Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coaches' Voice - LJ


GlastonburyRed

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Is there a coach that has won so little, and yet pumps out more interviews than LJ?

It's like a constant cry for attention.

The guy has won NOTHING - anywhere, ever, yet people are supposed to read the endless articles and see a winning coach?

I hope he does well up North.

Then perhaps he can do interviews when he finally wins something.

This post is so indicative of modern attitudes to football.  Johnson may have saved us from relegation and built a side that was good enough to challenge for promotion and get to the League Cup semifinal, but he didn’t actually win anything so he is a failure and not entitled even to have a point of view.  How desperately sad.  Every year how many teams win anything?  Three domestic cups, four championships, another seven teams promoted.  So fourteen successes in the domestic season and therefore presumably, by your reasoning, 78 managerial failures.  14 winning managers; 78 losing managers.  At least the present administration at City can see beyond this depressing short-termism, and understand the potential benefits of the longer game.  But while more and more the cry goes out that anything except winning equals failure, then I’m afraid the game will continue to get more and more turbulent.  And a lot of fans are going to be very disappointed at the end of each season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Or it was done before he went to Sunderland...

Criticising LJ for not mentioning a club he hadn’t even joined yet is a new angle! 

Good grief! Where does it say that it was? He mentions Sunderland at the bottom...that’s probably why it sounds odd. 
I did also say was it a rehash of an old interview...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

...and for me that’s where it falls down.  Combination of mixed talent id together with a flaw in what system they are recruiting towards.  For me the blueprint had been set, 442-narrow, sum of the parts type stuff.  I’m not saying replacing Bryan, Reid and Flint was easy, but using a portion £20m+ gives you a good chance.

There was more than enough quality here, but the failure to define the system is one of the big issues imho.

Webster, he didn’t, but he had Baker, Kalas (now perm), Wright, Moore (future proof signing from 16/17).  The fact that he then went back 3 left him short, but that’s where I think recruiting to a system fell over.

Wells signed but for what system.

Good post Dave! :)

I've kept some of the bigger part of it for me. No clear style and philosophy that we want to follow on the pitch and as a result less to aim for regarding our recruitment. Wells a prime example of a good player but one we did not need. 

Equally I agree it's naïve to just blame Ashton for this, but I'd like to see some sort of football philosophy developed from the top and I do hold Ashton as particularly accountable for that. I have wondered whether it'd be in the clubs interest (and if it would be possible) to bring someone in at that level alongside Ashton to help create that philosophy for us to follow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But you’ll know as well as anyone Rob, that if the recruitment team (and I don’t JUST mean Mark Ashton) was good they’d have recruited as well as the less high-tech recruitment team that took place under SoD and Cotts...albeit with Keith Burt’s keen eye.  SOD did some great stuff on a limited budget, whilst trying to get rid of the dead wood.  Cotts had the same total budget as SOD but had a bit of freedom, because the dead wood was gone.  But he too had to sell his top scorer to balance the books.  I always dislike the “Cotts just bought the best players in Lg1” claim.  He bought good players, but in the main he bought good, young players who could grow with the club.  He bought young as wages would be less too.  How many other managers in Lg1 at the time we bullying other sides in the transfer market and didn’t win the title....Preston, Swindon, Sheffield Utd (wasn’t until Wilder took over), MK Dons, etc.  It was a very competitive Lg1 in 14/15 looking back.

The worrying thing for me was the comment about 17/18 being his best shot.  It’s almost as if the breaking up of the Lg1 squad built by SOD and Cotts was an admission he couldn’t improve it.  I know that sounds churlish, but you’d think a bright manager like LJ would be able to use those funds and “go again”.

...and for me that’s where it falls down.  Combination of mixed talent id together with a flaw in what system they are recruiting towards.  For me the blueprint had been set, 442-narrow, sum of the parts type stuff.  I’m not saying replacing Bryan, Reid and Flint was easy, but using a portion £20m+ gives you a good chance.

Eliasson and Walsh had been brought in during 17/18 as forward planning.  You could argue that Baker was too, with Flint up in the air about leaving.  In fact Baker and Wright / Hegeler started the 17/18 season.

In 18/19 he bought Webster, Weimann, Hunt....but also Watkins, Adelakun, Eisa then Dasilva followed by Kalas then Palmer on loan.

There was more than enough quality here, but the failure to define the system is one of the big issues imho.

Webster, he didn’t, but he had Baker, Kalas (now perm), Wright, Moore (future proof signing from 16/17).  The fact that he then went back 3 left him short, but that’s where I think recruiting to a system fell over.

Pack - Nagy (future proofed by Massengo)

Reid - Weimann

Brownhill - Henriksen

Whether they are better is back to recruitment.  Selling Pack, a man you’d built the team and style around was stupid.  Again where was the planning?  Especially with Korey Smith injured.  Walsh, shouldn’t he be ready by last season.  Ideally Pack stays whilst Nagy and Massengo integrate.

I think when we do this type of exercise we fall into the trap of comparing players one to one....when you need to look at the other signings too.  O’Dowda has taken 3 years to put in some half-decent performances, Szmodics and Eisa, come and gone. Etc etc.  Wells signed but for what system.

If the strategy is to take young players, develop them, then you use the money you get, that £20m+ in the summer of 18, together with a manager with his feet firmly under the table and secure was the opportunity to rinse and repeat, gradually improving the squad so that each player loss was felt less because succession planning was top-notch.  What happened was players bought and not played

Instead we went backwards, and it cost Lee his job.

I refuse to blame it all on Mark Ashton, even though I think he’s a key part of it.  Recruitment is a team, not just operationally headed up by him, but a team that comprises the football head coach and assistants too.

Lee always said he picked the team as if it was his daughters life at stake.  I totally believe he took that incredibly seriously.  But I’m not convinced that the sane applied with bringing players in, it has been scattergun and carefree imho.

Do I think Lee was a crap head-coach? Nope, but I think there were things he should’ve done better.  His part in the recruitment and its strategy being one of them.

I agree with that Dave...I think our approach to recruiting like you say is scatter gun.

I said in another post, that we recruit players with talent, and then try to coach them into positions we need, rather than playing to their strengths. Square pegs in round hole syndrome. The majority good players in their own right, but less effective if put in positions or systems that don't bring out the best of their abilities. In fact it can be said with a few it has brought out their weaknesses.

I get the impression that with many we've brought in, our system of recruitment looked at their potential resale value. Undervalued talented rough diamonds, that with coaching can increase in value. That has happened, but in some cases to the detriment of a players natural talent.

We don't recruit for players to fit a system.

We buy players who are talented and try to coach them into playing our system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

That was integral part of why he was appointed.. His remit set out under SL’s  ‘sustainability’ plan. Previous managers - SC in particular failed to implement.

A ‘cake and eat it’ policy...................:cool2:

I wonder if Deano is under the remit?

I'd be interested in why you think SC's time here was less sustainable than Lee's? And in what way he had his cake and ate it?

I'm pretty sure the first year we sold Baldock which covered most of the incomings (Freeman, Ayling, Korey Smitth - not a bad group!)

Second year we got Kodjia who was one of the first of our big money sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

I agree with that Dave...I think our approach to recruiting like you say is scatter gun.

I said in another post, that we recruit players with talent, and then try to coach them into positions we need, rather than playing to their strengths. Square pegs in round hole syndrome. The majority good players in their own right, but less effective if put in positions or systems that don't bring out the best of their abilities. In fact it can be said with a few it has brought out their weaknesses.

I get the impression that with many we've brought in, our system of recruitment looked at their potential resale value. Undervalued talented rough diamonds, that with coaching can increase in value. That has happened, but in some cases to the detriment of a players natural talent.

We don't recruit for players to fit a system.

We buy players who are talented and try to coach them into playing our system.

Good post as always Spudski. However I’d question  the last two sentences.

Firstly - do City have a system? I’m not referring to the recruitment system.
Secondly - how do City coach players into said system?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Good post as always Spudski. However I’d question  the last two sentences.

Firstly - do City have a system? I’m not referring to the recruitment system.
Secondly - how do City coach players into said system?

 

 

 

I haven't a clue Robbo...it all looks made up since the 2017/18 season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

You do realise he was allowed to replace them handsomely... with players who were comparatively miles better at the same stage of their careers when they joined?

I’d argue against that tbh,

Kalas wasn’t better than Webster, but no doubt about handsomely for fee

Weimann isn’t as good as the Reid we saw in 17/18

kelly - Dasilva was his competition at u21 for England so would say about level

brownhill - Henriksen? Stop gap at best and no where near as good, still haven’t replaced Brownhill.

kodjia - Abraham was already on loan that season, engvall was a late window punt or you say his funds were used next season for Famara who hasn’t come close to matching his season.

Pack - Nagy has only recently shown what he’s capable of, plus was league one when he joined so shows how much he developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Trueredsupporter said:

From a coach’s point of view, it really is key that you stick to your values and believe in the principles of play you have been promoting. Like his identity Its bollocks.

Its is key. The principles identify the identity of the team. Players are recruited with skill sets that fit the identity. Teams that get promoted have clear principles of play. A team that sell its stars and spend less and achieve more than BCFC is Brentford, a club displaying obvious values. 

Lee Johnson did none of that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CheddarReds said:

Good post Dave! :)

I've kept some of the bigger part of it for me. No clear style and philosophy that we want to follow on the pitch and as a result less to aim for regarding our recruitment. Wells a prime example of a good player but one we did not need. 

Equally I agree it's naïve to just blame Ashton for this, but I'd like to see some sort of football philosophy developed from the top and I do hold Ashton as particularly accountable for that. I have wondered whether it'd be in the clubs interest (and if it would be possible) to bring someone in at that level alongside Ashton to help create that philosophy for us to follow. 

I think the missing link is a “football man” in that role you suggest.  I’ve no doubts about MA’s footballing operations and administration skills, but I think there is a lack of expertise and experience in recruitment from a pure footballing viewpoint.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22437591

Keith Burt ahead of that great season

18 minutes ago, spudski said:

I agree with that Dave...I think our approach to recruiting like you say is scatter gun.

I said in another post, that we recruit players with talent, and then try to coach them into positions we need, rather than playing to their strengths. Square pegs in round hole syndrome. The majority good players in their own right, but less effective if put in positions or systems that don't bring out the best of their abilities. In fact it can be said with a few it has brought out their weaknesses.

I get the impression that with many we've brought in, our system of recruitment looked at their potential resale value. Undervalued talented rough diamonds, that with coaching can increase in value. That has happened, but in some cases to the detriment of a players natural talent.

We don't recruit for players to fit a system.

We buy players who are talented and try to coach them into playing our system.

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

This post is so indicative of modern attitudes to football.  Johnson may have saved us from relegation and built a side that was good enough to challenge for promotion and get to the League Cup semifinal, but he didn’t actually win anything so he is a failure and not entitled even to have a point of view.  How desperately sad.  Every year how many teams win anything?  Three domestic cups, four championships, another seven teams promoted.  So fourteen successes in the domestic season and therefore presumably, by your reasoning, 78 managerial failures.  14 winning managers; 78 losing managers.  At least the present administration at City can see beyond this depressing short-termism, and understand the potential benefits of the longer game.  But while more and more the cry goes out that anything except winning equals failure, then I’m afraid the game will continue to get more and more turbulent.  And a lot of fans are going to be very disappointed at the end of each season.

Absolutely spot on.  The entitled modern fan.

Anyone who says that, overall, LJ’s tenure was not a success doesn’t really know what they are talking about.  

Continually improved our league position whilst improving players, selling for profit and sold players being replaced by inferior players. 

Yes it all fell apart at the end but overall it’s pretty clear it was a success.  

I do think the way he talks rubs people up the wrong way and that clouds judgment somewhat.  Some fans did praise through gritted teeth if they praised at all. 

I love listening to him. Listened to every interview he did in full and every press conference.  Rarely listen to Holden as he bores me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I’d argue against that tbh,

Kalas wasn’t better than Webster, but no doubt about handsomely for fee

Agreed

Weimann isn’t as good as the Reid we saw in 17/18

But we have had a few shots at young strikers - that's recruitment/identification issues more than no opportunity to replace in my opinion.

kelly - Dasilva was his competition at u21 for England so would say about level

Agreed

brownhill - Henriksen? Stop gap at best and no where near as good, still haven’t replaced Brownhill.

Massengo? If you compare them at a similar age - maybe we don't have a current Brownhill though... but are we going to be buying Championship / lower Prem players at the peak of their career? Of course not.

kodjia - Abraham was already on loan that season, engvall was a late window punt or you say his funds were used next season for Famara who hasn’t come close to matching his season.B

Again though you could argue the amount we've spent on strikers should mean we should have found a Kodjia quality replacement. We've tried some foreign (Fam, Engvall) some lower league (Eisa) and some Champ (Wells) - it's a recruitment issue again in my opinion.

Pack - Nagy has only recently shown what he’s capable of, plus was league one when he joined so shows how much he developed.

Some comments above - I think the issue is that we aren't going to buy top Champ / lower Prem quality players so we need a constant conveyor belt of replacements we've grown and older players we're looking after. There's a difference between not having the chance to replace an outgoing star, and having the chance but repeatedly getting it wrong... and I think we fit into the second category too often.

As people have said before though, who are those in the current squad? Who are our next 3 £8-10m+ players? Who would you instantly offer a 3 year contract to? Hard to think of many for me in those categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I’d argue against that tbh,

Kalas wasn’t better than Webster, but no doubt about handsomely for fee

Weimann isn’t as good as the Reid we saw in 17/18

kelly - Dasilva was his competition at u21 for England so would say about level

brownhill - Henriksen? Stop gap at best and no where near as good, still haven’t replaced Brownhill.

kodjia - Abraham was already on loan that season, engvall was a late window punt or you say his funds were used next season for Famara who hasn’t come close to matching his season.

Pack - Nagy has only recently shown what he’s capable of, plus was league one when he joined so shows how much he developed.

I think we have replaced brownhill in player type .he’s been bloody injured though since signing . 
agree with what others have said though. There’s no philosophy within the club in regards to playing style and recruitment . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, And Its Smith said:

Absolutely spot on.  The entitled modern fan.

Anyone who says that, overall, LJ’s tenure was not a success doesn’t really know what they are talking about.  

Continually improved our league position whilst improving players, selling for profit and sold players being replaced by inferior players. 

Yes it all fell apart at the end but overall it’s pretty clear it was a success.  

I do think the way he talks rubs people up the wrong way and that clouds judgment somewhat.  Some fans did praise through gritted teeth if they praised at all. 

I love listening to him. Listened to every interview he did in full and every press conference.  Rarely listen to Holden as he bores me. 

Could you outline what Mr Johnsons principles of play were?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I'd be interested in why you think SC's time here was less sustainable than Lee's? And in what way he had his cake and ate it?

I'm pretty sure the first year we sold Baldock which covered most of the incomings (Freeman, Ayling, Korey Smitth - not a bad group!)

Second year we got Kodjia who was one of the first of our big money sales.

We’ve been here before Nick..............:cool2:.

SC went to SL asking for funds to buy a striker saying ‘ I’ve got all I can out of this squad’........that was the final nail - a great contradiction of SLs remit which led to his dismissal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Some comments above - I think the issue is that we aren't going to buy top Champ / lower Prem quality players so we need a constant conveyor belt of replacements we've grown and older players we're looking after. There's a difference between not having the chance to replace an outgoing star, and having the chance but repeatedly getting it wrong... and I think we fit into the second category too often.

As people have said before though, who are those in the current squad? Who are our next 3 £8-10m+ players? Who would you instantly offer a 3 year contract to? Hard to think of many for me in those categories.

I said Weimann specifically as he was the Bobby replacement, the one who could press while contributing goals, just he wasn’t as good as Bobby in 17/18 so contention with Fordy’s point on recruiting better at same stage for large sum of money (£2m on a £9m sale)

Didn’t really count Massengo as he was already at the club unless you go with the argument that we knew we couldn’t keep Brownhill for more than 12 months so bought ahead but even then HNM had what 3 Monaco appearances and limited to academy games so hard to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

We’ve been here before Nick..............:cool2:.

SC went to SL asking for funds to buy a striker saying ‘ I’ve got all I can out of this squad’........that was the final nail - a great contradiction of SLs remit which led to his dismissal.

I assume you have proof of this from an official source rather than just spreading speculation ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, And Its Smith said:

Why do you want me to do that ?

Because you have stated its pretty clear that Mr Johnson time here was a success. You imply others don not know what they are talking about. You do? So you should be able to explain what the principles of Mr Johnsons football were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think the missing link is a “football man” in that role you suggest.  I’ve no doubts about MA’s footballing operations and administration skills, but I think there is a lack of expertise and experience in recruitment from a pure footballing viewpoint.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22437591

Keith Burt ahead of that great season

Correct.

Thanks for posting this Dave - Never seen it before 

What a difference to Johnson’s talk 

Some seem impressed with Johnson’s ......ehmmmmm......’talk’

Burt isn’t quite so media friendly , but boy does he talk some sound sense in terms of building a side/squad, future planning , a recruitment plan to fit the managers preferred style

And SC and KB didn’t have a bad summer did they signed up / promoted Bryan Reid and Burns and then signed pieces of a jigsaw that demolished League 1

Burt May come across as a bit dour but comes across as quietly assured in his role and thinking , no ego , no bluff , no self selling

 

Johnson / Burt.(/SC).     Ying / Yang

 

Johnson a success here ?


The Era of Missed Opportunity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think the missing link is a “football man” in that role you suggest.  I’ve no doubts about MA’s footballing operations and administration skills, but I think there is a lack of expertise and experience in recruitment from a pure footballing viewpoint.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22437591

Keith Burt ahead of that great season

Correct.

God that’s so much nicer to listen to vs MA’s ponds and lakes and let me be clears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Oh well.......kinda neutralised the points you posted earlier tho..........:dunno:

Well depends how you look at it...where as we had a system that was noticeable in 2017/18 under LJ, in the same way you can look at say Brentford and see it...since, it's been make do and mend, trial and error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

We’ve been here before Nick..............:cool2:.

SC went to SL asking for funds to buy a striker saying ‘ I’ve got all I can out of this squad’........that was the final nail - a great contradiction of SLs remit which led to his dismissal.

That sounds rather revisionist to me. To be expected from someone who always trusts OTIB gossip though ;)

5 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I said Weimann specifically as he was the Bobby replacement, the one who could press while contributing goals, just he wasn’t as good as Bobby in 17/18 so contention with Fordy’s point on recruiting better at same stage for large sum of money (£2m on a £9m sale)

Didn’t really count Massengo as he was already at the club unless you go with the argument that we knew we couldn’t keep Brownhill for more than 12 months so bought ahead but even then HNM had what 3 Monaco appearances and limited to academy games so hard to say.

Yeah that's fair. I think what he meant though is that we won't sell player X and then buy an instant replacement, we'll buy a player who has the potential to be better - or in other words is better than player X was at the same age/experience.

Whether that replacement is good enough or not is another question - but that comes down to recruitment rather than opportunity to me. If you buy a replacement at the same level that's not so hard but expensive. The further on the "potential" side of the potential ability - current ability scale it gets harder to do, which is perhaps where we're going wrong. 

Overall I think our coaches are given reasonable opportunity to replace sold players if you look at our expenditure and wage budget, I just don't think it's really being used as effectively as it perhaps could be. How much of that is down to them I have no idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Because you have stated its pretty clear that Mr Johnson time here was a success. You imply others don not know what they are talking about. You do? So you should be able to explain what the principles of Mr Johnsons football were. 

I have outlined what he achieved which is what makes it a successful tenure.  His style of play clearly changed throughout his time here.  

Not really sure why his principles are relevant.  He was successful 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, And Its Smith said:

I have outlined what he achieved which is what makes it a successful tenure.  His style of play clearly changed throughout his time here.  

Not really sure why his principles are relevant.  He was successful 

A style of play is not a principle. A changing style of play certainly is not one. Mr Johnson said playing principles were beyond relevant, they were key. Mr Johnson stated that he wanted to create a playing identity throughout the club. You could not outline one principle of play. Mr Johnson did not put into place these key playing principles and an identity throughout the club. Average placing was eleventh/twelfth but failed to meet his own aims. Brentford have progressed further. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Could you outline what Mr Johnsons principles of play were?

 

 

Not sure whether you call it principle or style but what I saw for two years before his departure followed by this season (although the first and last twenty minutes on Saturday was a welcome deviation) was a team wholly built around counter attacking both home and away.

There is an argument to say league position achieved was fairly successful but I cannot subscribe to the view that watching two whole years of football where game after game, particularly at Ashton Gate, the opposition keepers gloves were as clean at five to five as they were at three o’clock can be viewed as successful!!

In fact, paying good money for a season ticket then watching us set up at home as the away team against all but the very weakest opposition in the league might be viewed by many as bloody painful not successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A style of play is not a principle. A changing style of play certainly is not one. Mr Johnson said playing principles were beyond relevant, they were key. Mr Johnson stated that he wanted to create a playing identity throughout the club. You could not outline one principle of play. Mr Johnson did not put into place these key playing principles and an identity throughout the club. Average placing was eleventh/twelfth but failed to meet his own aims. Brentford have progressed further. 

 

So because Brentford have progressed further that makes Johnson a failure ? Can’t agree at all.

i judge what was achieved and what parameters were set. You can talk principles until the cows come home if you want. 

To improve league positions and improve players and turn a profit is impressive work

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...