brownowl91 Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 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.I wouldn't see it like that, with the extra fan base and potential we could in theory take this system further than southampton. But that's jumping a long way ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. I expect the idea behind it is to share responsibility across a range of people, rather than one individual. That way there's more of a safety-net in place to ensure that the club's philosophy is being enforced, and to hopefully mitigate the impact of an individual's poor judgement on a particular issue. Also, when a head coach leaves or is sacked, it should have less of an impact on the club as a whole, compared to when a traditional manager leaves - it's just this one individual who needs replacing in the first instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ok, well it sounds like two names for a similar system to me. We are looking for a coach who is happy to work with who he is given as a back up team. If the system or style isn't working then the committee would need to change the philosophy which is also disruptive and costly. Unless they soldier on regardless of the outcome of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 To add to that, if the head coach has the final say on who to bring in then the committee isn't as much of an issue. But then to me it doesn't explain why Gray would be unhappy working in that environment or why he would be sacked for an appointment which at face value doesn't look like a huge step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ok, well it sounds like two names for a similar system to me. We are looking for a coach who is happy to work with who he is given as a back up team. If the system or style isn't working then the committee would need to change the philosophy which is also disruptive and costly. Unless they soldier on regardless of the outcome of course. This is true: the system / philosophy running throughout the club has to be correct for this approach to work. I suppose those in charge have to have the courage of their convictions. It could be a case of short-term pain for long-term gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownowl91 Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 To add to that, if the head coach has the final say on who to bring in then the committee isn't as much of an issue. But then to me it doesn't explain why Gray would be unhappy working in that environment or why he would be sacked for an appointment which at face value doesn't look like a huge step up. My theory on that is that they saw gray more in coopers role than CCs as that required somebody who had experience in this way of working and also the ideas to move it forward. At a guess grey wasn't happy in what he perceived as a step down and who could blame him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 To add to that, if the head coach has the final say on who to bring in then the committee isn't as much of an issue. But then to me it doesn't explain why Gray would be unhappy working in that environment or why he would be sacked for an appointment which at face value doesn't look like a huge step up. Why does SG matter he's gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roscoe P. Coltrane Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm glad people seem to be coming round to this vision for our football club. UTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez owl Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 A thread on owlstalk with well reasoned posts........ Can't last surely 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 i think it matters because he was part of what was and was deemed unsuitable to be a a head coach, when that is the kind of hands on character were after. if we were to get rid, which we did, it needed to be for an obvious step up which I'm not sure of yet. We will see. But brownowl makes a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Maybe he just didn't fit with what ever philosophy... or style of play... that we've decided will be played at the club. If... and that's speculation... we want to play any kind of attacking football then he's not really shown he's the man to be at the top of the tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think Newcastle's failure has much more to do with the owner and a lack of investment. And a team full of s h i t e , overpriced French players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Maybe he just didn't fit with what ever philosophy... or style of play... that we've decided will be played at the club. If... and that's speculation... we want to play any kind of attacking football then he's not really shown he's the man to be at the top of the tree. Perhaps yeah. I always thought that with some investment on the wings and up front we'd have had a good balanced side under Gray that could both attack and defend as required. Last season was dull but work in progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest totemowl Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. Why would you want to lump all the responsibility of deciding style, recruitment, coaching, scouting on one man, especially at a club that has dozens of players at all levels, especially if that one man is only likely to last 2-5 years? And you object to a committee cos Southampton, Chelski, Spurs, Man City, Liverpool and so on don't refer to their setup as a committee! Your argument is weakening fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IstillhateSteveBould Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. It sounds great in theory. Perhaps too good to be true though. It can't possibly work at every club. It suits Southampton, but that doesn't mean it will suit us or anyone else. There's clearly many factors that need to line up. The club ethos/philosophy to be correct in the first place, the right people in charge of implementing it, scouts, players, all need to be pulling in the same direction. Thats a hell of a lot to get right, and we're right at the start of that process. Do we really need to be taking that much of a gamble at this point? There are manager's out there capable of getting the best out of teams. Whatever the make up of the squad. With a solid foundation and a team that seems to be only a handful of quality players away from challenging, I'd argue that approach is a more logical and quicker way to the riches of the PL. At the end of the day, football is a results business. Whichever system is implemented, if the results aren't good enough, an expensive influx of new players could be needed at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownowl91 Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Why would you want to lump all the responsibility of deciding style, recruitment, coaching, scouting on one man, especially at a club that has dozens of players at all levels, especially if that one man is only likely to last 2-5 years? And you object to a committee cos Southampton, Chelski, Spurs, Man City, Liverpool and so on don't refer to their setup as a committee! Your argument is weakening fast. To be fair to bluesteel I think he is just asking the questions most of the fans are asking and is opening up to the idea and hoping it works. Some of the things I've read on here over the last 7 days are frightening and make me worry about the patience and understanding of our fan base to give this time to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Don't a lot of clubs share that responsibility without giving the impression that the manager is not the main figurehead? If he is then why would other more established names be put off by the idea of a committee? Even so called old school managers don't do everything themselves at top clubs but they are the man who will be responsible. The manager has to buy into the style the club wants to go down when he's first appointed in any case. A committee as described by roeder didn't sound like there is any set decision making hierarchy in place, rather hoping for a three way agreement, and it was a bit vague as to who would have the final decision. That doesn't seem as much of an issue at Chelsea, Man Utd or liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Perhaps yeah. I always thought that with some investment on the wings and up front we'd have had a good balanced side under Gray that could both attack and defend as required. Last season was dull but work in progress I agree 100% and would have been more than happy for Gray to stay as head coach, but it appears that something has led to a breakdown in that working relationship, and if that's the case, he was always going to be the one to go when you look at the bigger picture. The new head coach will at least go into the situation with his eyes fully open to the realities of the way we want to operate, and should therefore be OK with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I agree 100% and would have been more than happy for Gray to stay as head coach, but it appears that something has led to a breakdown in that working relationship, and if that's the case, he was always going to be the one to go when you look at the bigger picture. The new head coach will at least go into the situation with his eyes fully open to the realities of the way we want to operate, and should therefore be OK with it. Would you put Chelsea in that bracket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adelphi1867 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Ajax had a very similar system in the 1960's,70's & 80's and it didn't do them any harm. I have wanted this system of coaching and developement since the 1970's, after reading of the Ajax model, but was always shouted down by the 'buy now, pay later' section of fans. I would also like to develop our own coaches too. Edited June 17, 2015 by adelphi1867 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now