How important is a team's 'identity'?

[gurujuan]

6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

What was Carlos' team 'identity'?

I don’t think Carlos was able to instil one, and to be honest, that wasn’t his remit, despite what DC was saying. Those plans went out of the window once the chairman had contradicted his plans by gearing everything towards a more short term approach

Edited December 13, 2020 by gurujuan

[@owlstalk]

I'll be honest here

I don't actually believe there's any such thing as a team's 'identity'

I think it's simply something people in football say to sound knowledgable

I think people like fans then repeat it, say it etc so THEY sound knowledgable

And then the media repeat it, talk about it and ask about it so THEY sound knowledgable

And there's nobody around to bang everyone's heads together and shout "WHAT THE FOOOOOOK ARE YOU LOT TALKING ABOUT???"

 

The reason i don't believe in 'team identity' is because nobody can define it, explain it, demonstrate it to me

 

So forgive me if I remain cynical in this thread but I think anyone talking about team  'identity' is chatting bobbar

[The General]

Think I have

 

 

 

The General

[gurujuan]

4 minutes ago, wilyfox said:

Identity is the new buzzword in recent years. My first recollection of it being used was describing the England national team under Hodgson. We were crap, so we tried to copy Spain after their success and keep the ball but it was all backwards & sideways rubbish.

 

After that failed miserably and Big Sam was ousted after one game, Southgate got the gig and we tried to copy Germany’s model instead, producing a strong u21 team and bring it through. Didn’t quite work but got us to a world semi so better than most attempts.

Sounds a bit like us

[@owlstalk]

 

Did teams in the 60's and 70's talk about their team 'identity' 

Or is it yet another recent example of overcomplicating the sport and the way we talk about it?

[Guest wilyfox]

2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Sounds a bit like us

In our case the well run dry. Either Chansiri couldn’t or wouldn’t sustain investment. 

[@owlstalk]

 

I wonder if any of our managers past or present have told Chansiri they've instilled a team 'identity' at any point or discussed it with him

 

 

 

 

[CircleSeven]

30 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

So it's like the "X Factor"

If that's the case why doesn't Pulis just say we have one?

Nobody would be any the wiser

It’s not really like an X factor but at the same time it is. 
 

Just to get into context I once did a project for a company that was about establishing a culture and identity for one of their brands and the sales team selling that brand. It was 6 months work and hundreds and hundreds of man hours. In the end the project didn’t even get finished because the company was sold. 
 

The best example I can give is Man United under Sir Alex. 
 

His team had an identity. They were hard working, well organised, disciplined but played with flair and determination right from the first whistle to the end of the game. And Sir Alex was king of that club. No questions were ever ever asked of his absolute authority. And the players would run through fire for him. 
 

The system could change, the players could change, the coaches recruitment teams etc etc could all change but the identity remained. 
 

The whole club was centred around that identity. Every player who came in had to buy into it. If they questioned it they were gone (Jap Stam for example). 
 

When Ferguson retired the identity was lost. They haven’t been able to recreate it since. 
 

Man U’s problem was a lack of succession planning, partly because the clubs identity had become intertwined with Ferguson’s. 
 

At a lower level Brentford have an identity. A hard working footballing club who bring on players and then let them move on to better things and make a nice profit on them. The whole club is a machine geared up to making that a reality. If their managers was changed the identity would remain. 
 

We are totally lacking in identity at the moment. We don’t know what we want to be as a club, as a team as a business anything. 
 

If we could establish one then the players know they are part of a machine that is geared around achieving a defined goal in a defined way. It’s way easier to meet expectations when you know what they are. 

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

It’s not really like an X factor but at the same time it is. 
 

Just to get into context I once did a project for a company that was about establishing a culture and identity for one of their brands and the sales team selling that brand. It was 6 months work and hundreds and hundreds of man hours. In the end the project didn’t even get finished because the company was sold. 
 

The best example I can give is Man United under Sir Alex. 
 

His team had an identity. They were hard working, well organised, disciplined but played with flair and determination right from the first whistle to the end of the game. And Sir Alex was king of that club. No questions were ever ever asked of his absolute authority. And the players would run through fire for him. 
 

The system could change, the players could change, the coaches recruitment teams etc etc could all change but the identity remained. 
 

The whole club was centred around that identity. Every player who came in had to buy into it. If they questioned it they were gone (Jap Stam for example). 
 

When Ferguson retired the identity was lost. They haven’t been able to recreate it since. 
 

Man U’s problem was a lack of succession planning, partly because the clubs identity had become intertwined with Ferguson’s. 
 

At a lower level Brentford have an identity. A hard working footballing club who bring on players and then let them move on to better things and make a nice profit on them. The whole club is a machine geared up to making that a reality. If their managers was changed the identity would remain. 
 

We are totally lacking in identity at the moment. We don’t know what we want to be as a club, as a team as a business anything. 
 

If we could establish one then the players know they are part of a machine that is geared around achieving a defined goal in a defined way. It’s way easier to meet expectations when you know what they are. 

 

Nope

Not buying that for a second mate

 

 

No offence

[cowl]

I don't think it really matters, does it?

 

Besides, it's no different from Monk insisting that he knows what a winning dressing room looks like.

[CircleSeven]

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Did teams in the 60's and 70's talk about their team 'identity' 

Or is it yet another recent example of overcomplicating the sport and the way we talk about it?

They will have had them but they won’t have talked about it. Analysis of sport is quite recent. It’s linked to the increasing amounts of money involved.

 

Leeds are the best example of a team with an identity in that era. Christ, we still associate them with it 40 years later!

 

 

[@owlstalk]

Just now, CircleSeven said:

They will have had them but they won’t have talked about it.  

So now this 'identity' cult religion is an underground one?

[sherlyegg]

Identity is twitter talk for being reyt good.

 

It's even worse than saying offensive football instead of attacking football..

 

It's what people say when they are on telly pretending to be oscar wilde...init

[Big Jack]

Not sure about identity , but the players look really miserable since TP arrived.

[Southside Owl]

Yes it is a very good question..

 

for me it has to be a style a way of playing that appears unique compared to other teams..and that other teams fans recognise in others..may be something greater than the some of its parts..

I remember West Ham being put up there as having a particular style didn't Crewe Alex as well have a reputation for being a footballing side, then on the other end of the identity spectrum the likes of Wimbledon and to a certain extent us under Wilkinson.. 

..and of course Arsenal going from the tag of boring boring Arsenal to Wengers era.. which then brings up the question does a club have an ongoing identity or can a club have different teams at different times having different styles...

can it be created or does it just happen.. i mean are there successful clubs that really didnt have a memorable identity and vice-versa

 

any way i think i need to go and lie down in a quiet room now...

[@owlstalk]

Just now, sherlyegg said:

Identity is twitter talk for being reyt good.

 

It's even worse than saying offensive football instead of attacking football..

 

It's what people say when they are on telly pretending to be oscar wilde...init

 

 

The latest one I've heard on commentary is shooting through the ball

 

I wanted to press pause, run down to Hillsborough, run up the South Stand steps, up onto the gantry, rag Rob O'Neill off his commentator throne (that he rightly deserves cos he does a great job) and shake him shouting "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING??? WHY ARE YOU SAYING SHOOTING THROUGH THE BALL???? IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING"

Then punching a seat reyt hard like Paterson did for that lad in the black jacket that he was trying to impress

 

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, Southside Owl said:

Yes it is a very good question..

 

for me it has to be a style a way of playing that appears unique compared to other teams..and that other teams fans recognise in others..may be something greater than the some of its parts..

I remember West Ham being put up there as having a particular style didn't Crewe Alex as well have a reputation for being a footballing side, then on the other end of the identity spectrum the likes of Wimbledon and to a certain extent us under Wilkinson.. 

..and of course Arsenal going from the tag of boring boring Arsenal to Wengers era.. which then brings up the question does a club have an ongoing identity or can a club have different teams at different times having different styles...

can it be created or does it just happen.. i mean are there successful clubs that really didnt have a memorable identity and vice-versa

 

any way i think i need to go and lie down in a quiet room now...

 

I think you can clearly have a 'style'

Definitely

So either identity is really just a way of saying 'style' but trying to sound more knowledgable OR identity doesn't exist at all but it's used to sound more knowledgable

[gurujuan]

3 minutes ago, wilyfox said:

In our case the well run dry. Either Chansiri couldn’t or wouldn’t sustain investment. 

Other than that first year, when we perhaps needed to, it’s also been a case too much turnover. Since DC has been here, we’ve brought in nearly 70 players That’s a ridiculous amount in 5 years

[Southside Owl]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

I think you can clearly have a 'style'

Definitely

So either identity is really just a way of saying 'style' but trying to sound more knowledgable OR identity doesn't exist at all but it's used to sound more knowledgable

yes its just a poncy word for style

[gurujuan]

16 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Did teams in the 60's and 70's talk about their team 'identity' 

Or is it yet another recent example of overcomplicating the sport and the way we talk about it?

I dunno, ask Pulis