Southampton system

[daveyboy66]

It's not that different to when Jones was in charge then him sat in his office deciding who to bring in or sell. With Gray doing all the coaching.... That worked for us didn't know it. Rodent decides players CC coaches. Master plan.

I think this is a conversation for the grown ups...if you want to give our staff childish nicknames go and play with the traffic on the parkway

[brownowl91]

It's not that different to when Jones was in charge then him sat in his office deciding who to bring in or sell. With Gray doing all the coaching.... That worked for us didn't know it. Rodent decides players CC coaches. Master plan.

You read and understood the article then?!?

[Bluesteel]

How many clubs use the traditional model and fail? Neither system is a guarantee of success or failure so its shortsighted to write it off just for the sake of it. The big clubs are adopting it so you think it must be a more favourable system than the single manager approach.

The more I think about it the more excited buy it I am and I see it as a sign Chansiri is doing his homework and being prudent rather than being the next Vincent tan

It's not the system or the manager in isolation.

If we're changing the system then fine but whether CC and the likes of MC are then the best for the job within that system Is debateable. For me it's not really a big change from gray and it sounds as if the new management team won't really know each other. It will take time.

Southampton are also a very special case, Newcastle have tried it and it's been a misery.

I think having a manager who at least has final say on the players he wants (as the guy who will be fired) is the preferable way to go. It's not guaranteed success but I think it's less risky at a stable time than wholesale change. I think our main issue has been a lack of funds rather than the wrong structure.

So, I'm not against it for the sake of it as you say. I have some valid concerns. But as soon as the new guy is appointed I will get behind him and the club like I would for anyone else.

We'll see how it goes I suppose

[darklord]

Well Newcastle are a special case in most things!

If we look at Carlos as a manager he maybe doesn't make sense but look at him in terms of the Southampton model and he did better. He seems to do a lot in terms of tactics and strategy so we may be bringing him in to utilise those strengths rather than a traditional managers.

The traditional model the manager is the whole car. In this model Carlos is the engine, roeder the exhaust, cooper the alternator. All concentrating on a specific task but all part of the same machine but concentrating on that single task allows them to excel and we pick them for their strength in that specific task

Old system could be seen as Jack of all tastes, matter of none.

Edited June 17, 2015 by darklord

[Guest totemowl]

I think Newcastle's failure has much more to do with the owner and a lack of investment.

[brownowl91]

It's not the system or the manager in isolation.

If we're changing the system then fine but whether CC and the likes of MC are then the best for the job within that system Is debateable. For me it's not really a big change from gray and it sounds as if the new management team won't really know each other. It will take time.

Southampton are also a very special case, Newcastle have tried it and it's been a misery.

I think having a manager who at least has final say on the players he wants (as the guy who will be fired) is the preferable way to go. It's not guaranteed success but I think it's less risky at a stable time than wholesale change. I think our main issue has been a lack of funds rather than the wrong structure.

So, I'm not against it for the sake of it as you say. I have some valid concerns. But as soon as the new guy is appointed I will get behind him and the club like I would for anyone else.

We'll see how it goes I suppose

Fair points but I think Newcastle went more for the director of football - manager role than the system we look like implementing.

The choices of CC and cooper maybe uninspiring but they both seem to like attacking flair football and maybe that's our remit and they was the most suitable to the style we want and adaptable to the new structure.

It is old school to let the manager choose his players and live by his own decisions and a lot clearer for fans to identify with and I understand that people prefer that and also that given funds maybe grey could have took us forward. But I hope this new structure is more for the long term and continuity from U8s to the first team of a style of play. Every time you sack a "manager" you are starting again from top to bottom

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

If Les Reed has overall control at Southampton (as the article says) it makes a mockery of some of our fans comments about Roeder being unfit for purpose due to his managerial record.

 

Exactly. Roeder's managerial record is neither here nor there, as he's not working as our manager or head coach. If he can oversee our football operations from top to bottom and ensure a strong sense of continuity runs throughout our teams at all levels, as well as through all successive coaching appointments, then he'll be doing his job well.

 

Lurching from one managerial philosophy to another isn't conducive to long-term development and simply results in an expensive influx of new players every time a manager leaves a club. It may take time to implement properly, but if we have the bravery and conviction of our beliefs to see it through, it has the potential to move us ahead of our rivals in the long-term.

[daveyboy66]

Exactly. Roeder's managerial record is neither here nor there, as he's not working as our manager or head coach. If he can oversee our football operations from top to bottom and ensure a strong sense of continuity runs throughout our teams at all levels, as well as through all successive coaching appointments, then he'll be doing his job well.

 

Lurching from one managerial philosophy to another isn't conducive to long-term development and simply results in an expensive influx of new players every time a manager leaves a club. It may take time to implement properly, but if we have the bravery and conviction of our beliefs to see it through, it has the potential to move us ahead of our rivals in the long-term.

Another one who gets it

[parkerowl]

Great OP and a decent input from Gary Neville he knows his onions tbf

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

I think having a manager who at least has final say on the players he wants (as the guy who will be fired) is the preferable way to go. 

 

The Gary Neville article I posted suggests that the head coach still has a key role to play in the recruitment process:

 

“The first stage is – what do we think we need?” Reed starts out. “We audit the squad. Then Ronald might say – we need another winger, or cover at centre-back, or whatever. We then have a discussion about the type of player. The coach can then leave the recruitment department to discuss potential targets, and these would then be set out for Ronald - 'Do they fit, what would be your preferences in order?'"

 

If the head coach has input at the very start of the process, then the chances of him not liking any of the options suggested by the recruitment department are pretty slim, but if that were the case, you'd expect that they'd go back to the drawing board and start again.

 

If the system is to work, then there's no way the head coach can have unwanted players forced upon him.

[Bluesteel]

Well yeah Newcastle are a special case and so are Southampton. But if we're lauding one we can be wary of another.

They don't have the name committee involved but the manager hasn't had a great deal of say in transfer dealings for a long time.

[Guest Ellis Rimmer]

It's depressing that in this day and age we are hoping to emulate Southampton.

[Bluesteel]

The Gary Neville article I posted suggests that the head coach still has a key role to play in the recruitment process:

“The first stage is – what do we think we need?” Reed starts out. “We audit the squad. Then Ronald might say – we need another winger, or cover at centre-back, or whatever. We then have a discussion about the type of player. The coach can then leave the recruitment department to discuss potential targets, and these would then be set out for Ronald - 'Do they fit, what would be your preferences in order?'"

If the head coach has input at the very start of the process, then the chances of him not liking any of the options suggested by the recruitment department are pretty slim, but if that were the case, you'd expect that they'd go back to the drawing board and start again.

If the system is to work, then there's no way the head coach can have unwanted players forced upon him.

If that's how it works then that could work. We'll see who we sign and that will give us an indication. It did seem that Gray was being given players he knew little of though

[brownowl91]

It's depressing that in this day and age we are hoping to emulate Southampton.

Sadly after 20 years of mismanagement and bad decisions without long term goals Wednesday 2015 are a long way behind Southampton 2015

[Bluesteel]

Exactly. Roeder's managerial record is neither here nor there, as he's not working as our manager or head coach. If he can oversee our football operations from top to bottom and ensure a strong sense of continuity runs throughout our teams at all levels, as well as through all successive coaching appointments, then he'll be doing his job well.

Lurching from one managerial philosophy to another isn't conducive to long-term development and simply results in an expensive influx of new players every time a manager leaves a club. It may take time to implement properly, but if we have the bravery and conviction of our beliefs to see it through, it has the potential to move us ahead of our rivals in the long-term.

I get that and it's a good idea in many cases. But then why not make your credentials for a manager to be a man who plays a certain way, it doesn't necessarily need a committee of managerial figures to agree a club philosophy.

Also, sometimes a philosophy doesn't go very well I.e. Speed or wier passing revolutions and you need to make an emergency change of manager and style. It doesn't leave much flexibility for that, even though I agree it's a pain to chop and change.

[daleblue]

Great article I am fully sold .

So hope we build a black box sounds like a batcave

 

And then can we say, (The Eagle has landed)!

[Guest Ellis Rimmer]

Sadly after 20 years of mismanagement and bad decisions without long term goals Wednesday 2015 are a long way behind Southampton 2015

its not just that, theyre 7th best side and obviously we aren't trying to emulate any higher than that because it's completely unfeasible. so the best we can be is england's 7th best side and thats unlikely. depressing when its a big city.

[Tamworthowl]

The Gary Neville article I posted suggests that the head coach still has a key role to play in the recruitment process:

“The first stage is – what do we think we need?” Reed starts out. “We audit the squad. Then Ronald might say – we need another winger, or cover at centre-back, or whatever. We then have a discussion about the type of player. The coach can then leave the recruitment department to discuss potential targets, and these would then be set out for Ronald - 'Do they fit, what would be your preferences in order?'"

If the head coach has input at the very start of the process, then the chances of him not liking any of the options suggested by the recruitment department are pretty slim, but if that were the case, you'd expect that they'd go back to the drawing board and start again.

If the system is to work, then there's no way the head coach can have unwanted players forced upon him.

The inclusion of the manager/head coach in new player recruitment has been clear since day one of the committee.

What amazes me, is that many on OT were concerned that SG (or his replacement) would have had no involvement and would just have to work with who he was given.

[brownowl91]

I get that and it's a good idea in many cases. But then why not make your credentials for a manager to be a man who plays a certain way, it doesn't necessarily need a committee of managerial figures to agree a club philosophy.

Also, sometimes a philosophy doesn't go very well I.e. Speed or wier passing revolutions and you need to make an emergency change of manager and style. It doesn't leave much flexibility for that, even though I agree it's a pain to chop and change.

Because then if he leaves you are looking for another man who not only plays the same style but who is happy to work with the same players but is also going to run the academy the same way, garaunteed to want to keep all the same staff, not going to want to make his own stamp on the team etc etc.

If anybody leaves under the new system it's just a matter of changing one cog while all the others continue to turn where as a new "manager" would come with all his own ideas and staff.

Like the article said it's a matter of the person fitting and adapting into the club rather than the club being reshaped every time there is change and a "manager" no matter how similar in style and philosophy to the last one would always make changes.

[Sonny]

Isn't Newcastles set up more about a manager, a scout and the rest who don't know anything about football but are just there to protect Ashley's interests in the hope that he can extract as much cash as possible without investing in the clubs future. Don't see any comparisons to be honest.