Director of football

[shezzas left peg]

About time Mclaren left football and became an umbrella ella ella salesman instead

[sweetsheri]

C) what the hell is that new commercial guy doing all day? The one from shakhtar 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

12 minutes ago, sweetsheri said:

C) what the hell is that new commercial guy doing all day? The one from shakhtar 

 

Donetsk me!

 

[sMacLean]

Works well at some sides.Monchi has shown at Sevilla and now Roma how it should work but often ends in confusion and mis-trust.

 

Prefer a manager to pick his own players ideally but at times it has seemed Carlos hasn't chosen certain players.

[Costello 77]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

If true, DC has bought Rhodes, Winnall and Abdi, loaned Macca and Buckley, and allowed his manager to play none of them. 

 

That said, I find it bizarre even if Carlos chose them, that DC is allowing Carlos to buy "just 4 or 5" shiny new ones, when he doesn't play the ones he bought recently.

Perhaps DC has realised he needs to keep his nose out on transfer matters?

[Holmowl]

6 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Perhaps DC has realised he needs to keep his nose out on transfer matters?

 

Hopefully so.

 

He does seem a very level-headed and loyal owner. 

[Blue and white]

[parkerowl]

Great Idea if they'll be helping to identify transfer targets.

[Holmowl]

8 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Very true - playing Bannan as a wide midfielder isn't our most attacking option, but with stronger and more attacking fullbacks it needn't necessarily be a defensive tactic either.

 

I just find the notion which some posters seem to think is enscribed into a stone tablet somewhere in the ten commandments of football that thou shalt not play Barry Bannan out wide quite bizarre when that's precisely the position where he spent most of his career before joining us!

 

In this thread you state your opinion that his best position is central. 90% of fans seem to share that opinion. Bannan has gone on record saying it His is best and preferred position. Our results are far superior when he has played central compared to when he plays wide.

 

Of course from time to time the team has played well with him wide, but taken over almost two almost entire seasons, it's very clear where he fits best for us.

 

 

[Holmowl]

2 minutes ago, Mishowl said:

Even though he has said he is? 

 

He is not qualified to do it hence the dreadful mess he has made of it.

 

Like so many subjects, this is another one where unless you are convinced Carlos will change by August, you come across as very negative.

 

For me, to be DoF for Carlos would be hugely difficult. You need to be on the same page as the coach, and know exactly what he is trying to do. Otherwise how do you decide which type of players to look for?

 

I assume you watch most if not all our games. Can you honestly describe what it is we are trying to do? The TVs pundits can't. Are we looking for fast wingers? Are we looking for CMs who can play in a three, or must they be capable of playing in a two? Do we want a first choice LW, or do we have two already in REach and FF, or are they a LB and a LW from August?

 

Hopefully, Carlos is concentrating on nailing down exactly what his approach is to be for 17/18. Then and only then can he look for the players to fill the role he has in mind.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

40 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

In this thread you state your opinion that his best position is central. 90% of fans seem to share that opinion. Bannan has gone on record saying it His is best and preferred position. Our results are far superior when he has played central compared to when he plays wide.

 

Of course from time to time the team has played well with him wide, but taken over almost two almost entire seasons, it's very clear where he fits best for us.

 

You can't pin the team's results down to one player's position. There are so many variables involved that to try to do would show a complete lack of understanding of how team sports actually work.

 

Yes, based on what I've seen of him so far for us, I prefer Bannan in the middle of the park, but I can also see the value of playing him out wide for periods of certain games - doing so has helped us to 6th and 4th in the league, after all. Depending on our recruitment over the summer, it may be that his best position for our team becomes wide midfield on a more consistent basis.

 

Wide midfield isn't some alien position to Bannan; it's where he's spent most of his career and where he played most of his Premier League games.

[Holmowl]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

You can't pin the team's results down to one player's position. There are so many variables involved that to try to do would show a complete lack of understanding of how team sports actually work.

 

Yes, based on what I've seen of him so far for us, I prefer Bannan in the middle of the park, but I can also see the value of playing him out wide for periods of certain games - doing so has helped us to 6th and 4th in the league, after all. Depending on our recruitment over the summer, it may be that his best position for our team becomes wide midfield on a more consistent basis.

 

Wide midfield isn't some alien position to Bannan; it's where he's spent most of his career and where he played most of his Premier League games.

 

Looking at the season overall, his playing wide was one of the reasons we finished 6th and 4th, rather than 1st or 2nd.

 

I agree of course it is not about one player. It is about a team shape and players in their best roles. On the 50-60% we have done that we have had top two form. On the 40-50% we haven't we have had 6th-10th form. Put the season together and we finish where we finish.

[Bing Cosby]

10 minutes ago, Mishowl said:

Even though he has said he is? 

 

He is not qualified to do it hence the dreadful mess he has made of it.

 

You may well be right, but that's a very strange choice on DC's part to trust a coach with little or no experience in recruitment, to take control of our transfer policy.

 

We had the "Committee" because Chansiri wanted the influence of several experienced individuals, with particular reference to transfers. Since it's been discontinued, these responsibilities have either become solely Carlos' (in the which case why is he not The Manager?) Or they are being shared by Carlos, The Chairman and unnamed influences? I personally lean towards the latter.

 

Either way some clarity, logic and efficiency within our recruitment wouldn't go amiss; if that was found in a DOF I'd be all for it.

 

I 

[Holmowl]

2 minutes ago, Cosby Blunkett said:

 

You may well be right, but that's a very strange choice on DC's part to trust a coach with little or no experience in recruitment, to take control of our transfer policy.

 

We had the "Committee" because Chansiri wanted the influence of several experienced individuals, with particular reference to transfers. Since it's been discontinued, these responsibilities have either become solely Carlos' (in the which case why is he not The Manager?) Or they are being shared by Carlos, The Chairman and unnamed influences? I personally lean towards the latter.

 

Either way some clarity, logic and efficiency within our recruitment wouldn't go amiss; if that was found in a DOF I'd be all for it.

 

I 

 

Enigmatic final paragraph.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

21 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Looking at the season overall, his playing wide was one of the reasons we finished 6th and 4th, rather than 1st or 2nd.

 

I agree of course it is not about one player. It is about a team shape and players in their best roles. On the 50-60% we have done that we have had top two form. On the 40-50% we haven't we have had 6th-10th form. Put the season together and we finish where we finish.

 

You don't really think your statistics show that we'd have finished in the top two if Bannan had never been played out wide though, do you?

 

 

There are so many variables in play that you can't reduce it down to one factor like this. Managers will often set up to contain the opposition before shuffling their pack and going for the win; opposition substitutions might open up key areas of the pitch which a tactical switch allows us to exploit; opponents might start to push forward in search of a winner as the game goes on, freeing up key attacking players for us; opposition wingers who've been chased and harried by a player like Bannan might run out of steam, encouraging us to put a more attacking option on that particular flank... The variables are endless.

 

Ultimately, men with far more understanding of the game than you or I have used Barry Bannan as a wide midfielder more often than they've used him as a central midfielder. If only you'd sent them your stats beforehand, though - they could have all won the league if they'd known!

Edited June 1, 2017 by areNOTwhatTHEYseem

[Holmowl]

Just now, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

You don't really think your statistics show that we'd have finished in the top two if Bannan had never been played out wide though, do you?

 

 

There are so many variables in play that you can't reduce it down to one factor like this. Managers will often set up to contain the opposition before shuffling their pack and going for the win; opposition substitutions might open up key areas of the pitch which a tactical switch allows us to exploit; opponents might start to push forward in search of a winner as the game goes on, freeing up key attacking players for us; opposition wingers who've been chased and harried by a player like Bannan might run out of steam, encouraging us to put a more attacking option on that particular flank... The variables are endless.

 

Ultimately, men with far more understanding of the game than you or I have used Barry Bannan as a wide midfielder more often than they've used him as a central midfielder. If only you'd sent them your stats beforehand, though - they could have all won the 

league if they'd known!

 

You can call them stats if you want. I will call them results.

 

I repeat, it is down to far more than one factor, but I have no doubt whatsoever that playing Bannan and others in their best roles all season would have had us in or closer to the top two.

[Animis]

30 minutes ago, Cosby Blunkett said:

 

You may well be right, but that's a very strange choice on DC's part to trust a coach with little or no experience in recruitment, to take control of our transfer policy.

 

We had the "Committee" because Chansiri wanted the influence of several experienced individuals, with particular reference to transfers. Since it's been discontinued, these responsibilities have either become solely Carlos' (in the which case why is he not The Manager?) Or they are being shared by Carlos, The Chairman and unnamed influences? I personally lean towards the latter.

 

Either way some clarity, logic and efficiency within our recruitment wouldn't go amiss; if that was found in a DOF I'd be all for it.

 

I 

 

Around the time Roeder left, DC said he wanted a DoF to come into the club. Nothing was mentioned since, and presumably CC's influence grew to a point that DC trusted him explicitly to manage all things regarding the team and football strategy, which must include the signings, as there's simply no one else who's there to do the job.

[optimisticowl]

I have never been able to understand the validity of this position, is it a reminder to the standing manger/head coach that he is easily replaceable? If it was a marriage between an experienced adviser and head scout I could be convinced that someone like Glen Hoddle could bring something to the club, under the proviso that it wasn't Eileen Drewery.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

You can call them stats if you want. I will call them results.

 

I repeat, it is down to far more than one factor, but I have no doubt whatsoever that playing Bannan and others in their best roles all season would have had us in or closer to the top two.

 

Thankfully we have a manger whose thinking is not as rigid as yours appears to be. A player's 'best role' depends on the game being played. In fact, it will often change within a game as a manager reacts to events on the pitch: opposition tactics, the success of our own game-plan, individual battles being won and lost etc...

[Holmowl]

7 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Thankfully we have a manger whose thinking is not as rigid as yours appears to be. A player's 'best role' depends on the game being played. In fact, it will often change within a game as a manager reacts to events on the pitch: opposition tactics, the success of our own game-plan, individual battles being won and lost etc...

 

Look at it differently. Split the season into two almost halves. The 25 games we played with 2 CMs, and the 20 we played with three.

 

Had we played with two CMs for the first 25 matches, and been top, then Carlos had switched to three CMs, and we finished 4th, would you say he dropped a huge boo-boo after 25?

 

or

 

Had we been 10th after 20 matches playing 3 CMs, then switched to two CMs and finished 4th, would you be saying we have cracked it and roll-on 17/18?

 

Because instead, with no obvious rhyme or reason, we have chopped and changed from 3 to 2 and back again right upto our 48th match. I say no rhyme or reason because if you look at those 20 matches there is no pattern at all. It's not all the toughies. It's not aways. It's not top sides. It's not physical sides. It's an absolute mix of sides and styles that we played 3 against.