LJs Tenure - Analysis

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

It was only in place for a couple of months.

indeed, it was a short period, but with full media attention it became viewed as if it had always been like that....and pundits still think we played like that.

If players are burning out in a period of months the pre season conditioning work would have been abysmal. Injury is another thing if City did not have the depth of talent to play in that challenging manner =  They had bought poorly. Key skills did not meet team need.

That is an if you believe Mr Johnson ever intended to play for an extended period pressing high. I do not. Mr Johnson's hand was influenced by injury. When Famara was fit the high pressing was dropped for medium blocks and screening for years.

I’ve said countless times I think the return of Diedhiou was quite a big contributory factor.  We could no longer play a condensed pressing game, and with players now strung out, we couldn’t play through the lines either.  Not blaming it all on Fam, but there was a definite change on his return.

Mr Johnson's prized striker did not have the defensive tactical intensity to do otherwise.

Agree.  There’s working hard and there’s working intensely.  Fam gets viewed as being more hard working than he is because of what he does defensively.  He rarely presses at full tilt, and on many occasions is happy to let Weimann do some of his work.  He’s a decent enough player at this level, but I think we could get a better fit if we replaced him (and not with another big man).

Mr Johnson lost his way quickly because he didn't have one. He stated in 2016 he wanted to put in place a playing identity throughout the club. Despite unparallelled resources and time in BCFC terms when he was finally relieved of his services the club had no sign of his fabled playing identity.

The identity was ultimately, dull, rigid, football.  Results exceeded performance.  It caught up with him.

 

 

[bcfcredandwhite]

Some good well thought out comments on here which was exactly what I was hoping to attract, rather than the ‘Lover vs Hater’ mudslinging which sometimes used to happen. 

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

More of the analysis team (Head of) departing.

 

 

Concerns me when long term staff leave.  Obviously I know nothing about Sam or his work, but has things been so bad on the analysis front? 

[Red Skin]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

It was only in place for a couple of months. If players are burning out in a period of months the pre season conditioning work would have been abysmal. Injury is another thing if City did not have the depth of talent to play in that challenging manner =  They had bought poorly. Key skills did not meet team need.

That is an if you believe Mr Johnson ever intended to play for an extended period pressing high. I do not. Mr Johnson's hand was influenced by injury. When Famara was fit the high pressing was dropped for medium blocks and screening for years. Mr Johnson's prized striker did not have the defensive tactical intensity to do otherwise.

Mr Johnson lost his way quickly because he didn't have one. He stated in 2016 he wanted to put in place a playing identity throughout the club. Despite unparallelled resources and time in BCFC terms when he was finally relieved of his services the club had no sign of his fabled playing identity.

 

It was more than a couple of months.  It's was from the start of the season until the end of the Carabao cup game.  Think it's was Barnsley in the first game of the season and we destroyed them in first 10 minutes!

We did seem to be unplayable with Reid and Paterson on the pitch together. Fam coming back did seem to disrupt things.

Some of the reason for the high press may have been down to circumstance, but LJ did make it work.   LJ lost his way, and I thought he needed to go come the end, but not to give his any credit for our performances that season is Stalinesque revisionism.

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Red Skin said:

It was more than a couple of months.  It's was from the start of the season until the end of the Carabao cup game.  Think it's was Barnsley in the first game of the season and we destroyed them in first 10 minutes!

We did seem to be unplayable with Reid and Paterson on the pitch together. Fam coming back did seem to disrupt things.

Some of the reason for the high press may have been down to circumstance, but LJ did make it work.   LJ lost his way, and I thought he needed to go come the end, but not to give his any credit for our performances that season is Stalinesque revisionism.

We could argue what the differences are between differing pressing options. I would say the team pressed high in units allied to a short passing style for two months. You will differ but neither views are equalling long terms, or part of an established footballing identity.

At the time I did praise the football but by February of that season v Cardiff the team ceased to play short and defend high. Mr Johnson had chosen to abandon what can be argued was his best football rather the progress it. 

What followed was Mr Johnson's reflection. 

LJ's tenure and analysis. .Mr Johnson's intent was to establish a playing identity throughout the club. The examination answer is - He failed to achieve his own aim.

 

[Red Skin]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

LJ's tenure and analysis. .Mr Johnson's intent was to establish a playing identity throughout the club. The examination answer is - He failed to achieve his own aim.

Definitely agree with that.  

[Guest]

Streaky

[Rich]

6 hours ago, Red Skin said:

It was more than a couple of months.  It's was from the start of the season until the end of the Carabao cup game.  Think it's was Barnsley in the first game of the season and we destroyed them in first 10 minutes!

We did seem to be unplayable with Reid and Paterson on the pitch together. Fam coming back did seem to disrupt things.

Some of the reason for the high press may have been down to circumstance, but LJ did make it work.   LJ lost his way, and I thought he needed to go come the end, but not to give his any credit for our performances that season is Stalinesque revisionism.

When Famara came back, it not only disrupted our high press, there were other major factors. To accommodate him, he dropped Bobby back to where Paterson was, moved Paterson to left Midfield, moved Bryan to Left back and dropped Magnússon. We lost the mobility of Paterson in attack and his left field defensive ability was less than that of Joe Bryan. We lost the speed of Bobby in the press, Joe Bryans attacking skills were reduced playing at left back and we also lost the occasional long throw and whacked clearance from Magnússon which sometimes created just a little more time for the team to compose themselves. So, weaker in respect of attack and defense and less able to have a high press. Bad choices taken and not able to replicate earlier season form, all because he seemed to have to have Famara in his team. Obviously there were other changes in formation and players to try and improve results but it never happened. Sometimes people can't see the wood for the trees. At this point the discussion amongst supporters was about Famara being a carthorse and Paterson going off the boil. Why try and fix something  that aint broke?

[MATT BCFC]

I think he did alright to be honest. In my living memory I would place him as our third best manager behind Cotterill and his dad. 

Started off with exciting football but think he just over thought it towards the end and tried to be too clever. 

Like his dad has a lot of pros but feel like the flaws he has similar like his dad will probably prevent him from managing at the top. 

[Lrrr]

28 minutes ago, MATT BCFC said:

I think he did alright to be honest. In my living memory I would place him as our third best manager behind Cotterill and his dad. 

Started off with exciting football but think he just over thought it towards the end and tried to be too clever. 

Like his dad has a lot of pros but feel like the flaws he has similar like his dad will probably prevent him from managing at the top. 

Similar thoughts for me, did well by making us a club no longer likely to be relegated but couldn't take that extra step to establish us as a club really fighting for play offs. By no means a bad job and one other clubs in this division would be happy with him doing. Think it was the rise in expectations that did it in the end, think he could have continued playing the exciting brand of football season on season if his only job was to ensure we stayed well clear of relegation but when top 6 became the aim/expectation then he tried adjusting to reach that and didn't work out.

[MATT BCFC]

2 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Similar thoughts for me, did well by making us a club no longer likely to be relegated but couldn't take that extra step to establish us as a club really fighting for play offs. By no means a bad job and one other clubs in this division would be happy with him doing. Think it was the rise in expectations that did it in the end, think he could have continued playing the exciting brand of football season on season if his only job was to ensure we stayed well clear of relegation but when top 6 became the aim/expectation then he tried adjusting to reach that and didn't work out.

He may well learn from the experience and improve but I think he may be a bit blinded by his ego.

Like his dad seems to be prone to these long losing streaks. Which I think is down to how demanding and critical they are.

[Simon bristol]

I think lj was kinda like a new graduate,,, studied the theory in depth but just couldnt relate it and apply it with the Team on a consistent basis. We were on fire with reid as the striker but the press gradually ran out of steam as other people have said, and we never got that momentum back again.

[The Constant Rabbit]

16 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That is an if you believe Mr Johnson ever intended to play for an extended period pressing high. I do not. Mr Johnson's hand was influenced by injury. When Famara was fit the high pressing was dropped for medium blocks and screening for years.

I’ve said countless times I think the return of Diedhiou was quite a big contributory factor.  We could no longer play a condensed pressing game, and with players now strung out, we couldn’t play through the lines either.  Not blaming it all on Fam, but there was a definite change on his return.

Always appreciate your posts big Fev but despite all that, Fam was still a 12 - 14 goals a season striker, and saved probably 10 goals with excellent defending.

Fam has been a constant in the last 3 yrs, and although often maligned,I believe he will be fondly remembered in coming years - after he's gone.

I always though we should try to compliment Fammy, rather than shoehorn him into a system that, as you say, didn't suit.

Probably our most consistent player throughout LJs reign, and deserved current Player Of The Year.

I always believe you play to your strengths - and Fam was certainly one of our biggest.

It's not like LJ didn't have enough players to drop the press and play a solid 4 at the back, a solid 4 across the middle with a quick striker playing off Fams shoulder. 

I appreciate we tried a couple of times with AW - but why not try MT for a run (they worked well together), or even Nic E as a 2nd striker.

Too late now, but there were ways to get more out of Fammy AND keep the midfield strong.

 

2c

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

7 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

I think lj was kinda like a new graduate,,, studied the theory in depth but just couldnt relate it and apply it with the Team on a consistent basis. We were on fire with reid as the striker but the press gradually ran out of steam as other people have said, and we never got that momentum back again.

We have them where I work...spreadsheet engineers. Great at computer bullshit, but clueless when at the sharp end.

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, SX227 said:

Always appreciate your posts big Fev but despite all that, Fam was still a 12 - 14 goals a season striker, and saved probably 10 goals with excellent defending.

Fam has been a constant in the last 3 yrs, and although often maligned,I believe he will be fondly remembered in coming years - after he's gone.

I always though we should try to compliment Fammy, rather than shoehorn him into a system that, as you say, didn't suit.

Probably our most consistent player throughout LJs reign, and deserved current Player Of The Year.

I always believe you play to your strengths - and Fam was certainly one of our biggest.

It's not like LJ didn't have enough players to drop the press and play a solid 4 at the back, a solid 4 across the middle with a quick striker playing off Fams shoulder. 

I appreciate we tried a couple of times with AW - but why not try MT for a run (they worked well together), or even Nic E as a 2nd striker.

Too late now, but there were ways to get more out of Fammy AND keep the midfield strong.

 

2c

I that’s it in a nutshell.  We didn’t play Diedhiou to his strengths (he ain’t a target man), nor did we play a system that suited his strengths.  We spent £5.3m (our record at the time) on a player that after his injury was played more as a target man.  Those first dozen games in a City shirt, albeit whilst getting up to speed were much more like the Famara I’d watched at Angers.  Upon his return it was very different.

Funnily enough in the games he played under Holden, especially Boro away I saw a bit more of the old Angers Fam.

I’ve said before if you only had to sell one of Eliasson or Diedhiou, for me it would be Eliasson every time. I like Fam, he frustrates me too though.

I know he’s self-isolating, but I’d like to know how many days he’s into his 14 days.  It’s hampering our pre-season preparations....unless he’s away sorting out a deal. (caveat: conspiracy theory not itk)

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, SX227 said:

Always appreciate your posts big Fev but despite all that, Fam was still a 12 - 14 goals a season striker, and saved probably 10 goals with excellent defending.

Fam has been a constant in the last 3 yrs, and although often maligned,I believe he will be fondly remembered in coming years - after he's gone.

I always though we should try to compliment Fammy, rather than shoehorn him into a system that, as you say, didn't suit.

Probably our most consistent player throughout LJs reign, and deserved current Player Of The Year.

I always believe you play to your strengths - and Fam was certainly one of our biggest.

It's not like LJ didn't have enough players to drop the press and play a solid 4 at the back, a solid 4 across the middle with a quick striker playing off Fams shoulder. 

I appreciate we tried a couple of times with AW - but why not try MT for a run (they worked well together), or even Nic E as a 2nd striker.

Too late now, but there were ways to get more out of Fammy AND keep the midfield strong.

 

 

During the 2016 - 17 season Bristol City's best football was without this player. The team averaged less points with him in it and as @Rich highlighted with a memory that far exceeds mine the side was set up significantly differently to accommodate him.

His defending from the front was poor. He was poor at pressing and screening. City with Famara in the first third were easy to penetrate. With Elliason and Palmer in the team it was like a colander. His defending at corners was good but it was zonal, not man for man.  That again highlights technical and tactical inflexibility.

Afobe provided a stark contrast in movement. It is another limitation.

Its an opinion but Famara was a weakness. City's strength was pass and move and press.  That should have been progressed .. Another opinion. I would have liked to have seen him sold seasons ago to progress a passing and moving pressing football.

 

[Lrrr]

9 hours ago, SX227 said:

Always appreciate your posts big Fev but despite all that, Fam was still a 12 - 14 goals a season striker, and saved probably 10 goals with excellent defending.

Excessive to suggest his defending prevented 10 goals that any other player we placed there wouldn't have prevented given we only conceded 16 goals from any type of set piece all season.

[Sheltons Army]

15 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Similar thoughts for me, did well by making us a club no longer likely to be relegated but couldn't take that extra step to establish us as a club really fighting for play offs. By no means a bad job and one other clubs in this division would be happy with him doing. Think it was the rise in expectations that did it in the end, think he could have continued playing the exciting brand of football season on season if his only job was to ensure we stayed well clear of relegation but when top 6 became the aim/expectation then he tried adjusting to reach that and didn't work out.

No chance

What evidence is there for this ?

We played good football for 4 months in 4 1/2 years

[The Constant Rabbit]

13 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Excessive to suggest his defending prevented 10 goals that any other player we placed there wouldn't have prevented given we only conceded 16 goals from any type of set piece all season.

I meant over the 3 yrs - sorry for not being clearer

[Hampshire Red]

Can't see how cidered thinks it was 4yrs wasted - truly  ridiculous statement P even accepting this is a forum where people can be as negative as they want to be. My guess is he/she never went to games under Lj, missed cup runs and winning streaks?? 

If I've supported and been to most games for over 40 yrs then I've wasted all my life. Can't be bothered to justify to a ridiculous opinion why it actually hasn't been a waste of time so suffice to say there have only been two managers who gave me a better use of my time at this level (2nd Tier of football). 

Stay abroad!  

[Cowshed]

37 minutes ago, Hampshire Red said:

Can't see how cidered thinks it was 4yrs wasted - truly  ridiculous statement P even accepting this is a forum where people can be as negative as they want to be. My guess is he/she never went to games under Lj, missed cup runs and winning streaks?? 

If I've supported and been to most games for over 40 yrs then I've wasted all my life. Can't be bothered to justify to a ridiculous opinion why it actually hasn't been a waste of time so suffice to say there have only been two managers who gave me a better use of my time at this level (2nd Tier of football). 

Stay abroad!  

Opportunity was wasted. 

Its a simple perception. The high of beating Man Utd and seeing a BCFC team play in that manner was Lee Johnson's zenith. Mr Johnson then decided to remove behaviours and elements that made that football possible. 

Frequently football post Jan 2017 was unrecognisable to its peak before it.

Mr Johnson never put in place what he stated he was going to do.  The identity running through the club? He was further away from his own aim than he was years before. Millions and years wasted. 

[IAmNick]

On 19/08/2020 at 12:37, Cowshed said:

During the 2016 - 17 season Bristol City's best football was without this player. The team averaged less points with him in it and as @Rich highlighted with a memory that far exceeds mine the side was set up significantly differently to accommodate him.

His defending from the front was poor. He was poor at pressing and screening. City with Famara in the first third were easy to penetrate. With Elliason and Palmer in the team it was like a colander.

I assume you mean 2017-18? I'm not sure it's so simple. That season Fam played our first 13 games. He was then out for 16, and then mostly in until the end.

 

The first 13 games (with Fam) we had a ppg of 1.6, we scored 1.5 per game, and conceded 1.1 per game.

The next 15 (no Fam) we had a ppg of 1.8 (+0.2), scored 1.3 (-0.2), and conceded 1.2 (+0.1) - so we actually scored less and conceded more while Fam was off.

The final 18 games we had a ppg of 1.1, scored 1.5, and conceeded 1.4. The scoring returned to the pre-injury levels, but we conceded more.

 

With Fam in the first 13 games we only lost two. While he was off, we lost 4.

If Fam was the root of our issues, then why:

a) Was the first period with him very nearly as productive as his injury period.

b) Why were we conceding MORE with him out the team during his injury, as well as scoring less if with him in the team we were "easy to penetrate"?

c) Why did him returning not put us back on the form from before his injury?

Maybe he was a contributing factor, but I think you're looking at it far too simplistically. I agree we played our best football without him - but we were getting good results with him before that. To me it points to a larger problem on his return, rather than just his return. Perhaps that was the catalyst but I don't think it was down to him as a player personally.

I just looked at all this quite quickly, so happy to be corrected if I got the stats wrong.

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

I assume you mean 2017-18? I'm not sure it's so simple. That season Fam played our first 13 games. He was then out for 16, and then mostly in until the end.

 

The first 13 games (with Fam) we had a ppg of 1.6, we scored 1.5 per game, and conceded 1.1 per game.

The next 15 (no Fam) we had a ppg of 1.8 (+0.2), scored 1.3 (-0.2), and conceded 1.2 (+0.1) - so we actually scored less and conceded more while Fam was off.

The final 18 games we had a ppg of 1.1, scored 1.5, and conceeded 1.4. The scoring returned to the pre-injury levels, but we conceded more.

 

With Fam in the first 13 games we only lost two. While he was off, we lost 4.

If Fam was the root of our issues, then why:

a) Was the first period with him very nearly as productive as his injury period.

b) Why were we conceding MORE with him out the team during his injury, as well as scoring less if with him in the team we were "easy to penetrate"?

c) Why did him returning not put us back on the form from before his injury?

Maybe he was a contributing factor, but I think you're looking at it far too simplistically. I agree we played our best football without him - but we were getting good results with him before that. To me it points to a larger problem on his return, rather than just his return. Perhaps that was the catalyst but I don't think it was down to him as a player personally.

I just looked at all this quite quickly, so happy to be corrected if I got the stats wrong.

 

Nick.  I genuinely believe the Fam we saw before injury, who was adapting to the country and the Championship was a much freer player than the one who returned.  But I also think there were several other factors:

Bryan was great at LM but was moved back to LB.  Magnússon left out as a result.

Wright got injured, Pisano was rushed back, got injured, so Wright played injured, ultimately knackering him for the WC.

etc.

Note:

Just in terms of your sample, that season had a couple of 3-3s, a 4-1, a 4-0, a 0-5 and a 5-5.  They probably skew things quite a bit.

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

I assume you mean 2017-18? I'm not sure it's so simple. That season Fam played our first 13 games. He was then out for 16, and then mostly in until the end.

 

The first 13 games (with Fam) we had a ppg of 1.6, we scored 1.5 per game, and conceded 1.1 per game.

The next 15 (no Fam) we had a ppg of 1.8 (+0.2), scored 1.3 (-0.2), and conceded 1.2 (+0.1) - so we actually scored less and conceded more while Fam was off.

The final 18 games we had a ppg of 1.1, scored 1.5, and conceeded 1.4. The scoring returned to the pre-injury levels, but we conceded more.

 

With Fam in the first 13 games we only lost two. While he was off, we lost 4.

If Fam was the root of our issues, then why:

a) Was the first period with him very nearly as productive as his injury period.

b) Why were we conceding MORE with him out the team during his injury, as well as scoring less if with him in the team we were "easy to penetrate"?

c) Why did him returning not put us back on the form from before his injury?

Maybe he was a contributing factor, but I think you're looking at it far too simplistically. I agree we played our best football without him - but we were getting good results with him before that. To me it points to a larger problem on his return, rather than just his return. Perhaps that was the catalyst but I don't think it was down to him as a player personally.

I just looked at all this quite quickly, so happy to be corrected if I got the stats wrong.

 

You agree the team played its best football without the player. You are correct in your figures. The team and its football was different with Famara in it. These changes did not progress the high pressing, short passing, high tempo game. The changes moved the football further away. That final 18 games Mr Johnson significantly changed the football further. The shape and passing patterns were entirely different. Famara was a defining factor. He did not suit what many consider to be the team best football under Mr Johnson, he had the wrong skill set v team need. It is simplistic. 

[IAmNick]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Nick.  I genuinely believe the Fam we saw before injury, who was adapting to the country and the Championship was a much freer player than the one who returned.  But I also think there were several other factors:

Bryan was great at LM but was moved back to LB.  Magnússon left out as a result.

Wright got injured, Pisano was rushed back, got injured, so Wright played injured, ultimately knackering him for the WC.

etc.

Note:

Just in terms of your sample, that season had a couple of 3-3s, a 4-1, a 4-0, a 0-5 and a 5-5.  They probably skew things quite a bit.

I agree he was different - was that instruction, or his fitness? Perhaps a bit of both.

I do get frustrated when people try and pin our change in style or the poor second half of the season on Fam though. I think that's far too a simple view saying Fam came back so we changed how we played and it was bad. Was the change in style due to him returning, or us losing three on the bounce (including the 0-5 to Villa) before he did as well as the other factors you've mentioned?

We can play both decent football, and more importantly get results with him in the team as the first portion of that season showed. Did he contribute to the change in style? Yeah, I think so. Was he the main reason, or to blame? Not for me.

On the stats - it was a weird season wasn't it? The results were all over the place. 

[IAmNick]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

You agree the team played its best football without the player. You are correct in your figures. The team and its football was different with Famara in it. These changes did not progress the high pressing, short passing, high tempo game. The changes moved the football further away. That final 18 games Mr Johnson significantly changed the football further. The shape and passing patterns were entirely different. Famara was a defining factor. He did not suit what many consider to be the team best football under Mr Johnson, he had the wrong skill set v team need. It is simplistic. 

Thanks for the response. Best football without Fam? I wholeheartedly agree.

Most productive football points wise? Pretty even I think - both with him at the start, and without until Christmas.

To me that indicated him returning was just one small piece of a larger change, otherwise the logical thing would have been to return to the productive (and still decent) football we played at the start of the season. Once he did return however we went a third way, and to me that's also partly down to a number of other factors. We could have returned to our very respectable style and form before his injury to see out the season - for whatever reason Johnson saw fit to change it as you've rightly said.

I can only surmise that the three months of good football we saw was not Lee's intention - as you have said before he didn't have a squad designed to play that way, including his marquee summer signing in Fam. Perhaps the football with Fam in the team is what he actually wanted to play, and he saw that as the "team need"? As Dave mentioned, he also changed the team in a number of other ways which might imply he didn't understand what was creating the better brand of football we happened to be experiencing.

The fact we never saw it again implies to me it was more luck than judgement.

[Cowshed]

28 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Thanks for the response. Best football without Fam? I wholeheartedly agree.

Most productive football points wise? Pretty even I think - both with him at the start, and without until Christmas.

To me that indicated him returning was just one small piece of a larger change, otherwise the logical thing would have been to return to the productive (and still decent) football we played at the start of the season. Once he did return however we went a third way, and to me that's also partly down to a number of other factors. We could have returned to our very respectable style and form before his injury to see out the season - for whatever reason Johnson saw fit to change it as you've rightly said.

I can only surmise that the three months of good football we saw was not Lee's intention - as you have said before he didn't have a squad designed to play that way, including his marquee summer signing in Fam. Perhaps the football with Fam in the team is what he actually wanted to play, and he saw that as the "team need"? As Dave mentioned, he also changed the team in a number of other ways which might imply he didn't understand what was creating the better brand of football we happened to be experiencing.

The fact we never saw it again implies to me it was more luck than judgement.

Abandoning high pressing and passing patterns and altering shape was a large change.

I made a posts very similar to your highlighted paragraph several years ago. The marquee signing indicated what Mr Johnson's intent was. I  agree with your last line, luck as in misfortune (injury) helped create those heady months. 

[Rich]

59 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Thanks for the response. Best football without Fam? I wholeheartedly agree.

Most productive football points wise? Pretty even I think - both with him at the start, and without until Christmas.

To me that indicated him returning was just one small piece of a larger change, otherwise the logical thing would have been to return to the productive (and still decent) football we played at the start of the season. Once he did return however we went a third way, and to me that's also partly down to a number of other factors. We could have returned to our very respectable style and form before his injury to see out the season - for whatever reason Johnson saw fit to change it as you've rightly said.

I can only surmise that the three months of good football we saw was not Lee's intention - as you have said before he didn't have a squad designed to play that way, including his marquee summer signing in Fam. Perhaps the football with Fam in the team is what he actually wanted to play, and he saw that as the "team need"? As Dave mentioned, he also changed the team in a number of other ways which might imply he didn't understand what was creating the better brand of football we happened to be experiencing.

The fact we never saw it again implies to me it was more luck than judgement.

If I remember correctly, we also had another example of change for change sake, when Baker was injured in the 2nd half of the season. Instead of reintroducing Magnússon to take over the left center back spot, he moved Bailey Wright from right back into left centre and he struggled, I think he moved Korey to Right back and then moved Brownhill to center Midfield and brought whoever into |Brownhills spot.  If not exactly, it was something like that. Four changes where one would have sufficed and not disrupted the formation. Obviously LJ didn't fancy Magnússon one iota and was sold.