Jump to content
IGNORED

Mark Ashton's full interview with the BP


DaveF

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Shift the blame? It's not like Morrell has gone on to do anything special that we are missing out on? I read the comment that it was the managers choice to let him go (as it should be), no blame needs to be apportioned on this.

He can't win can he? If he chooses to sell a player then he's seen as some sort of evil overlord stitching the manager up by selling our best players, if he leaves it to the manager to make decisions then he's seen as shifting the blame or throwing the manager under the bus?

Totally agree with you. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Why do so many on here think they no better? It's not as if there's a crisis at the Gate! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

It sounds like Holden really likes Walsh. Williams and Brunt he brought in.

Definitely the first two...think Brunt was just a weird signing as a player.  I would’ve understood Player-Coach for example.

Bakinson he couldn't stop talking about in preseason and played him in front of Brunt.

indeed he did, but even Massengo started the season ahead of “T”....that’s how things change quickly in football.

Maybe he would have fancied Morrell above Nagy?

yep.

And most probably above Massengo who Holden rarely plays.

Holden probably likes Vyner in midfield too now. Done very well imo, except Norwich where him and Nagy had too much to do.

3 games for Vyner, 1 really good, one poor (in a poor team performance) one efficient one yesterday.  I don’t lay the blame for our midfield on Palmer and Adelakun, it’s a team game.  Lots of issues all-over.

Of course there are also Weimann, O'Dowda and Paterson in the box to box roles too earlier in the season where we just played with one proper midfielder.

I think LJ could have given Morrell more of a chance, but I think Ashton has just done what the head coach and player wants here. We had far too many midfielders.

I’m not sure that’s got much stock seeing as the fact was that LJ didn’t play him when he was in charge!!!  We heard Joe’s dad’s interview on OSIB, it wasn’t complimentary of LJ was it!

Based on what appears to have been sensible conversations between player and club, I think the right decision was made from both sides....at the time. 

Well if Holden himself told Ashton we can let him go and used Morton coming through as one of the reasons, then that surely means he must think Morton will make it with us.

Totally, they must have that confidence, but I guess that Joe was more about the here and now, and as you say he’d fallen down a pecking order where possession of the shirt seems a key principle.

⬆️⬆️⬆️

13 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Shift the blame? It's not like Morrell has gone on to do anything special that we are missing out on? I read the comment that it was the managers choice to let him go (as it should be), no blame needs to be apportioned on this.

He can't win can he? If he chooses to sell a player then he's seen as some sort of evil overlord stitching the manager up by selling our best players, if he leaves it to the manager to make decisions then he's seen as shifting the blame or throwing the manager under the bus?

Agree, this is a no blame situation.  Sensible conversations between player and club.  There doesn’t need to be some hidden agenda / blame.  All very amicable as Joe’s dad told us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Harry

As you tagged me in , as we have been part of the ongoing debate about Ashton and recruitment , I promised you my thoughts post his interview with McGregor and so here they are

Apologies in advance as they are fairly long and only home in on the broad aspects (There are so many subjects within it) and important areas for me It’s a few years since I wrote , let alone typed anything this long - So I hope it makes sense , even if you disagree

 

I’m going to stick mainly with recruitment although I think they are also revealing for three persons  - Mark Ashton , Steve Lansdown and Dean Holden, and to some degree you can add Lee Johnson

Firstly , dealing with the man himself , my view hasn’t changed much about MA since the interview 

I’ve listened carefully to all that he says since he arrived , and witnessed him speaking at length a couple,of times at , and post, fan forums etc  , and this is my personal opinion , based on life (person) experience and a lover and student of the game for 50+ years.

 

My views are based on the premise that he’s not told any direct lies that reflect directly on others , in the interview, and I work on the premise that if he has directly lied about Steve Lansdown or Dean Holden , then this will unravel fairly quickly, and to date there is no (Despite some claims) evidence , current or historically that he has done so regarding the Interview content.

I don’t think MA is a liar , a ‘smoother over’ in some areas maybe

I’d point out for all the bits of nit picking , you have to say , and I’ve heard him speak in person at length , and certainly about the recruitment process , for example , that at least he’s been entirely consistent in his base claims

Hes not my sort of person , very adapt at selling anything he does right,  and very much the company man (I’ll come back to that) , some may label him a smooth operator , many others a bull***r (I think there’s a mix of both and I’d say more of a self promoter & glosser than a bull****r). I do think he has attributes and is probably the ideal character , and now has a fair amount of experience , to deal with the world of agents and player trading from a salesman / buyer / administrative / negotiator role)

 

Just jumping aside a moment to Steve Lansdown , who ultimately is the presiding influence.

It’s difficult to argue that Steve Lansdown as the owner , and the one who covers our sizeable annual debts has every right to dictate the Club policy / buisness plan / ethos (There is a forever argument of course that it’s not ‘his Club’ and that he is just the current custodian and the Club belongs as much to fans , many of whom who have been supporting the club with their feet and £££ for decades, and way before Steve Lansdown changed his allegiance in the City)

What is clear from the interview , and merely an affirmation really, as we have heard this repeated for some years now , is that SL wants the club to be sustainable and thus there is a buy / develop / sell core policy.

To run a football Club successfully as a business , and a success on the pitch is a massive task , and to a large degree two aims that clash head on (There is a good argument that getting promoted to the riches of the promised land and then working that situation to its efficient maximum is as close as you will get) 

Having a sustained plan (Though it misses a crucial part ) is at least positive, but even to succeed just as a ‘business’ (£££) perspective with the Recruit / develop / sell philosophy requires an Excellent Recruitment Team / Network and/ or an Excellent Coaching Team to develop those players , not poor , ok , or even decent , - Excellent 

 

Get one at Excellent Level and the business aspect may still nudge positive , to succeed in the business aspect whilst succeeding on the pitch you need both to be Excellent or above IMHO

From a business perspective I’d suggest that the Recruitment standard is more important than the coaching if you had to prioritise one , with success on the field 60/40 Recruitment / Coaching if that is your priority.

 

 

So we home in on once again -  recruitment.

It’s been an endless debate , understandably , and rightly on here for several years.

 

Firstly , as has been discussed in another thread recruitment (Players and Coaches) should be based on a playing philosophy.

 

We haven’t had a playing philosophy since SC left and MA and LJ arrived.

So what are you recruiting for / to ? 

The failure of SL / MA to Identity and formalise such a philosipophy possibly the biggest mistake to date IMHO  - fundamental if SLs plan has any real hope or legs

 

(One could argue , that it doesn’t affect the profitability chance as if the recruitment’s right the player will naturally develop and increase in value anyway , whatever system we are playing at a particular moment. 

That may be true to some degree , in some , or the best players , but you certainly hampering the process and reducing your odds , or effectiveness, playing them out of position or part of an ever changing system or playing plan)

My view is that as an over all a lot of the recruitment has been poorish to average , with the odd exceptions , both in terms of quality of player , but particularly in the numbers and scattergun approach , unmatched with any playing style (As for numbers alone  - Players are neither going to develop or increase in value if they arn’t playing regularly or disgruntled)

If that is correct (That as a complete overall review , recruitment is average or on the poorer side of average) then simply Mark Ashton as the head of recruitment and ahead of Football Operations  has performed poorly to average in this aspect , and in simplistic terms this is reflected in the accounts as well as our current squad value and performance levels on the pitch.

 

However , my criticism of Mark Ashton in this role is different to yours and twofold.

(I will say straightaway that I do not accept or believe , and never have done , that Mark Ashton chooses who we sign , nor do I believe that he provides a fait accompli list from which the Head Coach reluctantly picks a target.)

Firstly , the management / control on the Head Coaches wants and whims.

Some may disagree , but I see this is absolutely where MA (In his role and reality on behalf of the owner ) should ‘Stick his nose in’ on occasions

Why do we need another No 10, we have two ?

Why do we need another left back ?

Where do you see him fitting in ?

What’s the plan with player B then ?

What playing plan are we working to ?  (Although, as said having to ask the question a failure in itself)

 

If this is ‘interfering’  then , personally I want him to interfere 

 

 

Certainly under LJ I think it’s abundantly clear that MA kept little control over much of these above questions , and LJ culpable for not driving those decisive decisions himself , merely gathering Club in the bag , after club in the bag , to play with ever changing formations and plans.

If SL trusts and rates MA he should back him in his management and if the Head Coach doesn’t like the questions then SL should be backing his Head Of Football Operations and not the Head Coach . 

If he doesn’t rate him or trust his decisions , simply , he should get rid of him.

My personal view of the Ashton era to date is that LJs ‘sponsorship’ by SL may clouded what should have been the roles thus far and affected MAs ‘management’ of LJs wishes and whims. I’m not sure DH will be afforded the same backing or patience in decisions from SL that LJ will have done.

That said MA’s responsibility is to do his job to the maximum and stay strong in his beliefs and speak ‘against the flow’ if necessary and if he believes the decision is wrong , and importantly , be able to explain to the owner and Head Coach why he believes so.

It is difficult from afar to judge whether MA failed to manage LJs wishes and whims through poor management or whether he ‘ran with the flow’ to keep himself out of conflict (Culpable if so) or whether his Supervision / management was undermined on occasions.

 

Many will understandably argue that on a wage of something like £500k p.a they would keep their head down , be the company man , endorsing the owner and paymasters every word, and avoiding and ducking conflict or criticism.

I personally don’t and professionally was always prepared to stick my head above the parapet , often at personal cost. 

 

Interestingly in this interview and possibly for the first time MA goes deeper into transfer dealings (Williams , Smith , Morrell , Palmer ) and the thoughts behind them , under DH than he ever did under LJ.

He omits, as somebody has highlighted ,  to mention why we recruited Sammie and Palmer in the same window and why he allowed it

What he does do (Unless you accuse him of straightforward lies) is explain the rationale behind for example the selling of Morrell , release of Smith and tied into the recruitment of Williams and belief in Walsh , and puts those wishes firmly at Dean Holdens door)

I’ll leave alone any debate over whether Dean Holdens decision regarding those individuals are the right ones , but I think most would accept and be reassured that there was at least a thought process , right or wrong.

 

By these revelations it suggests or reaffirms again that the HC does have the final say and again in this instance has been backed by himself and ultimately SL in his (Holdens decisions)

 

As a final foot note , I prefer this transparency .

I said / posted back , shortly after Smith and Morrell departure , he (Holden) was clearly unafraid to make a decision , even what may be regarded as a brave or bold one , and maybe unpopular.

I’m pleased that Holden has a view , a midfield plan at least , and that we know whose decisions these were and why.

At least now we can judge long term his decisions and whether he was wrong or right and he can expect he plaudits or criticism . 

(Only time will reveal whether they were good decisions or otherwise but I do find it strange that one of the key parts of his plan was a player who it appears is OOC in May and with no sign to date that he’s signing a new contract)

 

The interview also reveals some cracks (Palmer etc) in some at least , of LJs decisions in recruitment ......and his own failure to keep a control of it

You may say it suits his agenda , but all the examples of player trading he gave reinforce the consistent claim that the a head Coach has , basically , the final say on ins and outs.

I say ‘basically’ because there are of course , and absolutely understandably in my opinion , times when the Head Coach doesn’t get a ‘final say’

Times , as I’ve alluded to above , where he’s told ‘no you can’t have Player A’

(It’s not been justified / too expensive etc etc) 

Surely everyone of us would understand and expect that ?

 

Likewise there may be odd an occasion or occasions where the Head Coach may be overruled re an outgoing

Discipline / misconduct of player  is an obvious one

But more the scenario Club X offer , let’s hypothetically say £10 million  for Semenyo this week  - Dean is consulted and wants to keep the player , Club X increase their offer to £15 million but Dean still wants to keep but MA advises SL that £15m is a ridiculously good bid in the current and forseeable market

Should SL or MA (On behalf of SL) not overrule the HC on such an occasion and sell ? 

(Especially as , Ultimately the HC is then the benefit recipient of a pot to replace Semenyo and other positions a la Johnson with the sale of Webster)

If your recruitment process is good and the HC a good judge of a player , you should grow and prosper on the pitch and in the accounts.

 

Moving onto  the management , and ultimate responsibility of a recruitment team and contacts that are identifying potential signings. 

Some on here still seem to think that players are bought and then handed to Head Coach (I maintain nonsense) or as somebody has already suggested on this thread that the HC is provided a list of targets for said position and has to choose from that list (I maintain complete nonsense).

The message about the process has been consistently clear , and that’s from public explanations and conversations with those involved post forums etc

The recruitment team , under MA identify and analyse potential targets

Head Coach also has choice to identify , from eyes or data potential targets (A la Eliasson with LJ) - Player then subject to additional analysis by analysts 

These potential targets are continually discussed / reviewed , by all relevant parties , including the Head Coach (LJ also made it clear on a number of occasions he heavily involved and sought the opinion of his assistant coaches)

Some may drop of the list , - drop off in performance / too expensive / availability etc and others will likewise be added 

(Do I have confidence in the quality and abilities  of the analysts / recruitment team - No.  Leaving a lot of responsibility on the HC’s judgement of a player)

At the point the HC wishes to sign , say a left back (Again I go back to - should be able to justify why) the current list is then reviewed 

None of those will be a surprise to the head coach and will have been discussed and reviewed through the process. head Coach indicates his preference and Ashton tries to progress it , if too expensive , unavailable , intent on going elsewhere the decision goes back to Head Coach progress choice B or leave it for now.

(Any Head Coach signing Choice B although he thinks he’s not right , not up to the job etc shouldn’t be in the job in the first place and sometimes you have to hang fire and wait for the right ones (Klopp - VanDyke)

Anyone who has any actual evidence , rather than belief or gossip , that this is not the case I’d be interested to hear 

I’d expect Dean Holden for one to pretty quickly speak up if MAs account of Morrell / Williams / Smith / Palmer are lies 

Thise who are actively looking to criticise him have already jumped on the odd word or phrase such as ‘I brought him in (Palmer) claiming it proves that Palmer was his choice rather than he conducted the deal , despite making it clear in the interview Palmer was Johnson’s choice 

 

The success or otherwise of recruitment is subjective and opinion but well analysed IMHO by @Davefevs recently.

 

If you see poor or disappointing performance in recruitment you lay that solely at MAs door , or as I do ,

at MAs door for poor overall management and

just as firmly at the Head Coaches Door (.........Step forward Lee Johnson)

 

There are of course a multitude of subjects in this interview  but I’m going to leave my post and thoughts there , at Ashton and recruitment for now as my post is long enough - The other subjects injuries etc etc can be discussed seperately 

As I said , I’m not a great fan of Ashton , his glossing over his own responsibility and decisions , and the results of his management of Lee Johnson’s whims and wishes as well as the other matters such as the medical teams and Club communication .

What his absolute priority should be is to drum into SL , and quickly (if SL is insistent about his plan) how important it is that we identify a playing philosophy and recruit Head Coaches and players to that philosophy.

The recruitment team and network needs (IMHO) a major overhaul to give the HC the best possible chance

Dean Holden the right HC ? 

I’m not sure , or convinced  - I like the fact that he at least made some recruitment / offloading decisions , as revealed in this interview , but I will personally also be partly judging him on those , and those sort of decisions.

 

 

No doubt Harry , you and others will disagree with a fair bit of my post but all the evidence to date , as well as my instinct based on all the pieces of the jigsaw over the last few years , tells me the above 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

@Harry

As you tagged me in , as we have been part of the ongoing debate about Ashton and recruitment , I promised you my thoughts post his interview with McGregor and so here they are

Apologies in advance as they are fairly long and only home in on the broad aspects (There are so many subjects within it) and important areas for me It’s a few years since I wrote , let alone typed anything this long - So I hope it makes sense , even if you disagree

 

I’m going to stick mainly with recruitment although I think they are also revealing for three persons  - Mark Ashton , Steve Lansdown and Dean Holden, and to some degree you can add Lee Johnson

Firstly , dealing with the man himself , my view hasn’t changed much about MA since the interview 

I’ve listened carefully to all that he says since he arrived , and witnessed him speaking at length a couple,of times at , and post, fan forums etc  , and this is my personal opinion , based on life (person) experience and a lover and student of the game for 50+ years.

 

My views are based on the premise that he’s not told any direct lies that reflect directly on others , in the interview, and I work on the premise that if he has directly lied about Steve Lansdown or Dean Holden , then this will unravel fairly quickly, and to date there is no (Despite some claims) evidence , current or historically that he has done so regarding the Interview content.

I don’t think MA is a liar , a ‘smoother over’ in some areas maybe

I’d point out for all the bits of nit picking , you have to say , and I’ve heard him speak in person at length , and certainly about the recruitment process , for example , that at least he’s been entirely consistent in his base claims

Hes not my sort of person , very adapt at selling anything he does right,  and very much the company man (I’ll come back to that) , some may label him a smooth operator , many others a bull***r (I think there’s a mix of both and I’d say more of a self promoter & glosser than a bull****r). I do think he has attributes and is probably the ideal character , and now has a fair amount of experience , to deal with the world of agents and player trading from a salesman / buyer / administrative / negotiator role)

 

Just jumping aside a moment to Steve Lansdown , who ultimately is the presiding influence.

It’s difficult to argue that Steve Lansdown as the owner , and the one who covers our sizeable annual debts has every right to dictate the Club policy / buisness plan / ethos (There is a forever argument of course that it’s not ‘his Club’ and that he is just the current custodian and the Club belongs as much to fans , many of whom who have been supporting the club with their feet and £££ for decades, and way before Steve Lansdown changed his allegiance in the City)

What is clear from the interview , and merely an affirmation really, as we have heard this repeated for some years now , is that SL wants the club to be sustainable and thus there is a buy / develop / sell core policy.

To run a football Club successfully as a business , and a success on the pitch is a massive task , and to a large degree two aims that clash head on (There is a good argument that getting promoted to the riches of the promised land and then working that situation to its efficient maximum is as close as you will get) 

Having a sustained plan (Though it misses a crucial part ) is at least positive, but even to succeed just as a ‘business’ (£££) perspective with the Recruit / develop / sell philosophy requires an Excellent Recruitment Team / Network and/ or an Excellent Coaching Team to develop those players , not poor , ok , or even decent , - Excellent 

 

Get one at Excellent Level and the business aspect may still nudge positive , to succeed in the business aspect whilst succeeding on the pitch you need both to be Excellent or above IMHO

From a business perspective I’d suggest that the Recruitment standard is more important than the coaching if you had to prioritise one , with success on the field 60/40 Recruitment / Coaching if that is your priority.

 

 

So we home in on once again -  recruitment.

It’s been an endless debate , understandably , and rightly on here for several years.

 

Firstly , as has been discussed in another thread recruitment (Players and Coaches) should be based on a playing philosophy.

 

We haven’t had a playing philosophy since SC left and MA and LJ arrived.

So what are you recruiting for / to ? 

 

(One could argue , that it doesn’t affect the profitability chance as if the recruitment’s right the player will naturally develop and increase in value anyway , whatever system we are playing at a particular moment. 

That may be true to some degree , in some , or the best players , but you certainly hampering the process and reducing your odds , or effectiveness, playing them out of position or part of an ever changing system or playing plan)

My view is that as an over all a lot of the recruitment has been poorish to average , with the odd exceptions , both in terms of quality of player , but particularly in the numbers and scattergun approach , unmatched with any playing style (As for numbers alone  - Players are neither going to develop or increase in value if they arn’t playing regularly or disgruntled)

If that is correct (That as a complete overall review , recruitment is average or on the poorer side of average) then simply Mark Ashton as the head of recruitment and ahead of Football Operations  has performed poorly to average in this aspect , and in simplistic terms this is reflected in the accounts as well as our current squad value and performance levels on the pitch.

 

However , my criticism of Mark Ashton in this role is different to yours and twofold.

(I will say straightaway that I do not accept or believe , and never have done , that Mark Ashton chooses who we sign , nor do I believe that he provides a fait accompli list from which the Head Coach reluctantly picks a target.)

Firstly , the management / control on the Head Coaches wants and whims.

Some may disagree , but I see this is absolutely where MA (In his role and reality on behalf of the owner ) should ‘Stick his nose in’ on occasions

Why do we need another No 10, we have two ?

Why do we need another left back ?

Where do you see him fitting in ?

What’s the plan with player B then ?

What playing plan are we working to ?  (Although, as said having to ask the question a failure in itself)

 

If this is ‘interfering’  then , personally I want him to interfere 

 

 

Certainly under LJ I think it’s abundantly clear that MA kept little control over much of these above questions , and LJ culpable for not driving those decisive decisions himself , merely gathering Club in the bag , after club in the bag , to play with ever changing formations and plans.

If SL trusts and rates MA he should back him in his management and if the Head Coach doesn’t like the questions then SL should be backing his Head Of Football Operations and not the Head Coach . 

If he doesn’t rate him or trust his decisions , simply , he should get rid of him.

My personal view of the Ashton era to date is that LJs ‘sponsorship’ by SL may clouded what should have been the roles thus far and affected MAs ‘management’ of LJs wishes and whims. I’m not sure DH will be afforded the same backing or patience in decisions from SL that LJ will have done.

That said MA’s responsibility is to do his job to the maximum and stay strong in his beliefs and speak ‘against the flow’ if necessary and if he believes the decision is wrong , and importantly , be able to explain to the owner and Head Coach why he believes so.

It is difficult from afar to judge whether MA failed to manage LJs wishes and whims through poor management or whether he ‘ran with the flow’ to keep himself out of conflict (Culpable if so) or whether his Supervision / management was undermined on occasions.

 

Many will understandably argue that on a wage of something like £500k p.a they would keep their head down , be the company man , endorsing the owner and paymasters every word, and avoiding and ducking conflict or criticism.

I personally don’t and professionally was always prepared to stick my head above the parapet , often at personal cost. 

 

Interestingly in this interview and possibly for the first time MA goes deeper into transfer dealings (Williams , Smith , Morrell , Palmer ) and the thoughts behind them , under DH than he ever did under LJ.

He omits, as somebody has highlighted ,  to mention why we recruited Sammie and Palmer in the same window and why he allowed it

What he does do (Unless you accuse him of straightforward lies) is explain the rationale behind for example the selling of Morrell , release of Smith and tied into the recruitment of Williams and belief in Walsh , and puts those wishes firmly at Dean Holdens door)

I’ll leave alone any debate over whether Dean Holdens decision regarding those individuals are the right ones , but I think most would accept and be reassured that there was at least a thought process , right or wrong.

 

By these revelations it suggests or reaffirms again that the HC does have the final say and again in this instance has been backed by himself and ultimately SL in his (Holdens decisions)

 

As a final foot note , I prefer this transparency .

I said / posted back , shortly after Smith and Morrell departure , he (Holden) was clearly unafraid to make a decision , even what may be regarded as a brave or bold one , and maybe unpopular.

I’m pleased that Holden has a view , a midfield plan at least , and that we know whose decisions these were and why.

At least now we can judge long term his decisions and whether he was wrong or right and he can expect he plaudits or criticism . 

(Only time will reveal whether they were good decisions or otherwise but I do find it strange that one of the key parts of his plan was a player who it appears is OOC in May and with no sign to date that he’s signing a new contract)

 

The interview also reveals some cracks (Palmer etc) in some at least , of LJs decisions in recruitment ......and his own failure to keep a control of it

You may say it suits his agenda , but all the examples of player trading he gave reinforce the consistent claim that the a head Coach has , basically , the final say on ins and outs.

I say ‘basically’ because there are of course , and absolutely understandably in my opinion , times when the Head Coach doesn’t get a ‘final say’

Times , as I’ve alluded to above , where he’s told ‘no you can’t have Player A’

(It’s not been justified / too expensive etc etc) 

Surely everyone of us would understand and expect that ?

 

Likewise there may be odd an occasion or occasions where the Head Coach may be overruled re an outgoing

Discipline / misconduct of player  is an obvious one

But more the scenario Club X offer , let’s hypothetically say £10 million  for Semenyo this week  - Dean is consulted and wants to keep the player , Club X increase their offer to £15 million but Dean still wants to keep but MA advises SL that £15m is a ridiculously good bid in the current and forseeable market

Should SL or MA (On behalf of SL) not overrule the HC on such an occasion and sell ? 

(Especially as , Ultimately the HC is then the benefit recipient of a pot to replace Semenyo and other positions a la Johnson with the sale of Webster)

If your recruitment process is good and the HC a good judge of a player , you should grow and prosper on the pitch and in the accounts.

 

Moving onto  the management , and ultimate responsibility of a recruitment team and contacts that are identifying potential signings. 

Some on here still seem to think that players are bought and then handed to Head Coach (I maintain nonsense) or as somebody has already suggested on this thread that the HC is provided a list of targets for said position and has to choose from that list (I maintain complete nonsense).

The message about the process has been consistently clear , and that’s from public explanations and conversations with those involved post forums etc

The recruitment team , under MA identify and analyse potential targets

Head Coach also has choice to identify , from eyes or data potential targets (A la Eliasson with LJ) - Player then subject to additional analysis by analysts 

These potential targets are continually discussed / reviewed , by all relevant parties , including the Head Coach (LJ also made it clear on a number of occasions he heavily involved and sought the opinion of his assistant coaches)

Some may drop of the list , - drop off in performance / too expensive / availability etc and others will likewise be added 

(Do I have confidence in the quality and abilities  of the analysts / recruitment team - No.  Leaving a lot of responsibility on the HC’s judgement of a player)

At the point the HC wishes to sign , say a left back (Again I go back to - should be able to justify why) the current list is then reviewed 

None of those will be a surprise to the head coach and will have been discussed and reviewed through the process. head Coach indicates his preference and Ashton tries to progress it , if too expensive , unavailable , intent on going elsewhere the decision goes back to Head Coach progress choice B or leave it for now.

(Any Head Coach signing Choice B although he thinks he’s not right , not up to the job etc shouldn’t be in the job in the first place and sometimes you have to hang fire and wait for the right ones (Klopp - VanDyke)

Anyone who has any actual evidence , rather than belief or gossip , that this is not the case I’d be interested to hear 

I’d expect Dean Holden for one to pretty quickly speak up if MAs account of Morrell / Williams / Smith / Palmer are lies 

Thise who are actively looking to criticise him have already jumped on the odd word or phrase such as ‘I brought him in (Palmer) claiming it proves that Palmer was his choice rather than he conducted the deal , despite making it clear in the interview Palmer was Johnson’s choice 

 

The success or otherwise of recruitment is subjective and opinion but well analysed IMHO by @Davefevs recently.

 

If you see poor or disappointing performance in recruitment you lay that solely at MAs door , or as I do ,

at MAs door for poor overall management and

just as firmly at the Head Coaches Door (.........Step forward Lee Johnson)

 

There are of course a multitude of subjects in this interview  but I’m going to leave my post and thoughts there , at Ashton and recruitment for now as my post is long enough - The other subjects injuries etc etc can be discussed seperately 

As I said , I’m not a great fan of Ashton , his glossing over his own responsibility and decisions , and the results of his management of Lee Johnson’s whims and wishes as well as the other matters such as the medical teams and Club communication .

What his absolute priority should be is to drum into SL , and quickly (if SL is insistent about his plan) how important it is that we identify a playing philosophy and recruit Head Coaches and players to that philosophy.

The recruitment team and network needs (IMHO) a major overhaul to give the HC the best possible chance

Dean Holden the right HC ? 

I’m not sure , or convinced  - I like the fact that he at least made some recruitment / offloading decisions , as revealed in this interview , but I will personally also be partly judging him on those , and those sort of decisions.

 

 

No doubt Harry , you and others will disagree with a fair bit of my post but all the evidence to date , as well as my instinct based on all the pieces of the jigsaw over the last few years , tells me the above 

I won’t go over all your post but it’s very well thought out. 
Ive been banging the drum about a defined playing philosophy for years now. The current club in the bag mentality is ridiculous and I can’t for the life of me understand how SL can’t see this. 
prime example , szmodics, Palmer being signed within a few weeks of each other to add to pato . Three no 10’s when we didn’t even play with a ten . Unbelievable really . So we signed those players not knowing how we going to fit them in . Baffling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Psychopomp said:

It is how those fees were spent that is essential. Loom at our current squad, look at what it will be this summer with the players out of contract. Look at our wage bill. Look at the value in that remaining squad, and finally look at how we play. If you cannot see the reality, then there is a very rude awakening coming. Ashton is a a disaster and a cancer, and needs removing asap. we are no longer as one as a club, we have lost our soul, we have lost our warmth and empathy. It is horrible to see, because even in some really dark days, we were still a club, we were still together. Today that is no longer true, and that was something that transcended league position. The love, the affinity, the passion and heart has been lost. That is the really sad part. The club now openly lies to the fans. We have two new stands, a shiny look, but over the last years we have lost our soul. That is really hard to take . We need someone to galvanise the club, get everyone on the same page and give some passion and heart back again. Look really hard at what Garry J and Steve C did , the players we signed, then ethos, how we played. These are recent examples, and both had big similarities. We have forgotten the two most successful managers of the last decades and how they achieved success. We are no longer united and there is doubt and scepticism and a total lack of belief and passion. 

I think you miss understood my post. I wasn't actually arguing that the fees were good - I replying to Harry  and saying that you could say $80m and it would be a fact, in the same way 6 of last 7 permanent transfer being over 30 is a fact. However both are misleading and do not represent the full picture and do not really show what is going on. I am not an Ashton fan and not trying to back him up here, just trying to point out to Harry why his 'fact' is at the very least disingenuously put together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Shift the blame? It's not like Morrell has gone on to do anything special that we are missing out on? I read the comment that it was the managers choice to let him go (as it should be), no blame needs to be apportioned on this.

He can't win can he? If he chooses to sell a player then he's seen as some sort of evil overlord stitching the manager up by selling our best players, if he leaves it to the manager to make decisions then he's seen as shifting the blame or throwing the manager under the bus?

Mark Ashton is there to oversee the incomings and outgoings, should he not have said that flogging JM and bringing in Brunt is seriously against our way of doing things and goes against what DH is there to do? 
 

He said that DH wanted to get rid of JM, then fair enough. Not a peep about replacing him with Brunt however, which is a valid issue. Even if Morrell hasn’t played much for Luton, we still would have seen far more of him than we would have Brunt, who isn’t even here anymore! 
 

Is part of MA’s job to bring in capable replacements for our outgoing players? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

Having a sustained plan (Though it misses a crucial part ) is at least positive, but even to succeed just as a ‘business’ (£££) perspective with the Recruit / develop / sell philosophy requires an Excellent Recruitment Team / Network and/ or an Excellent Coaching Team to develop those players , not poor , ok , or even decent , - Excellent 

- - - - - - 

Dean Holden the right HC ? 

 

Great post, the need for excellence in making that 'trading up' model work is a key observation.

For me Keith Burt and Cotts proved excellent in the task assigned to them in 2014/15...hard to imagine that they could have undertaken it better. The redevelopment of the stadium - without a move from its traditional home - has been excellent...the training ground looks excellent....

...but otherwise I'd consider very little about BCFC to have been 'excellent' in recent years. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the recruitment of Cotts successors, on whose footballing CVs even their greatest admirers would struggle to find anything 'excellent'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cowshed said:

What club are mirroring this Bristol City model? 

Modern coaching and development is governed by principles. These principles and its philosophies underpin a model of play. This model is present throughout the top levels of European football. Elements of this model are certainly present at the top levels of English football. 

Bristol City have a recruitment strategy that leads to the inexplicable why is the player going to play at all? How does this players skill set meet the team need now?

@Harry is making a factual point about over 30's. That recruitment point can be extended further? What model brings in frequently now seasoned pros and why? 

 

Okay this is fair, possibly we were cross purposes.

Possession yet pressing genuine 4-3-3, I'd like to have seen us go with that as a philosophy/goal, would have preferred it for a while now- ironically it's one of the shapes which LJ wasn't keen on but think we had and have quite a few players who are suited.

Wells on the left wouldn't be my idea of a well balanced 4-3-3 though, neither would players such as Brunt, O'Dwda Palmer be part of CM. Paterson and Weimann actually made some things work in CM, as part of a 3, but again, long run?

Utilising players such as, in alphabetical order, Hegeler (injuries too), Massengo (youth a factor), Nagy (injuries last year), Walsh (injuries past and present, and loan out) in anything other than a 3 didn't seem a smart use of resources to me.

I think all 4 have something in common...are or would have been best suited to a genuine CM 3. Could even argue a true 3rd man would have freed up Pack a bit more in 2018/19.

One that sticks out to me. Take the signing of Palmer. Palmer wouldn't fit into such a system IMO. He has skill of course but doesn't strike me as versatile enough, good enough out of possession, the sort that can pull left or drop into a central 3 in the necessary phases.

No club are mirroring our model (though I think a few might like to replicate the hefty transfer profits). I suppose my managerial point was that some old school guy given free reign in the transfer market might not cut it at decent levels these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marcofisher said:

Mark Ashton is there to oversee the incomings and outgoings, should he not have said that flogging JM and bringing in Brunt is seriously against our way of doing things and goes against what DH is there to do? 
 

He said that DH wanted to get rid of JM, then fair enough. Not a peep about replacing him with Brunt however, which is a valid issue. Even if Morrell hasn’t played much for Luton, we still would have seen far more of him than we would have Brunt, who isn’t even here anymore! 
 

Is part of MA’s job to bring in capable replacements for our outgoing players? 

The Brunt signing in hindsight has not worked out but at the time most people on here saw him as a Wade Elliott type signing that could provide a bit of experience and be a good influence around the dressing room as well as do a good job as a backup in a number of positions. He is at a different stage of his career to Morrell who needed to be playing regularly, I think it came down to either Walsh or Morrell for Holden and quite rightly Joe decided that if he wasn't going to be a regular here that he needed to move on for his own career.

 

My issue is the pre conception and agenda that fills this forum about him when things aren't going brilliantly on the pitch. If you look at where we are as a club now in comparison to when he came in we are light years ahead. The problem we have now is we have hit a bit of a ceiling which in my view is down to the sustainability model the club has adopted. That model has been determined by the Lansdowns and not him, as a club we can choose to move away from it and "go for it" I.e splash the cash but it's no guarantee of success and the risk is it backfires and we end up financially hamstrung back in League 1 as has happened to others, just look at the bottom end of the Championship this season and the number of big clubs littered in the league below. Or we stick with it maybe with a bit of refinement and hope we eventually get there. That decision will be Uncle Steve's and not MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

The failure of SL / MA to Identity and formalise such a philosipophy possibly the biggest mistake to date IMHO  - fundamental if SLs plan has any real hope or legs

 

(One could argue , that it doesn’t affect the profitability chance as if the recruitment’s right the player will naturally develop and increase in value anyway , whatever system we are playing at a particular moment. 

That may be true to some degree , in some , or the best players , but you certainly hampering the process and reducing your odds , or effectiveness, playing them out of position or part of an ever changing system or playing plan)

Great post, and I think this is key as to why the playing philosophy has to come first and be consistent at all times.

If you're a club who wants to buy, develop, sell then you have to ensure that the young players you're trying to develop will have opportunities to fully do so with you and not get randomly blocked shortly into their development.

If you don't have a defined philosophy you've recruited to and enforced (although of course it can be adapted) then it all falls apart in my opinion. You can't have head coach A recruiting some bright tricky wingers for 18 months, get fired, then coach B wants to play a longer ball without wingers, then 12 months later coach C wants a possession based team through the middle with a 10 behind a lone striker and recruits for that. Each time you change the coach in that situation your crop of players you're attempting to develop and sell lose opportunity and end up disappearing for far lower than their potential worth or get disillusioned and again want to leave. It can of course happen even for a single coach if the don't even have their own well defined ethos, let alone the overarching club one.

That's the reason I think it absolutely does affect the profitability of players and as such the entire sustainability strategy we apparently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Great post, and I think this is key as to why the playing philosophy has to come first and be consistent at all times.

If you're a club who wants to buy, develop, sell then you have to ensure that the young players you're trying to develop will have opportunities to fully do so with you and not get randomly blocked shortly into their development.

If you don't have a defined philosophy you've recruited to and enforced (although of course it can be adapted) then it all falls apart in my opinion. You can't have head coach A recruiting some bright tricky wingers for 18 months, get fired, then coach B wants to play a longer ball without wingers, then 12 months later coach C wants a possession based team through the middle with a 10 behind a lone striker and recruits for that. Each time you change the coach in that situation your crop of players you're attempting to develop and sell lose opportunity and end up disappearing for far lower than their potential worth or get disillusioned and again want to leave. It can of course happen even for a single coach if the don't even have their own well defined ethos, let alone the overarching club one.

That's the reason I think it absolutely does affect the profitability of players and as such the entire sustainability strategy we apparently have.

Some really interesting discussions in this thread about playing philosophy. What does this actually mean? Formation/style/what you become known for? At what level is it applied: formation, front foot or counter acting. or (the utopia) entertaining high-pressing, quick passing football? 

Wasn't it SC or LJ who said we want to make sure we play the same way at all levels?

Downside, though, is you can become too predictable and teams sus you out. And unless you are man-for-man, and as an organised team, better than your opponents, you can struggle when this happens. So, the Head Coach starts to tinker with styles and formations depending on the opposition and then plays to their weaknesses rather than his strengths, and the playing philosophy starts to unravel. Add in injuries to your key men and it can unravel at speed.

Hence, LJ wanting plenty of clubs in his bag .. but that caused more problems than it really solved. 

 

BTW the Bears seem to have playing philosophy cracked but then again they have some world-class players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingleRed said:

Some really interesting discussions in this thread about playing philosophy. What does this actually mean? Formation/style/what you become known for? At what level is it applied: formation, front foot or counter acting. or (the utopia) entertaining high-pressing, quick passing football? 

Wasn't it SC or LJ who said we want to make sure we play the same way at all levels?

Downside, though, is you can become too predictable and teams sus you out. And unless you are man-for-man, and as an organised team, better than your opponents, you can struggle when this happens. So, the Head Coach starts to tinker with styles and formations depending on the opposition and then plays to their weaknesses rather than his strengths, and the playing philosophy starts to unravel. Add in injuries to your key men and it can unravel at speed.

Hence, LJ wanting plenty of clubs in his bag .. but that caused more problems than it really solved. 

 

BTW the Bears seem to have playing philosophy cracked but then again they have some world-class players.

 

I guess it can be whatever level you want to define it at.

Re predictable, I think that’s where “thinking” from fans can be too rigid, and you hear / read things like - we lost to Norwich because we played 442.  I don’t buy that.  And if you watch a game you see many different things going on, some planned / structured, some off the cuff.  At a simplistic level, Norwich beat us because they have better players.  Next level down, they have a system they executed better than our system to beat their system!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess it can be whatever level you want to define it at.

Re predictable, I think that’s where “thinking” from fans can be too rigid, and you hear / read things like - we lost to Norwich because we played 442.  I don’t buy that.  And if you watch a game you see many different things going on, some planned / structured, some off the cuff.  At a simplistic level, Norwich beat us because they have better players.  Next level down, they have a system they executed better than our system to beat their system!!

I think its also fair to say that watching on TV doesn't allow you to see the whole pitch which can have an effect on how you view the game. Nothing beats being at the game in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bcfc01 said:

I think its also fair to say that watching on TV doesn't allow you to see the whole pitch which can have an effect on how you view the game. Nothing beats being at the game in that respect.

Tell me about it.  I miss that so much.

I also feel my recall of matches, individual events in matches live is far better than on tv, hence why I make notes when watching Robinstv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingleRed said:

BTW the Bears seem to have playing philosophy cracked but then again they have some world-class players.

The philosophy came first. The philosophy drives the performance. The performance attracts the world-class players. 

Our rugby and football clubs couldn’t be run more differently if they tried. It’s mental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DingleRed said:

Some really interesting discussions in this thread about playing philosophy. What does this actually mean? Formation/style/what you become known for? At what level is it applied: formation, front foot or counter acting. or (the utopia) entertaining high-pressing, quick passing football? 

Wasn't it SC or LJ who said we want to make sure we play the same way at all levels?

Downside, though, is you can become too predictable and teams sus you out. And unless you are man-for-man, and as an organised team, better than your opponents, you can struggle when this happens. So, the Head Coach starts to tinker with styles and formations depending on the opposition and then plays to their weaknesses rather than his strengths, and the playing philosophy starts to unravel. Add in injuries to your key men and it can unravel at speed.

Hence, LJ wanting plenty of clubs in his bag .. but that caused more problems than it really solved. 

 

BTW the Bears seem to have playing philosophy cracked but then again they have some world-class players.

 

Mmm, it's a good question and I probably don't have the answer! There are lots of people on here like @Davefevs above, @spudski and @Cowshed who would be able to respond much better than I can.

For me though a playing philosophy doesn't extend as far as a formation, I'd mainly leave that up to the coach... the formation should be a implementation detail of the philosophy. The same formation can look very different depending on the philosophy that underpins it in my opinion... Leicester played 442 when the won the premiership I think, but don't look much like our implementation of it recently (in style, rather than results)!

A playing philosophy would probably cover (and I'm a total layman) things like how your team would behave in each area of the pitch  - so pressing in the final third, or combative in the middle of the pitch, long direct balls when regaining possession, or whatever. That would then inform your recruitment of players who can adhere to that style - so why sign a Djuric if you want to press hard in the final third, or an Eliasson if you want to play direct balls through the middle? It'd also extend to the players individual attributes - how quickly can they recover from a sprint, or their ability to control or shield a ball or whatever.

It also then lets you begin your conveyor belt of replacements, as when Reid leaves your next striker in line but a year or two behind in development has been recruited to fill the role already, and has the necessary attributes to perform there... and has been playing and practicing that role for some time already. You're not going "Oh shit" every summer and scrambling for a pressing striker or ball player centre back because yours is leaving and you don't have another waiting. Additionally when a new coach comes in you wont have to ditch them all and start again as he wants to implement a totally new way of playing you don't have the personel for.

Ultimately it's the discussion with an opposition fan about your club, and they have a sentence on what kind of team you are. We could probably do it about Spurs, or Cardiff, or in the past Stoke or Ajax.

I don't think it means at all you become too predictable to your detriment though. Predictable but very proficient is much better than unpredictable and inept in my opinion.

I'm a total layman as I said though so that could be a load of nonsense ;) but it's what I have gleaned from reading posts by much more knowledgeable people than myself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Mmm, it's a good question and I probably don't have the answer! There are lots of people on here like @Davefevs above, @spudski and @Cowshed who would be able to respond much better than I can.

For me though a playing philosophy doesn't extend as far as a formation, I'd mainly leave that up to the coach... the formation should be a implementation detail of the philosophy. The same formation can look very different depending on the philosophy that underpins it in my opinion... Leicester played 442 when the won the premiership I think, but don't look much like our implementation of it recently (in style, rather than results)!

A playing philosophy would probably cover (and I'm a total layman) things like how your team would behave in each area of the pitch  - so pressing in the final third, or combative in the middle of the pitch, long direct balls when regaining possession, or whatever. That would then inform your recruitment of players who can adhere to that style - so why sign a Djuric if you want to press hard in the final third, or an Eliasson if you want to play direct balls through the middle? It'd also extend to the players individual attributes - how quickly can they recover from a sprint, or their ability to control or shield a ball or whatever.

It also then lets you begin your conveyor belt of replacements, as when Reid leaves your next striker in line but a year or two behind in development have been recruited to fill the role already, and has the necessary attributed to perform there... and has been playing and practicing that role for some time already. You're not going "Oh shit" every summer and scrambling for a pressing striker or ball player centre back because yours is leaving and you don't have another waiting. Additionally when a new coach comes in you wont have to ditch them all and start again as he wants to implement a totally new way of playing you don't have the personel for.

Ultimately it's the discussion with an opposition fan about your club, and they have a sentence on what kind of team you are. We could probably do it about Spurs, or Cardiff, or in the past Stoke or Ajax.

I'm a total layman as I said though so that could be a load of nonsense ;) but it's what I have gleaned from reading posts by much more knowledgeable people than myself!

From a fans point of view, that’s a bloody good high level summary.  I’m sure the pros have much more detail than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Mmm, it's a good question and I probably don't have the answer! There are lots of people on here like @Davefevs above, @spudski and @Cowshed who would be able to respond much better than I can.

For me though a playing philosophy doesn't extend as far as a formation, I'd mainly leave that up to the coach... the formation should be a implementation detail of the philosophy. The same formation can look very different depending on the philosophy that underpins it in my opinion... Leicester played 442 when the won the premiership I think, but don't look much like our implementation of it recently (in style, rather than results)!

A playing philosophy would probably cover (and I'm a total layman) things like how your team would behave in each area of the pitch  - so pressing in the final third, or combative in the middle of the pitch, long direct balls when regaining possession, or whatever. That would then inform your recruitment of players who can adhere to that style - so why sign a Djuric if you want to press hard in the final third, or an Eliasson if you want to play direct balls through the middle? It'd also extend to the players individual attributes - how quickly can they recover from a sprint, or their ability to control or shield a ball or whatever.

It also then lets you begin your conveyor belt of replacements, as when Reid leaves your next striker in line but a year or two behind in development has been recruited to fill the role already, and has the necessary attributes to perform there... and has been playing and practicing that role for some time already. You're not going "Oh shit" every summer and scrambling for a pressing striker or ball player centre back because yours is leaving and you don't have another waiting. Additionally when a new coach comes in you wont have to ditch them all and start again as he wants to implement a totally new way of playing you don't have the personel for.

Ultimately it's the discussion with an opposition fan about your club, and they have a sentence on what kind of team you are. We could probably do it about Spurs, or Cardiff, or in the past Stoke or Ajax.

I don't think it means at all you become too predictable to your detriment though. Predictable but very proficient is much better than unpredictable and inept in my opinion.

I'm a total layman as I said though so that could be a load of nonsense ;) but it's what I have gleaned from reading posts by much more knowledgeable people than myself!

As @Davefevs says, this is a really good post - particularly around the muddled recruitment.

Someone above - forgive me for forgetting who - mentioned that it's such nonsense signing players with a 'clubs in the bag' mentality and I couldn't agree more. Why would you ever, ever sign a player that, in your heart of hearts, you would never see in your ideal starting XI? Milan Djuric is the perfect example of that. Nobody can tell me that when Lee Johnson started out he seriously wanted to put a team out that hit cross-field balls into a 6'6 target man.

It's hard to comment on Dean Holden's recruitment because there hasn't been enough of it yet, obviously, but I think all of this underpins a feeling I had about Lee Johnson really for the last 18-24 months of his tenure - he stopped trusting his own footballing philosophy.

I wouldn't deny there was evidence of scattergun recruitment throughout the entirety of his four years (Djuric's arrival being one), but there's also no doubting it got much more confused as he went along.

Often he talked, particularly in the early days, about high-pressing, attacking football, "busy bees" around the pitch. That, in my view, is what a footballing philosophy should amount to. A way of playing, a way of winning a football match. But other than in flashes - and probably the first two/thirds of the 2017-18 season being the prime example - did he ever really put a team out in that image. Because, ultimately, when that way of playing stopped delivering results instead of keeping faith in his own principles he stopped trusting it.

I appreciate I've taken this wildly off topic, but I say all of this because it just feels so utterly symbolic of the way we operate more widely. What actually are we as a club? Who is really driving that? I think I know what we want to be, but how much do we really trust in it? Obviously enough to appoint Dean Holden over more established managers, but what's the long-term plan?

The top and tail of it all is I'm not sure I've ever felt more lost as a Bristol City fan and I'm sat here enviously looking at so many other clubs like us and wishing we were a bit more like them.

EDIT: Reading back, I'm not sure how much sense all of this makes and I didn't mean to turn it into the Lee Johnson show... but it is what it is. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Mmm, it's a good question and I probably don't have the answer! There are lots of people on here like @Davefevs above, @spudski and @Cowshed who would be able to respond much better than I can.

For me though a playing philosophy doesn't extend as far as a formation, I'd mainly leave that up to the coach... the formation should be a implementation detail of the philosophy. The same formation can look very different depending on the philosophy that underpins it in my opinion... Leicester played 442 when the won the premiership I think, but don't look much like our implementation of it recently (in style, rather than results)!

A playing philosophy would probably cover (and I'm a total layman) things like how your team would behave in each area of the pitch  - so pressing in the final third, or combative in the middle of the pitch, long direct balls when regaining possession, or whatever. That would then inform your recruitment of players who can adhere to that style - so why sign a Djuric if you want to press hard in the final third, or an Eliasson if you want to play direct balls through the middle? It'd also extend to the players individual attributes - how quickly can they recover from a sprint, or their ability to control or shield a ball or whatever.

It also then lets you begin your conveyor belt of replacements, as when Reid leaves your next striker in line but a year or two behind in development has been recruited to fill the role already, and has the necessary attributes to perform there... and has been playing and practicing that role for some time already. You're not going "Oh shit" every summer and scrambling for a pressing striker or ball player centre back because yours is leaving and you don't have another waiting. Additionally when a new coach comes in you wont have to ditch them all and start again as he wants to implement a totally new way of playing you don't have the personel for.

Ultimately it's the discussion with an opposition fan about your club, and they have a sentence on what kind of team you are. We could probably do it about Spurs, or Cardiff, or in the past Stoke or Ajax.

I don't think it means at all you become too predictable to your detriment though. Predictable but very proficient is much better than unpredictable and inept in my opinion.

I'm a total layman as I said though so that could be a load of nonsense ;) but it's what I have gleaned from reading posts by much more knowledgeable people tha myse

According to LJ...our playing Philosophy last year, was Quote...

"Ideally you would play with the high press and take the ball like Liverpool and Manchester City.

"But inevitably at your own level you've got to try to recruit and then adapt to the players you have got, and to play that high-pressing game you need agile forwards, who are good tactically and can run and repeatedly sprint.''

So the points you made about recruitment are very valid as in where do certain players fit that playing philosophy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Mmm, it's a good question and I probably don't have the answer! There are lots of people on here like @Davefevs above, @spudski and @Cowshed who would be able to respond much better than I can.

For me though a playing philosophy doesn't extend as far as a formation, I'd mainly leave that up to the coach... the formation should be a implementation detail of the philosophy. The same formation can look very different depending on the philosophy that underpins it in my opinion... Leicester played 442 when the won the premiership I think, but don't look much like our implementation of it recently (in style, rather than results)!

 

That's an excellent response . A formation is a tool of the philosophy. A player moving one across or one down turns 4-3-3 into 4-4-2 but the philosophy remains the same. Leicester's 4-4-2 is not Arsenal's under Wenger. Arsenal's possession football was not Barcelonas .. Philosophy is the detail, its whys and it values.

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

A playing philosophy would probably cover (and I'm a total layman) things like how your team would behave in each area of the pitch  - so pressing in the final third, or combative in the middle of the pitch, long direct balls when regaining possession, or whatever. That would then inform your recruitment of players who can adhere to that style - so why sign a Djuric if you want to press hard in the final third, or an Eliasson if you want to play direct balls through the middle? It'd also extend to the players individual attributes - how quickly can they recover from a sprint, or their ability to control or shield a ball or whatever.

 

 

These are values. The philosophy should to extend to how the values will be coached. 

The values here again can be progressed towards the five elements (in possession/out/transitions to and from, set plays) of play to equal the model of play. The values become principles. Each element has governing principles. You have highlighted a principle out of possession =  We press, sub principles highlight how and where. 

The philosophy can extend to strategy - the team need is being articulated, development and recruitment must therefore mirror the team need, develop and purchase players with skill sets to meet team need.    

You have highlighted a skill set to team need. If your team is going to press aggressively its needs athletes with the physical attributes to do so - Sometimes measured as Defensive Tactical Intensity (DTI). 

 

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

It also then lets you begin your conveyor belt of replacements, as when Reid leaves your next striker in line but a year or two behind in development has been recruited to fill the role already, and has the necessary attributes to perform there... and has been playing and practicing that role for some time already. You're not going "Oh shit" every summer and scrambling for a pressing striker or ball player centre back because yours is leaving and you don't have another waiting. Additionally when a new coach comes in you wont have to ditch them all and start again as he wants to implement a totally new way of playing you don't have the personel for.

 

A phrase Southampton used for development was there is always another player in the building. 

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Ultimately it's the discussion with an opposition fan about your club, and they have a sentence on what kind of team you are. We could probably do it about Spurs, or Cardiff, or in the past Stoke or Ajax.

 

That is slightly different. That is identity.  Ajax's footballing identity is decades long.

 

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

I don't think it means at all you become too predictable to your detriment though. Predictable but very proficient is much better than unpredictable and inept in my opinion.

I'm a total layman as I said though so that could be a load of nonsense ;) but it's what I have gleaned from reading posts by much more knowledgeable people than myself!

Norwich at this level are predictable, so are Brentford, so were Leeds. That formation can alter but all three display a consistency driven by a bigger picture not constantly evolving pictures.

If your post was a test I think you passed it with merit.  

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...