loki679 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway. I was actually more upbeat after reading the thing yesterday. And everyone is ruining it for me. I just want to be cheerful. Shola's moving into your spare room btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really. Can you point to where it's worked in the UK? Koeman is a Manager by the way. You don't arrive at a club quickly followed by ex-players and top players from your homeland by coincidence. It's in it's infancy here really. Plenty examples of the opposite going tits skyward though. Something has to change. But no I can't really. In the prem I suppose spurs closest resemble it although not fully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I really don't think this has to be such a massive deal, especially now the manager knows about it before hand. Obviously it limits the candidates somewhat but we were never going to employ one of the top 10 in the world anyway. I was actually more upbeat after reading the thing yesterday. And everyone is ruining it for me. I just want to be cheerful. Shola's moving into your spare room btw. No chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Reading between all the bullshit, one can assume that Carver certainly wont be the next permenant manager next season. It looks like they will be waiting until the summer but thats taking a massive risk on this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really. More and more clubs are going this way whether we like it or not. If we get someone like Garde at least it will be a coach who will be congruent with Carr and will understand the qualities of the players coming in. He might even be able to suggest players we would agree to bring in like Lacazette rather than Sidwell or Bent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really. Can you point to where it's worked in the UK? Koeman is a Manager by the way. You don't arrive at a club quickly followed by ex-players and top players from your homeland by coincidence. It's in it's infancy here really. Plenty examples of the opposite going tits skyward though. Something has to change. But no I can't really. In the prem I suppose spurs closest resemble it although not fully. So it's great when utilised properly but there's no evidence of it having been utilised properly? I'm sold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Well I'd be right behind us bringing in Wenger or Ferguson Both arrived from different leagues and created empires. Your man Charnley talked about long term yesterday so why wouldn't that be the aspiration? My man Charnley Aye of course I don't think a traditional manager setup is the only way to go so I must love Charnley and agree with the exact way they currently implement that system.. I've said this a few times but its not sticking with a few of you so I'll say it again. Our transfer policy is far from perfect, but the problems there are not inherent in a director of Football/head coach setup. That's all I'm saying. Get a good head coach who can use the players we bring in to good effect and you'd improve things no end. Change the policy on penny pinching ect and it'd improve even further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonlemagnifique Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really. Can you point to where it's worked in the UK? Koeman is a Manager by the way. You don't arrive at a club quickly followed by ex-players and top players from your homeland by coincidence. It's in it's infancy here really. Plenty examples of the opposite going tits skyward though. Something has to change. But no I can't really. In the prem I suppose spurs closest resemble it although not fully. So it's great when utilised properly but there's no evidence of it having been utilised properly? I'm sold. Plenty of evidence of it working fine on the continent. I don'd see why the prem should be any different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. Yep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. I think they generally need to do some coaching too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this bollocks like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Personally I think the head coach thing is great when utilised properly. Giving the likes of souness, Martin o'neill and redknapp tens of millions and relying on jobs for the boys types to spend it wisely is lunacy really. Can you point to where it's worked in the UK? Koeman is a Manager by the way. You don't arrive at a club quickly followed by ex-players and top players from your homeland by coincidence. It's in it's infancy here really. Plenty examples of the opposite going tits skyward though. Something has to change. But no I can't really. In the prem I suppose spurs closest resemble it although not fully. So it's great when utilised properly but there's no evidence of it having been utilised properly? I'm sold. Plenty of evidence of it working fine on the continent. I don'd see why the prem should be any different. It does work fine on the continent but the key difference is that on the continent money generated through player sales is invested back into the squad. We're still waiting for a replacement for Demba Ba ffs! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. I think they generally need to do some coaching too. A decent coaching set up takes care of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Plenty of examples of all encompassing managerial roles going wrong/spun king millions. Of course Ashley has suggested some warped version of head coach but maybe he'll stumble on a decent appointment. Not likely but what else can we say? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this like. Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Moody Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Great stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This is such an interesting period in the clubs history. Can't wait to see who comes in, and how this all works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think people who praise Graham Carr (rightly) for his great finds and are optimistic about having a head coach with little say in the transfer department, but who can get the best out of any Carr approved transfer target Charnley manages to ‘get over the line’ are hopelessly naïve. Yes, there is no denying that we have managed to bring in some very good players at reasonable fees in recent years (we have also brought in some duds but that’s beside the main point I’m trying to make). Such a setup could work in theory if Carr’s (proven) scouting ability added to Chanrley’s (as yet largely unproven) dealmaking ability is used for the benefit of the manager, i.e. to compose a good squad of players that compliments each other well. Over the Ashley years we have always had some good, “top six” players at any stage, but we have also had glaring weaknesses, and I mean Championship level players at best in the first team, let alone the squad. On the pitch, this will always hold us back from reaching the potential level of our best players, hence why they want away as soon as they have proven they can cut it in the Premier League, and we start all over again, only the next “great deal” we do may be in a completely different position, or with complete disregard to our “philosophy” of play (ha, I know we have none, which is part of the problem. Graham Carr is a brilliant spotter of talent, and he apparently has a wide array of contacts throughout football who enable him to sniff out the best deals for individual players. We are however forever hindered by the fact that our transfer dealings focus on getting the best possible deal each and every time. We would rather buy another left back when we already have three if we believe there is money to be made, than bring in a centre back we are desperate for. Centre forwards cost serious money, so we will take punts on cheap ones until we hit the jackpot and move them on for huge profit as soon as someone offers a healthy return on our investment. This is no way for a head coach to come in and be successful. Yes, a head coach should primarily be involved with coaching the first team and getting the best out of the players at his disposal. But he should also give direction to the transfer team (i.e. Carr and Charnley) of what he needs. So for example “if we are potentially selling Sissoko this transfer window, I want to change the setup slightly from counter attack (his major strength) towards possession football, so go and get me an attacking midfield player who can create and score goals”. Or “Steven Taylor has broken down for the rest of the season (again) and we plan to not extend his expiring contract, go and get me a commanding centre back who would make good foil for Coloccini”. Or even: “I think we are light in the striker department, and my style of play requires somebody to hold the ball up as well as somebody with good finishing. I know this guy from my previous job. His name is XYZ. I think he could do a job for us. Can you have a look at him and get him in, or someone of his ilk?”. What I am trying to say is that the manager (head coach) may not get final say on who the club ultimately bring in, but he SHOULD be the person who sets the requirements for the transfer team to work towards, which is obviously not the case at our club, nor is it what is planned reading through the lines of Charnley’s statement. It’s all good and well saying we need a head coach who can make players better and who doesn’t require heavy involvement in player incomings and outgoings, but this is such a simplistic approach. Players generally improve because they can play with confidence in a team that does well. This requires a manager with tactical awareness who is provided with the correct tools to execute these tactics. I can’t see any high profile, promising head coach, should they even be interested in the first place lasting long here if his reputation is damaged by the evident lack of ambition from the people at the top. More eloquent than me. I obviously agree. I cannot see how it can work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't believe some people don't want the manager to have the final say. Everything at a club should be set up to help the manager do his job as well as possible. Cabella, MYM, Marveaux, Ben Arfa, Anita etc all sounded good when we signed them but they didn't fit with the manager so they didn't play and dropped significantly in value. Who wins in that situation? For all the good players we've signed, don't ignore all the talent/potential that has been completely wasted because we found out after they'd joined that they didn't "fit". But why do you think the solution to that problem is to give 100% control of transfers to a new manager? I mean had we just changed and given full control to Pardew does that fix things? We don't bring in those players he ruined, no instead we bring in utter fucking dross. Surely the better solution is to find a man who can work with Carr, a man who is a talented tactician, can motivate players, can coach a goof style of play and has a Footballing philosophy that matches Carr. What's the point of putting words in people's mouths like that? How am I putting words in his mouth? Are you talking about the fact he said "final say" and I said "100% control"? Ok, lets do this again then.. He's just said that he can't believe people don't want the new manager to have the final say on transfers and goes on to give the example of Pardew not playing some of the players bought for him as the reason for that assertion. So I'm asking why is the only solution to that problem to give the manager final say on transfers? Rather than finding a head coach who isn't a fucking dunce, who can appreciate a good player? When did I saw it was "the only solution"? It helps a manager (any manager, not just Pardew) to do his job better if he can have the final say on who is bought. I can't make it any simpler than that. As far as I can see, the role of head coach is just picking the team and motivating them. Hardly rocket science but it could be a lot easier if he can have an opinion on who he's working with. You can't believe I wouldn't want a new manager to have the final say on transfers but at the same time accept that him having the final say isn't the only solution? I haven't got time for this like. Baffling. No idea what you're on about now or at any point in this conversation. I'm on about the fact that instead of just answering my question you just continue to play with words to avoid doing so. Which is why I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing anything with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Arguably the only reason Pardew didn't relegate us is because he wasn't allowed final say over transfers. A contigent of top quality players in every squad he 'managed' kept us from being relegation fodder. If he'd had been allowed to buy his own players we'd have sunk like a stone. I think the system can work with a better manager as well and I think it will be attractive to a lot of continental managers as long as Charnley, Carr and Ashley are COMPLETELY honest and up front during the interview process eg. not interested in cup runs, will sell players if the right offer comes in and not necessarily replace them, not interested in European football etc. If, as Charnley says, they will only target players to suit the preferred playing style of the new Head Coach then OK. Let's start by getting the right man in and see how the system works with someone who isn't a total fuckwit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 It will work for us. We will be awesome. Everyone else will be filled with envy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now