Jump to content
IGNORED

“Players who can bring their own USP”


Olé

Recommended Posts

Lee Johnson pre-match press conference. 1 minute 51 seconds.

“We’ve got really good players who can bring their own USP to the performance”

I think he might actually have out-Mark Ashton’ed Mark Ashton on this one. All a bit Dragons Den.

I hear the phrase a lot in my job but never before in football. So what are each of our players Unique Selling Points

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olé said:

Lee Johnson pre-match press conference. 1 minute 51 seconds.

“We’ve got really good players who can bring their own USP to the performance”

I think he might actually have out-Mark Ashton’ed Mark Ashton on this one. All a bit Dragons Den.

I hear the phrase a lot in my job but never before in football. So what are each of our players Unique Selling Points

 

I wouldn't go through the entire team but starting at the Keeper and stopping there. 

Bentley. Key skill. Distribution. A wide ability to use multiple surfaces to hit receivers. That is from a City coach.

An interesting phrase appearing in football now is cultural architects. I am waiting on that one from Mr Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Massengo. USP = ******* massive hair. 

I did make the point in another thread that the marketing department have been lightning quick to get the lads picture up everywhere, modelling kit etc. An off field USP. 

Going back to @Olé's original post, I think LJ has got fed up with using "clubs in the bag", it was his dads favourite phrase after all. USP is another way of describing players who give different options. He made the point after the Hull game, that he thought that options off the bench would win the game, he does like the ability to change it up in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I wouldn't go through the entire team but starting at the Keeper and stopping there. 

Bentley. Key skill. Distribution. A wide ability to use multiple surfaces to hit receivers. That is from a City coach.

An interesting phrase appearing in football now is cultural architects. I am waiting on that one from Mr Johnson.

Cultural architects was pedalled about by Erikssen when he was England manager.  He named Beckham, Ferdinand and Neville as his.  Trouble is it created a Manure cabal in charge of things and ultimately the team failed because it wasn't as much of a team as its opponents.  

I've seen Scholes, Ferdinand, Mcmanaman and Lampard on BT Sport talking about how the club rivalry thing got in the way.  Also that McManaman was distrusted by Erikssen as he had quite a direct, questioning attitude to tactics / selection and mucked about with Fowler all the time.  If we'd had Terry Venables in charge of that group of players, we would have won things I'm certain. Instead we had a bluffer and self publicist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Cultural architects was pedalled about by Erikssen when he was England manager.  He named Beckham, Ferdinand and Neville as his.  Trouble is it created a Manure cabal in charge of things and ultimately the team failed because it wasn't as much of a team as its opponents.  

I've seen Scholes, Ferdinand, Mcmanaman and Lampard on BT Sport talking about how the club rivalry thing got in the way.  Also that McManaman was distrusted by Erikssen as he had quite a direct, questioning attitude to tactics / selection and mucked about with Fowler all the time.  If we'd had Terry Venables in charge of that group of players, we would have won things I'm certain. Instead we had a bluffer and self publicist.

It is something I have found interesting. I can sort of remember Beckham being described as a cultural architect. Its something I see now in coaching books frequently . Architects carry out tasks regardless of pressure, negative influences and every team to be successful needs four or five. Then there are architects opposites assassins -  players who don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Cultural architects was pedalled about by Erikssen when he was England manager.  He named Beckham, Ferdinand and Neville as his.  Trouble is it created a Manure cabal in charge of things and ultimately the team failed because it wasn't as much of a team as its opponents.  

I've seen Scholes, Ferdinand, Mcmanaman and Lampard on BT Sport talking about how the club rivalry thing got in the way.  Also that McManaman was distrusted by Erikssen as he had quite a direct, questioning attitude to tactics / selection and mucked about with Fowler all the time.  If we'd had Terry Venables in charge of that group of players, we would have won things I'm certain. Instead we had a bluffer and self publicist.

Erikssen was regarded by quite a few in the game as flaky and a chancer, a view I tend to agree with. Venables was also a dodgy geezer in many ways, but arguably the most astute tactician England have had and a proper football man through and through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CliftonCliff said:

Erikssen was regarded by quite a few in the game as flaky and a chancer, a view I tend to agree with. Venables was also a dodgy geezer in many ways, but arguably the most astute tactician England have had and a proper football man through and through. 

I always liked my dad's description of him. "Great Manager and Coach that I would have at Ashton Gate tomorrow. I wouldn't buy a used car from him though." :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nibor said:

Much to like about LJ but the constant business bollocks isn't one of those things.  Plain English please.

I honestly don't know why it bothers people. If he spoke in football cliches that would be wrong with some people. It sits in there with the Mark Ashton wears a suit criticism as far as I am concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

It is something I have found interesting. I can sort of remember Beckham being described as a cultural architect. Its something I see now in coaching books frequently . Architects carry out tasks regardless of pressure, negative influences and every team to be successful needs four or five. Then there are architects opposites assassins -  players who don't. 

An architect designs something. A culture cannot be designed, especially just by a few  of a group.  People who reliably perform tasks aren't the same.  It's horseshit.

I've done a few coaching badges and a lot of what's written in books is complete bollo. Pseudo-psychology.  Football coaches talking about types has as much relevance as Psychologists talking about the merits of 4 4 2 vs 3 5 2.

Mike Brearley was an example of someone who actually understood the people he led.  His book is an excellent read - the art of captaincy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I honestly don't know why it bothers people. If he spoke in football cliches that would be wrong with some people. It sits in there with the Mark Ashton wears a suit criticism as far as I am concerned. 

Two reasons.  Firstly, speaking business bollocks (or any sort of bollocks) makes your communication unclear, people don't know what you mean but they feel like they can't ask for clarification because if someone's saying it they ought to understand it.  Secondly, because it's unclear and because it's deliberate it can easily come across as insincere - as though you're trying to hide something or spin something or appear like you have some kind of special knowledge.

There's no reason to speak like this if you're confident and genuine (and I'm sure LJ is).  Just use simpler words and occasionally explain concepts your audience might not get.

Interestingly you tend to find business bollocks is something that happens in middle management and tails off the further up the ladder people get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nibor said:

Two reasons.  Firstly, speaking business bollocks (or any sort of bollocks) makes your communication unclear, people don't know what you mean but they feel like they can't ask for clarification because if someone's saying it they ought to understand it.  Secondly, because it's unclear and because it's deliberate it can easily come across as insincere - as though you're trying to hide something or spin something or appear like you have some kind of special knowledge.

There's no reason to speak like this if you're confident and genuine (and I'm sure LJ is).  Just use simpler words and occasionally explain concepts your audience might not get.

Interestingly you tend to find business bollocks is something that happens in middle management and tails off the further up the ladder people get.

I can't see anything complicated in USP, it's a commonly used phrase in many walks of life these days. I still don't get the concern, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

An architect designs something. A culture cannot be designed, especially just by a few  of a group.  People who reliably perform tasks aren't the same.  It's horseshit.

I've done a few coaching badges and a lot of what's written in books is complete bollo. Pseudo-psychology.  Football coaches talking about types has as much relevance as Psychologists talking about the merits of 4 4 2 vs 3 5 2.

Mike Brearley was an example of someone who actually understood the people he led.  His book is an excellent read - the art of captaincy.

Barcelona's culture was designed by its Coaches. People uphold the culture by being part of it and its principles. Players buy into the big picture. That is psychological. 

Barcelona and Guardiola. Busquets, Iniesta and Xavi were its cultural architects and the team can only play as it did because these players buy into the big picture. A player that did not fit, did not buy into the culture was Ibrahimovic.

I found a book called the Barcelona way focussing on its culture to be thoroughly engrossing.

Mike Brearley was an example of someone who actually understood the people he led.  His book is an excellent read - the art of captaincy … Mike Brearley studied psychology and became a psychoanalyst. He thinks the understanding of psychology in sport is essential. I read one of his books called form. The art of captaincy I will be reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Barcelona's culture was designed by its Coaches. People uphold the culture by being part of it and its principles. Players buy into the big picture. That is psychological. 

Barcelona and Guardiola. Busquets, Iniesta and Xavi were its cultural architects and the team can only play as it did because these players buy into the big picture. A player that did not fit, did not buy into the culture was Ibrahimovic.

I found a book called the Barcelona way focussing on its culture to be thoroughly engrossing.

Mike Brearley was an example of someone who actually understood the people he led.  His book is an excellent read - the art of captaincy … Mike Brearley studied psychology and became a psychoanalyst. He thinks the understanding of psychology in sport is essential. I read one of his books called form. The art of captaincy I will be reading.

Brearley is something of a rarity in sport. In fact, it's probably beyond rare: I suspect he's unique. My professional life finished a long time ago, but I had a lot of involvement in the fields of both applied psychology and psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and though I knew many therapists, I never knowingly met one who had been a top level professional sportsman or woman.

He did indeed become a full-blown psychoanalyst, but even before he became one of the very few people to complete that training (not many can afford to, for a start), he showed a degree of sophistication in his understanding of people that is uncommon in sport. His leadership and captaincy skills were exceptional. Imagine having the job of telling Ian Botham what to do. Brearley not only managed that massive personality; he actually got the best out of him.

A remarkable and very interesting man. The book on captaincy I can recommend. It wouldn't do dome coaches and managers any harm to study it, either. I wonder if LJ is familiar with it? (Though to be fair to him, I think Lee shows signs of being, on the whole, a pretty good man manager.)

Edit: And as an afterthought in response to Nibor's comments on language, with which I largely agree, I would hazard a guess that Brearley would have been very much of the plain English persuasion. Fancy asking Beefy what USP he was bringing to the table. The response to that would have been unprintable (and just possibly physically violent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...