LM vs LJ

[George Rs]

@Davefevs saw your play style breakdown of LM at Oxford, just on the pressing part, do you think we will press less now with him in as he’s more about efficiency than intensity or will we continue to use a high continuous press like we have recently? 

[IAmNick]

17 minutes ago, Harry said:

Processes not outcomes. 

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

Edited November 8, 2023 by IAmNick

[TDarwall]

I think the key point is that if you perform well regularly you will get the desired outcomes.  If you're playing really well but not getting results, if you keep playing well, the results will come.  Equally if you're playing badly but winning, it won't continue.  I guess its partly why people look at stuff like xG.

[One Team]

I’m not a huge fan of LJ and I agree you can’t really compare them, and I can’t believe I am standing up for him here, but some of the comments about his career are a little harsh.

Over 400 appearances as a professional player, including a promotion with us, isn’t bad at all (yes I get the playing for his Dad point), and success with Yeovil and Kilmarnock (again, yes I know).

And obviously as a manager he got us to the league cup semi final (yes, I know!) and won the league trophy with Sunderland.

I would suggest he’s achieved more as a player and as a manger in terms of the stats, but I also get the context of how all that was achieved, compared to Manning. 

Ultimately @Davefevs is right, we can’t and shouldn’t compare them (yes, I know I just did!). 

 

[Clevedon Red]

One day the LJ ghost will be laid to rest.

[One Team]

2 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

One day the LJ ghost will be laid to rest.

Never happen mate, I’ve still not got over Pulis!

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, George Rs said:

@Davefevs saw your play style breakdown of LM at Oxford, just on the pressing part, do you think we will press less now with him in as he’s more about efficiency than intensity or will we continue to use a high continuous press like we have recently? 

Simple answer…I don’t know until I see us play!

More complicated (and boring?) answer.  Nige’s City weren’t high-pressing, not compared to other Champ teams.  They were average.  I base this on two metrics, PPDA - passes your opponent is allowed per defensive action (tackle, duel, ball win back, etc), and High Turnover - number of times you win the ball back in the opponents defensive third.

PPDA

Southampton - 10.5 passes allowed per defensive action - the best

City - 13.5 passes (average)

Cardiff City - 17.6 passes - the worst

High Turnovers:

Leeds - 143 - the best

City - 107 (just below average)

Birmingham City 82 - the worst

But those are just a numerical analysis.

I saw Nige’s side as one that was keen to stop their opponents advancing up the pitch by blocking passing lanes, but a bit inconsistent in their pressing triggers.

Two examples:

Hull City (a) - we got it wrong, opening 25 mins and got played through 4 or 5 times.

Sheffield Wed (h) - we got it right, Knight got Bannan sent off.

In Manning’s press conference he talked about not being able to analyse City too much because he doesn’t know what the game plan was, e.g. Leicester game plan might’ve been different to Plymouth.

So the numbers give us a feel, but we don’t truly know whether City are average at their attempts and average at their execution, or their intent is to high press, but they carry it out poorly and vice versa.

 

[INCRED]

2 hours ago, Henry said:

Miles apart. I think Manning is closer to Pearson in more ways. When he talks about behaviours as working hard, running, winning hun duels, wanting to learn. It’s pretty similar to Nige.

More akin to Pep and his coaching ethos - pretty sure he drills his teams this way especially when trying to get the ball back 

[chinapig]

30 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

Doesn't that assume that all processes are equal? Yet in any given context some processes will be more efficient and effective than others in achieving the desired outcome.

This might involve stopping doing things that analysis shows have negligible effect on outcomes (so avoiding a 'we've always done it this way' mindset). Or it might mean doing new things that make you more efficient and effective.

I would think this applies in football as much as other contexts.

[Spud21]

16 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

 

I don't think it's not focusing on the outcome per se and don't think keeping the ball at the back would be the process. To me the process would be how you get the ideas across and how you drill them. 

I would structure it more like this, the plan is to play a possession based game and move the opposition around and exploit openings, the process would be how you train that and get the players to buy into the plan, so can be quite broad to much more specific, Take Ipswich they aim to create chances by creating space at the edge of the box, so when a player gets the ball wide behind the full back to strikers are drilled to make runs to pull the center backs towards goal creating the space for the midfielder to drop into the space and then you can cut the ball back to a bloke 15/18 yards from goal in space. 

So if you can get the process right which is getting players to buy in and carry out the plan and then drill it to be almost second nature. The Outcome of creating chances, and scoring goals and winning games should follow naturally. (massive oversimplification as if it was that simple  wed all be at it.)

That's at least how I view it anyway, you break what is overall a complicated plan into simple bits and then drill them so they become "easy" and the outcome of winning games naturally tends to happen. 

[JakeOTIB]

2 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Is more coaching more beneficial to having a career playing though? Genuinely interested, this not a dig at either manager, just want to know peoples thoughts in what will make them different.

Much rather someone with substantial coaching experience than a successful playing career. LM has been coaching for nearly two decades so I think playing career in that respect is irrelevant. I would much rather LM than someone like Lampard or Gerrard and definitely LJ!

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

My view is that if you don’t understand the processes how do you know how you achieved the outcomes.  What are the things that need fixing and why, what are the things to make even better and why.  What do you do when you stop getting the right outcomes, or never achieved the outcomes in the first place?

I wish the search option could pinpoint my “placebo” post when LJ was manager.

In summary, I went to Warwick Business School yonks ago and they had a Call Centre Simulator that we had to run and keep within “calls answered” targets.

We had four “levers” we could pull when calls got out of control (too many calls for the staff scheduled, too many staff for the number of calls).  They were something like (can’t remember):

• pay overtime
• provide training
• recruit / schedule more staff
• bonuses

So the simulation ran and all levers were at 25% (all even).  Over time the call volumes began to spike, so we chose which lever to pull, e.g. pay a bit of overtime, the calls calmed down.  Then they spiked again, we pulled the overtime lever again, the spikes got worse.  So we pulled another lever and they calmed down.  Then they spiked again, we tried levers, some appeared to work, then they didn’t, we pulled two levers at a time.  After about 2 hours of running the simulation, we couldn’t do anything to control the spikes.

We we’re eventually told that two of the levers were placebos, they had no effect, the other two did.

The learning was to get us to document and monitor what we did and saw, to aid our understanding of what happened and possibly why too.

All the groups on the course failed the “test”.  We all just ended up pulling levers randomly, in the hope they would control the call spikes.  We had no clue which levers influenced anything.

It reminded me of LJ with his constant flip-flopping of formations, team selections…and then he’d stumble on something that appears to be the perfect solution, until that lost games too.  I never felt he understood what contributed to wins and losses.  Of course that’s a huge exaggeration from me regarding a bloke who obviously knows far more about football than me, but as a fan it felt there was little method.

Dunno is that helps, resonates etc.

 

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Doesn't that assume that all processes are equal? Yet in any given context some processes will be more efficient and effective than others in achieving the desired outcome.

This might involve stopping doing things that analysis shows have negligible effect on outcomes (so avoiding a 'we've always done it this way' mindset). Or it might mean doing new things that make you more efficient and effective.

I would think this applies in football as much as other contexts.

Much better answer than mine!

[Harry]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

Good question Nick. 
I’ve copied some text from an interview with a football manager. And this will now be a common outlook, whereas only 10 years or so ago it wasn’t. 
I guess basically it’s about getting the players to understand why they are performing an action, how that impacts on their team mates and whether that’s the best course of action or if another action was more beneficial. It’s about empowering the players to understand their roles and make their own decisions. 
I guess the old England song had John Barnes saying “beat the man, take him on”. What’s the outcome of that? Maybe Barnes gets a cross into the box. Or maybe he gets tackled and the opposition counter attack and score?
Nowadays the modern thinking is “why are you beating the man and taking him on? What’s the next action thereafter? The impact on your team mates and the structure of the unit. What other options are there etc.
If the original outcome was ‘he gets a cross in’ the alternative process may have been, he awaits an overlapping full back to create space to come inside, lay a square ball to the edge of the box and the incoming midfielder strikes it low into the corner of the net. 
It’s about thinking of more than just the one action you are about to perform and making considered decisions on the field. 
 

Anyway, probably a terrible example that, but here’s the interview….

“The coaching culture in this country from the youngest age is ‘tell, tell, tell, tell, do this, do that, do this’. But that’s not the players’ fault, that’s the coaching structure and the coaches. And you can’t blame managers for not wanting to give players any free reign in making decisions on the pitch because we’re in a results industry and the manager’s neck is on the line constantly, Can managers afford for players to make mistakes through learning or is it easier to tell them what you want them to do and let the player suffer the consequences if they don’t, not you. The only way you can ever get a player to accept responsibility on the pitch is for him to really understand what’s being asked of him and the only way he will ever understand is if he takes responsibility for trying to understand and encouraging it in his teammates. 

 

What makes successful people continually successful, whether that’s sports teams, businesses, individuals anything. The one trait they all have is they put their faith in the processes knowing if they tick all those boxes they more often than not get the outcome they want. If they don’t get the outcome they have a reference point to understand why they didn’t perform or they were beaten and learn from it to improve. It’s not what football fans want to hear half the time but for me it’s the only way that makes sense.”

 

[Fordy62]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

My understanding, going back to SOD’s explanation of all those years ago, is that outcomes will naturally follow processes. You can’t necessarily create good outcomes, but if you concentrate on the processes then outcomes will follow. 

Oh. And measure the grass and spend a shift with (a) the SAS and (b) in a Michelin starred kitchen. Or something like that. 

[RedRock]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Can someone explain this to me?

At work I'm used to the opposite being beneficial - focusing on processes rather than outcomes may not achieve anything and can promote almost cargo cult behaviour (which I see a lot in the tech world). What's the point in processes if they don't achieve an outcome? Does it matter how you achieve the outcome?

Why is this seen as a good thing here? Am I wrong thinking that an example would be passing it around the back (because good teams do it) without focusing on the outcome l outcome (what they achieve by doing it)?

The ‘Science vs Art’ argument. 

Totally against my entire training and what should have underpinned my whole professional life - I’m an advocate of the free-spirit ‘art’ approach.

‘Process’ tends to stifle individual problem-solving, imaginative and creative solutions. Risk that a focus on ‘process’ becomes an end in itself, rather than the means to an end. 

As with everything, a matter of balance, but would light-touch ‘process’ if I were a manager and emphasise the need for players to be creative and quick in their on-field decision making. 
 

 

[IAmNick]

Wonderful, thanks all for taking the time. Some great perspectives @chinapig / @Spud21 / @Davefevs / @Harry / @Fordy62. I won't bother quoting you all fully as this would be ridiculously long.

I think in fact I was probably misunderstanding the language. It sounds like by processes, it's about equipping the players with the tools (processes) to identify and solve problems on the pitch themselves to achieve an outcome, rather than just focussing on the outcome itself. That makes a lot more sense.

My hesitancy as I said came from the tech world - I see a lot of companies who see some popular giant (Spotify were the classic one 5/6 years ago) and assume if they just do things they way they do things, they'll naturally be successful as well. That's where my "Good teams pass it around the back, so if we pass it around the back we'll be good too!" thinking came from. The key is to understand why the processes work for them - because those processes will have been created bespoke to fit that company... or players in this case I suppose, so they can't just be lifted into any old situation.

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Doesn't that assume that all processes are equal? Yet in any given context some processes will be more efficient and effective than others in achieving the desired outcome.

Yes - which is why the outcome should be the focus in my original understanding, rather than the process! Focus on the outcome, and find the processes that are most effective to make it happen which is driven by an understanding of the outcome, not following processes.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

My view is that if you don’t understand the processes how do you know how you achieved the outcomes.  What are the things that need fixing and why, what are the things to make even better and why.  What do you do when you stop getting the right outcomes, or never achieved the outcomes in the first place?

I agree, but I would respond by saying if you don't focus on the outcomes, how do you know if your processes are having a net positive or negative effect?

In your lever example, your desired outcome was to increase the calls answered. If you were focussed on the processes, giving overtime or whatever, you weren't to know if you were achieving that outcome. Do you train your staff to give overtime every time calls answered dips, or to have the tools to use achieve that outcome via your (or even their own!) methods?

2 hours ago, Spud21 said:

So if you can get the process right which is getting players to buy in and carry out the plan and then drill it to be almost second nature. The Outcome of creating chances, and scoring goals and winning games should follow naturally. (massive oversimplification as if it was that simple  wed all be at it.)

Again, without focussing on the outcome, how do you know that process is right?

35 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s about thinking of more than just the one action you are about to perform and making considered decisions on the field. 

I agree with this - I suppose my framing of that was to think about the outcome you're trying to achieve, rather than the in the minute action you're taking. We want to... hit the byline and get a cross in, here are the processes I know to achieve that. Rather than focussing on a process... I know that in this position, I do X then Y, even if that process isn't producing the desired outcome.

Ok, the long chipped balls down the line to Bell aren't working this game - stop just trying them repeatedly (the process) and think about the outcome we're trying to achieve. How else could you do that?

I think we're arriving at the same conclusion just with mixed language (likely confused on my part)!

11 minutes ago, RedRock said:

The ‘Science vs Art’ argument. 

Totally against my entire training and what should have underpinned my whole professional life - I’m an advocate of the free-spirit ‘art’ approach.

‘Process’ tends to stifle individual problem-solving, imaginative and creative solutions. Risk that a focus on ‘process’ becomes an end in itself, rather than the means to an end. 

As with everything, a matter of balance, but would light-touch ‘process’ if I were a manager and emphasise the need for players to be creative and quick in their on-field decision making. 

I'm an advocate of minimum viable process. Give intelligent people a clear understanding of the outcome you want, and give them the tools to discover problems and solutions to achieve it.

Explain why you want to get across a river, don't tell people to build a bridge or whatever that common naff metaphor is.

You need the processes in place, the fundamentals, but I think people should be outcome focussed, not process focussed personally.

 

Christ... I feel like I'm at work now.

Edited November 8, 2023 by IAmNick

[Sir Colby-Tit]

4 hours ago, Cristored said:

I would argue that there were serious doubts about Pearson at this level, due to the big time frame between coming here and his success….look at Hughes at Bradford sacked in L2 despite being a former prem regular manager.

Cristored is an anagram of "directors", so which one are you Jon?

[Silvio Dante]

43 minutes ago, Harry said:

I guess the old England song had John Barnes saying “beat the man, take him on”. What’s the outcome of that? Maybe Barnes gets a cross into the box. Or maybe he gets tackled and the opposition counter attack and score?
 

Strictly speaking Barney Sumner said that and I’m not sure of his ability ;

Barnes said…

You’ve got to hold and give but do it at the right time

(Sound advice here. At times you need ti retain the ball, at times pass it, almost ahead of his time)

You can be slow or fast but you must get to the line

He falls down here. A very one dimensional old school tactic of getting it in the box after reaching the byline, and at the expense of all else. Likely to be countered.

They’ll always hit you and hurt you, defend and attack 

Clearly he’s not seen Sam Bells support of his fullback to assume players always do both. Either way, he’s into noise and slogans now with no real meaning 

Theres only one way to beat them get round the back

Again, very one dimensional - involves just a simple down the side and to the byline tactic - easily countered

 

 

Overall I think we can say John was lacking on process having maybe seen the above be successful on outcome. Which shows the importance of the former and why Celtic lost to Caley.

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Explain why you want to get across a river, don't tell people to build a bridge or whatever that common naff metaphor is.

I’d probably argue that the above is the classic about stating requirements rather than solutionising, rather than processes versus outcomes per se.

I guess you can also drift into coaching (not necessarily football) in parrot fashion versus coaching to understand.  My mantra many years back in more supervisory roles was - I can teach you how to complete that exact task or I can teach you why you should approach it more generally and understand the principles, so that when you get a similar task that requires a different outcome you don’t just do what you always do.

Back to football, I often thought LJ’s players were coached rigidly, and I can imagine on the training ground it would be perfect.  But on the pitch when an opposition did something different to the “dummy opposition” on the training ground, they couldn’t think for themselves.

 

[RedLionLad]

22 minutes ago, Sir Colby-Tit said:

Cristored is an anagram of "directors", so which one are you Jon?

Sir Colby Tit is an anagram of "Byt Clitoris", care to comment?

[Sir Colby-Tit]

4 minutes ago, RedLionLad said:

Sir Colby Tit is an anagram of "Byt Clitoris", care to comment?

She likes it!

It might possibly be an anagram of something else as well.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

The ‘Science vs Art’ argument. 

Totally against my entire training and what should have underpinned my whole professional life - I’m an advocate of the free-spirit ‘art’ approach.

‘Process’ tends to stifle individual problem-solving, imaginative and creative solutions. Risk that a focus on ‘process’ becomes an end in itself, rather than the means to an end. 

As with everything, a matter of balance, but would light-touch ‘process’ if I were a manager and emphasise the need for players to be creative and quick in their on-field decision making. 
 

 

I agree. And this is the danger of modern football - there are fewer and fewer ‘mavericks’. 
Coaching has changed drastically in the last 10 years or so and players are drilled more and more to a rigid set of options.  We now see pretty much every team playing similar patterns. You can almost predict exactly where the next pass is going to be made when teams are playing from the back. 

That’s why we are then witnessing the counter to that. Instead of ‘maverick’ players who will do something out of the ordinary and get the masses off their seats, we now see ‘maverick’ managers, trying to find that little something different to surprise the opposition. 
High wing backs, inverted full backs, inverted wingers etc, the latest being Pep’s right back playing as a CM. 
 

The players are now so drilled into the processes that it’s the managers who have to find something unusual rather than a maverick player. 

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Harry said:

I agree. And this is the danger of modern football - there are fewer and fewer ‘mavericks’. 
Coaching has changed drastically in the last 10 years or so and players are drilled more and more to a rigid set of options.  We now see pretty much every team playing similar patterns. You can almost predict exactly where the next pass is going to be made when teams are playing from the back. 

That’s why we are then witnessing the counter to that. Instead of ‘maverick’ players who will do something out of the ordinary and get the masses off their seats, we now see ‘maverick’ managers, trying to find that little something different to surprise the opposition. 
High wing backs, inverted full backs, inverted wingers etc, the latest being Pep’s right back playing as a CM. 
 

The players are now so drilled into the processes that it’s the managers who have to find something unusual rather than a maverick player. 

I guess the ways of stopping those “recognised” (rather than rigid) patterns haven’t matured yet, because we still see presses being bypassed by sometimes as little as one pass.  And I think that is because of the fluidity of football, even from a “move” starting from a goal-kick.  It’s a bit like chess and the permutations of possible moves exponentially increasing as each turn happens.

Are we seeing mavericks in their brains rather than their feet?

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Back to football, I often thought LJ’s players were coached rigidly, and I can imagine on the training ground it would be perfect. But on the pitch when an opposition did something different to the “dummy opposition” on the training ground, they couldn’t think for themselves.

Manning said "we give players solutions and then it's in the players to own their decisions and pick the correct solution at the right time. 

Isn't that essentially the same sort of thing? 

Whilst it appears Manning may give the player more freedom and options to make decisions, isn't that still quite rigid? In that he expects the player to pick the right solution from 3 rigid instructions for example? 

[Spud21]

@NickJ agree with mist of that, and you are correct you cannot ignore the outcome, and there should be some periods where you look back and reflect and where an outcome was not satisfactory you review the processes, it can be thst you tweak the process to impact the outcome or you find that an external or other factor influenced yhr outcome you may not change the process because you are happy thst the outcome will change if that external factor goes away, if it continues then you may have to adjust for that factor.

Both approaches have merit and pitfalls, probably fir me the two most extreme examples in football are Pep and Jose, both are incredibly successful in their own way, Jose is all about results, he will do everything to win, he will almost break his players in the petsuit of success, and it works, until it doesnt and it then it all falls apart to some degree. Whereas pep is more about the process and giving the players the tools to do it themselves to a degree and thus he can build long term success, not saying he's nit an absolutely ruthless bastard when he needs to be though. 

As a club we are a perfect example of the pitfalls you identified in your first post, "oohhhh, look how good Brentford are, if we just implement a small part of their process (data led recruitment) we will obviously suceed like them" and repeat picking different clubs. 

[Davefevs]

42 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Manning said "we give players solutions and then it's in the players to own their decisions and pick the correct solution at the right time. 

Isn't that essentially the same sort of thing? 

Whilst it appears Manning may give the player more freedom and options to make decisions, isn't that still quite rigid? In that he expects the player to pick the right solution from 3 rigid instructions for example? 

I think you’re just gonna have to wait and see how the words translate to the way we play…like us all.  Just like “forward-thinking”, “attack-minded”, they are just words at the moment.

[Phileas Fogg]

12 hours ago, Harry said:

If anyone, he sounds a lot more like Sean O’Driscoll. 
Processes not outcomes. 
Younger players can teach older players. 
Basics are free (hard work, running, effort etc). 
Give players the right information to be able to make their own decisions on the pitch. 

All SOD sound bites too. I see a lot of similarities. 
And that’s not a bad thing. SOD had the right principles - it just failed badly here

Also pound-for-pound made some excellent signings

[RedRock]

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I agree. And this is the danger of modern football - there are fewer and fewer ‘mavericks’. 
Coaching has changed drastically in the last 10 years or so and players are drilled more and more to a rigid set of options.  We now see pretty much every team playing similar patterns. You can almost predict exactly where the next pass is going to be made when teams are playing from the back. 

That’s why we are then witnessing the counter to that. Instead of ‘maverick’ players who will do something out of the ordinary and get the masses off their seats, we now see ‘maverick’ managers, trying to find that little something different to surprise the opposition. 
High wing backs, inverted full backs, inverted wingers etc, the latest being Pep’s right back playing as a CM. 
 

The players are now so drilled into the processes that it’s the managers who have to find something unusual rather than a maverick player. 

Yep. We’re in danger of losing our intuitive players, the magicians and entertainers. Replaced with well-drilled robots. 

Think even George Best might have struggled in modern day football, with demands to track back, keep possession, discipline and keeping the shape etc. You look modern-day, at the likes of Rashford, when he first burst on to the scene as compared to the shadow of his former self he is now. In our case, Mehmeti.

All about striking the right balance admittedly, and we got it right with Scott, but we are at risk of losing flair players with over-drilling them. Hopefully, the new management team will encourage a bit of intuitive, high risk/high reward play within their game plans. 

 

[SecretSam]

14 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Hearing a lot of similarities between Manning and Lee Johnson. Young up and coming coach, attention to detail, philosophy, forward thinking and ready to take us to the next level.

Is it a fair comparison or are they miles apart? How long before we hear Manning talking about the measurements of the grass or balls in the box?

What is the biggest difference that will give Manning the chance to succeed where Johnson failed?

Both are male, white, still have their hair. Amazing, they must be twins.

[SecretSam]

10 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Explain why you want to get across a river, don't tell people to build a bridge or whatever that common naff metaphor is.

You need the processes in place, the fundamentals, but I think people should be outcome focussed, not process focussed personally.

Actually, the first response when told "we need to get across this river" should be "Why?" - always start with the core drivers. And don't assume solutions.

If you focus on the outcome, you may get the final product, but it may not be as well executed as it would be if you focused on the process - think of how Toyota (tragically obvious example, sorry) are constantly refining their processes, to achieve their outcomes - their outcomes are better because their process is better.

If they just focused on the outcome, they might make good cars, but would they be as reliable, profitable, etc.