

I have it on very good authourity that Garde was bad for the team spirit in the squad. He wasn't the right choice.

But that's in the past. I hope the new owners have faith in DS and are patient. We need that.

[romavillan]

On 05/04/2019 at 14:03, villalad21 said:

I can see football moving in this direction.

With all the top clubs having a director of football, i can see managers being a thing of the past in the coming years.

UK is the only place where "manager" is a thing I reckon. The Ferguson style manager was more of a director of football, who picked the team and gave team talks! No coaching, but watched it every day to get his selection right. IMO it's too much for one man to do everything in the UK manager's role, and a myth that anyone ever did, for every Clough there is a Peter Taylor etc. 

[lexicon]

6 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Could well be, but we will never know. He could also have kept us in the PL. The point isn't whether a previous manager is good or bad, the point is that when you hire a specific person to get a job done based upon what's said in an interview, then you should probably give that person the tools and time to get it right, or enough time so that have a remote chance of getting there work in. Sherwood had 28 matches in charge, Garde 23, RDM 12. The notion that you should demand a manager to get the football right in an already struggling club, with 0 or 1 transfer window, with limited money, and less than 30 matches is just absurd. It takes time. 

I honestly wish owners would follow every sacking they made. 

 

He signed Micah Richards. Made him captain. Played him at CB. He should have been shot into the sun.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Tremendous result. Great stuff, was a hard game and Bruce had his players fired up, but also hasn't been there long enough to totally coach out their ability to pass and move.