Watford System?

[Shezza]

You can call it Head Coach, manager, chief umpa lumpa or the last king of Scotland - the title doesn't define the role.

[sonofbert2]

1 hour ago, Great Big Galaa said:

 

I can't understand for the life of me as to why we ever wanted Mark Cooper as Head Coach. It'd have been a chuffing car crash of an appointment.

 

It was for the role that Bullen now has.  They obviously wanted someone around CC who knew his away around the "lower leagues" and presumably for communication/day to day management of non-foreign players and with supporters in some respects.  From a PR point of view with fans it also takes the edge off a totally "foreign" set-up.

 

Cooper's loss as he wouldn't play second fiddle and it turns out the solution was already there.

[Costello 77]

49 minutes ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

At this level...

 

One manager = one philosophy/vision

 

Management by committee = clusterfook of epic proportions. 

 

Why does it work for bigger clubs? Simple £££ €€€ $$$ that pays for a vast scouting and coaching staff. 

 

One true religion=fried chicken.

[sonofbert2]

Re. this season's signings....there were obviously players bought "in case of emergency" due to this year's change in rules due to loans.

 

We have been unlucky with injuries with most of those bought to strengthen or cover being affected at some point.

 

The "playing his favourites" point is one of those used to fit the discussion by those disillusioned with CC.  It's like saying he doesn't select certain players even after it's made crystal clear that they were unavailable through injury.

 

There was a small group of players purchased to tweak last year's team in certain areas and others purchased/loaned on the basis of emergency cover.  Once again CC and the club being slated for good intentions.

 

 

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

Re. this season's signings....there were obviously players bought "in case of emergency" due to this year's change in rules due to loans.

 

We have been unlucky with injuries with most of those bought to strengthen or cover being affected at some point.

 

The "playing his favourites" point is one of those used to fit the discussion by those disillusioned with CC.  It's like saying he doesn't select certain players even after it's made crystal clear that they were unavailable through injury.

 

There was a small group of players purchased to tweak last year's team in certain areas and others purchased/loaned on the basis of emergency cover.  Once again CC and the club being slated for good intentions.

 

 

And what you say is fair enough.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to slate the club or coach.... Just give their thoughts on an open forum.

[scram]

57 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Look at Brentford, no DoF but they have a very clear brand and strategy that was dictated by the chairman and his insistence on statistical-based recruitment... Yet again they've massively over performed on a shoestring budget. So get so, so much bang for your buck with that recruitment technique, it's all about making it work and establishing that structure.

 

 

Brentford have 2 DoF's`and a Head of Football Operations

[modboy]

Did Cooper get a new job?

[sonofbert2]

Just now, Costello 77 said:

And what you say is fair enough.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to slate the club or coach.... Just give their thoughts on an open forum.

 

There are a good few in all of these threads who bend the truth to suit their line of argument.

 

My very basic point is that not all of our signings are or were ever meant to be first team regulars.

 

In that sense I am guessing that we have at least an element of the Watford/continental style set-up.

 

I would imagine that this is explained to players/agents when signing and there is always the chance to impress and hold down a place "in the system" but it was obviously planned and discussed that we would adopt a more defensive style this season based on what had happened last and what would happen this.

 

CC gave a clear indication in an interview after the very first game against Villa that they'd be changing things with particular reference to midfield.

 

After a first season emphasis on performance they, I include DC in this, obviously decided results were more important and presumably discussed how our opponents would change their approach in playing us based on our success previously and expectation to do well again.  We didn't lose any really key players remember and in theory had added to strengthen.

 

The lack of loan opportunities was weighed in to the mix as well by the looks of things.

 

Maybe all this stuff complicates things both for players and supporters, I don't know but you can't fault them for trying really and there are a couple of non-signings we should have probably made at some point which is a point I tend to agree with.

 

Everything is much easier with hindsight but my main point is this:

 

The management are trying to move the club forward, dragging our methods into the 21st century.  The "traditionalists" very often point to those defending "the foreign" regime as being accepting of mediocrity and not wanting better based on references to the past and how far we've come so quickly.

 

Deep down they don't like all this stuff.  They want a squad of marauders with a gobby British manager and players who they can bore silly in Tescos or the boozer then bore their mates silly telling them about it afterwards.

 

The real fear lies with the small-minded anti-foreigners.....Most of us thankfully appreciate that someone came in, chucked some money at us and is trying to forge us a decent future and another pop at the big time.

 

Whether we want the prize is again, another discussion but I'll guarantee some of the most negative posters on here actually enjoy the Wednesday experience more as impoverished sleeping giants.

 

Deep down they are the ones who are scared of success and what that entails and what comes with it in 2017.

 

 

[scram]

The reason these kind of modern systems have been brought in is because of the eye-watering amounts of money now needed to run football clubs

 

It can cost tens and hundreds of millions to assemble a squad in the top 2 leagues - and it can't just be dismantled and ripped up every time a manager doesn't cut it at a club

 

Therefore the system needs to have a mid to long term view that can survive managerial preferences and changes

 

Any applicable manager would be salivating at the prospect of inheriting our squad - there is so much there to work with and so much potential to change systems etc

 

Thats why recruitment shouldn't be the sole preserve of the manager but with a system that endures beyond short term appointments

 

 

[Costello 77]

5 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

There are a good few in all of these threads who bend the truth to suit their line of argument.

 

My very basic point is that not all of our signings are or were ever meant to be first team regulars.

 

In that sense I am guessing that we have at least an element of the Watford/continental style set-up.

 

I would imagine that this is explained to players/agents when signing and there is always the chance to impress and hold down a place "in the system" but it was obviously planned and discussed that we would adopt a more defensive style this season based on what had happened last and what would happen this.

 

CC gave a clear indication in an interview after the very first game against Villa that they'd be changing things with particular reference to midfield.

 

After a first season emphasis on performance they, I include DC in this, obviously decided results were more important and presumably discussed how our opponents would change their approach in playing us based on our success previously and expectation to do well again.  We didn't lose any really key players remember and in theory had added to strengthen.

 

The lack of loan opportunities was weighed in to the mix as well by the looks of things.

 

Maybe all this stuff complicates things both for players and supporters, I don't know but you can't fault them for trying really and there are a couple of non-signings we should have probably made at some point which is a point I tend to agree with.

 

Everything is much easier with hindsight but my main point is this:

 

The management are trying to move the club forward, dragging our methods into the 21st century.  The "traditionalists" very often point to those defending "the foreign" regime as being accepting of mediocrity and not wanting better based on references to the past and how far we've come so quickly.

 

Deep down they don't like all this stuff.  They want a squad of marauders with a gobby British manager and players who they can bore silly in Tescos or the boozer then bore their mates silly telling them about it afterwards.

 

The real fear lies with the small-minded anti-foreigners.....Most of us thankfully appreciate that someone came in, chucked some money at us and is trying to forge us a decent future and another pop at the big time.

 

Whether we want the prize is again, another discussion but I'll guarantee some of the most negative posters on here actually enjoy the Wednesday experience more as impoverished sleeping giants.

 

Deep down they are the ones who are scared of success and what that entails and what comes with it in 2017.

 

 

A good post.

However you seem to lose my meaning in the middle portion.

People have a right to an opinion on a Wednesday forum whether you agree with it or not.

 

I admire you in a way for being the self appointed gaurdian of the portal and for being fiercely proud of the club.

 

What is wrong, is that you resort to calling fellow owls xenophobic when they hold a different view to you about football matters.

 

You make your points very well...No need for the other stuff.

[modboy]

OT has become a bit catty as of late with people getting aggressive if their opinion differs from others.

 

It used to be fun on here but it's gotten all a bit too serious on the match day board 

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, modboy said:

OT has become a bit catty as of late with people getting aggressive if their opinion differs from others.

 

It used to be fun on here but it's gotten all a bit too serious on the match day board 

It's understandable. Give it a few days.

Time will heal.

[Lord Snooty]

11 minutes ago, scram said:

The reason these kind of modern systems have been brought in is because of the eye-watering amounts of money now needed to run football clubs

 

It can cost tens and hundreds of millions to assemble a squad in the top 2 leagues - and it can't just be dismantled and ripped up every time a manager doesn't cut it at a club

 

Therefore the system needs to have a mid to long term view that can survive managerial preferences and changes

 

Any applicable manager would be salivating at the prospect of inheriting our squad - there is so much there to work with and so much potential to change systems etc

 

Thats why recruitment shouldn't be the sole preserve of the manager but with a system that endures beyond short term appointments

 

 

 

I can well understand the need for a general approach. A club blueprint for want of a better word to ensure long term progress and stability. 

But how much input do managers have into the individual signings? 

It might seem a small thing in the bigger scheme and I understand that a manger or coaches job is to get the best out of the hand he's dealt.  

 

But as I said in my earlier post (though it was an extreme example to emphasises the point!) Does this not leave a risk of managers who play a certain way having their hands tied by the the squad assembled on their behalf? 

And could this impact upon the results if they pick the players that suit how they see things and ignore the players being brought in?

 

It's a genuine question as I don't know about the inner workings of modern football clubs. 

 

I forget who the manager was but I do remember at Newcastle some years ago that some manager or other wanted a left back. Dennis Wise and the committee men signed , I think a young Spanish lad, the manager didn't think he fitted and played that obrien out of position at full back instead because he was more resilient.  Something like that.

[EveryWednesday]

31 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

There are a good few in all of these threads who bend the truth to suit their line of argument.

 

My very basic point is that not all of our signings are or were ever meant to be first team regulars.

 

In that sense I am guessing that we have at least an element of the Watford/continental style set-up.

 

I would imagine that this is explained to players/agents when signing and there is always the chance to impress and hold down a place "in the system" but it was obviously planned and discussed that we would adopt a more defensive style this season based on what had happened last and what would happen this.

 

CC gave a clear indication in an interview after the very first game against Villa that they'd be changing things with particular reference to midfield.

 

After a first season emphasis on performance they, I include DC in this, obviously decided results were more important and presumably discussed how our opponents would change their approach in playing us based on our success previously and expectation to do well again.  We didn't lose any really key players remember and in theory had added to strengthen.

 

The lack of loan opportunities was weighed in to the mix as well by the looks of things.

 

Maybe all this stuff complicates things both for players and supporters, I don't know but you can't fault them for trying really and there are a couple of non-signings we should have probably made at some point which is a point I tend to agree with.

 

Everything is much easier with hindsight but my main point is this:

 

The management are trying to move the club forward, dragging our methods into the 21st century.  The "traditionalists" very often point to those defending "the foreign" regime as being accepting of mediocrity and not wanting better based on references to the past and how far we've come so quickly.

 

Deep down they don't like all this stuff.  They want a squad of marauders with a gobby British manager and players who they can bore silly in Tescos or the boozer then bore their mates silly telling them about it afterwards.

 

The real fear lies with the small-minded anti-foreigners.....Most of us thankfully appreciate that someone came in, chucked some money at us and is trying to forge us a decent future and another pop at the big time.

 

Whether we want the prize is again, another discussion but I'll guarantee some of the most negative posters on here actually enjoy the Wednesday experience more as impoverished sleeping giants.

 

Deep down they are the ones who are scared of success and what that entails and what comes with it in 2017.

 

 

I'm not saying I disagree with having a continental set up. I'm simply saying do it one way or the other.

Have the board sign the players Carlos wants to fit his system

Or

Bring in a manager who will make use of the players that are brought in. Essentially sign a manager who plays the style the board wants (like Watford)

 

You say we've strengthened but sorry im not happy that we've spent 20m on squad players. I want to see first team talent for that. That doesn't make me anti-'foreign regime'

[Lord Snooty]

49 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

The real fear lies with the small-minded anti-foreigners.....Most of us thankfully appreciate that someone came in, chucked some money at us and is trying to forge us a decent future and another pop at the big time.

 

Deep down they are the ones who are scared of success and what that entails and what comes with it in 2017.

 

 

 

Think that's a bit of a disservice to our fan base. Who have welcomed a foreign investor as owner with open arms and took a Portuguese manager to their hearts. ..to such an extent that some who think he isn't doing a great job still want him to stay because they love the bloke so much!

 

I don't think anyone here is scared of success , or what it entails we've been starved of it for so long I think we are desperate for it.

 

But if People have questions about how things are run and share those concerns with others, I don't see the problem and certainly dont think that automatically makes them racist or xenophobic. 

 

It would be some world indeed if no one ever questioned anything.

 

I'd also add that just because an idea is relatively new doesn't mean it is a good one or the right one. 

In the same way that 'the old ways' aren't always the best just because that's how thing have always been done previously. 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Lord Snooty

[sonofbert2]

29 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

A good post.

However you seem to lose my meaning in the middle portion.

People have a right to an opinion on a Wednesday forum whether you agree with it or not.

 

I admire you in a way for being the self appointed gaurdian of the portal and for being fiercely proud of the club.

 

What is wrong, is that you resort to calling fellow owls xenophobic when they hold a different view to you about football matters.

 

You make your points very well...No need for the other stuff.

 

I stated "small group" and it is a small group, openly anyway,  but I'm not slinging mud, tarring everybody or whatever phrase suits.

 

The evidence for my comment is within the pages and comments on this forum.  Go back and look when Gray went, when CC was appointed, at the post match CC threads when we weren't doing so well, at the multitude of sack him threads around the time of the Barnsley game.  There is a niggly undercurrent which strengthens at any point of his perceived failure and I'm sorry but it's true.

 

Look on our groups and comments on FB and Twitter where people feel perhaps a little braver in expressing their opinions  in this area.

 

I wasn't aware I was being particularly controversial in stating this and others have picked up on it before on here but I do think it's part of a bigger fear of change.

 

Like I said, those who are prepared to give the whole "project" a bit more time and patience and who state where we were not so long ago are charged with being happy with mediocrity whilst I personally feel that a good number of those stating that are the ones who got too used to and were comfortable with "the struggle".

 

I hope I'm being clear here and I'm not setting myself up as a guardian of anything but sorry, 20m quid is nothing for a squad, more can be wasted on one signing in the league above.  

 

If we broke it all down to real fees and wages say in a ticket price thread then some of the same people would argue that we've not spent enough.

 

We are very new to all this and it seems struggling to adapt but the sudden investment after none for years has blown some fans' minds in terms of realism and expectation and when instant results aren't achieved they "go back to basics" in their thinking and opinions.

 

Anyway, I'm rambling but hope I've made my general point.

 

I'll illustrate this with one further thought.  We were all quite happy to sing about Carlos and his dream/our dream when he had no players and he had to sign them on loan......

 

Now we've actually bought a few for the first time in years we seem a bit lost for words and have done all year......

 

Not scientific I know but a little symbolic.

 

 

 

 

 

[StudentOwl]

1 hour ago, scram said:

 

 

Brentford have 2 DoF's`and a Head of Football Operations

I stand extraordinarily corrected then

 

They're all doing their jobs very well clearly

[Guest BULGARIA]

Ask a watford fan if they love their philosophy... the one where they have no english players and names of footballers that would win you 200 points in a game of scrabble.

Not for me thanks.

[Lord Snooty]

3 minutes ago, BULGARIA said:

Ask a watford fan if they love their philosophy... the one where they have no english players and names of footballers that would win you 200 points in a game of scrabble.

Not for me thanks.

 

I don't know any. Though I'd be interested to know. The identity of a club is held very dear to fans. And not in a way that can in anyway be rationalised.  

(I look at my own dissapointment that were losing stripes. There's no rationale to my thinking. It probably doesn't affect the team on the pitch. And yet, unexplainably I causes me a wrench in my gut!)

 

There was an interesting piece about this on 5 live about Watford.

I'll see if I can find the link,... much of it was centred around Troy Deeney having so much attachment from the fans as he is a player who in there eyes is a link to the past. 

 

I think it was Jenas or Murphy who said that sometimes you have to accept a trade off of what is considered your identity to secure a top flight future as the game has, and still is, irrevocably changing. 

 

[scram]

Watford fans are no different to other fans - including ourselves

 

They'd generally rather be doing well with primarily non native players than doing poorly with English players