Charles Miller
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 3,046
Also there is a different football culture. Players like Firmino, Keita and Fabinho who struggled for months would be seen as flops at United.
HummelsIf I'm not mistaken, none of his former players found success outside of Dortmund.
Salad point was spot on. It's needed to be repeat Salah was wanted by Liverpool transfer committee when he moved to Chelsea. The interest in him was consistentHummels
Reus
Gundogan
Auba
Lewandowski
Have all been great before and after him, both at Dortmund and elsewhere. They had a number of solid squad players there too.
As for his transfers, he doesn't have autonomy. They have a 'committee' and apparently he didn't want Salah but was overruled.
He is a great coach mind, not just tactically, he creates camaraderie and a buzz. Before Sturridge went on last night he gave him a massive hug.
I forgot Lewandowski and Aubameyang who was actually better without him in my opinion. Reus didn't left Dortmund and hasn't been as good, Gundogan hasn't been as good, I also wouldn't call him a success, same with Hummels.Hummels
Reus
Gundogan
Auba
Lewandowski
Have all been great before and after him, both at Dortmund and elsewhere. They had a number of solid squad players there too.
As for his transfers, he doesn't have autonomy. They have a 'committee' and apparently he didn't want Salah but was overruled.
He is a great coach mind, not just tactically, he creates camaraderie and a buzz. Before Sturridge went on last night he gave him a massive hug.
Woodward boasted (in summary) that "Sanchez signing generated 75% more social media interactions than Neymar to PSG. Set new Jan record for shirt sales. Three times previous best." It may be an exaggeration to say it’s why we bought him but it speaks of misplaced priorities at the top. Generallly you’d wait until a player performs on the pitch before giving yourself a pat on the back.We already know there's enough wrong without needing people like you peddling lies.
Liverpool has DOF, technical director role. Have transfer committee...Basically, you get the right manager and you go after the right targets. People obsess about structure, this and that. It's just having the right people in charge within the structure we have. Our structure, whatever we have now, Van Gaal said it himself that it isnt bad. It's just the wrong people at the positions.
When the manager wants to go after the wrong players, when they dont know how to coach the team properly, when they have a flawed idea of the way forward or their ambitions dont line up with the club... that's going to create problems. When the person in charge of transfers (or the one who gives approval) has a different idea to the manager, that creates problems. When the person in charge of managerial appointments doesn't know what they want for that position, it leads to what we've seen here, 4 drastically different managers post Sir Alex.
From Woodwards point of view, it doesn't necessarily have to change too much. If Ole is the right guy, then he just has to back him. If not, he has to know what direction the club should move forward in. Every manager should be one that will promote the youth and give them a chance, every manager should be one that plays attacking football in some way, and one that understands the expectations and can transmit these expectations to the team. They have to be trusted that the players they want will improve their plan, and that they can coach their plan effectively and that plan is in line with the overall club vision. City have done that and prepared for Pep and now hes succeeded massively because hes also just a brilliant coach. Liverpool's owners werent great, but the clubs history and timing lined up well for Klopp and they got lucky he wanted to join. Since he came, they backed him with what he wanted in the transfer market, and saw there was gradual improvement and it led to this.
English clubs ran on same model back then. We didn't do anything out of the norm. We got the right "guy", a proven winner, at time when the gap between league ain't as huge.Our next successful manager could come out of nowhere. I'd love to be sat in a pub 30 odd years ago and people might of been clamouring for Charlton to manage the club and not "some bloke from that Mickey Mouse Scottish league".
Great write up, detailed and well presented.
Wouldn't we of looked at Everton or Villa managers who had won the league?English clubs ran on same model back then. We didn't do anything out of the norm. We got the right "guy", a proven winner, at time when the gap between league ain't as huge.
Yeah, even if a side is a mess structurally, there's no reason they can't still win stuff if they strike gold or plays their cards right. Chelsea have been a mess for years and sometimes that's come back to bite them drastically and (for us) hilariously, but a manager like Conte was also able to transform them almost instantly and win the league. Similarly Real Madrid often seem to be a perpetual circus and yet still regularly win the CL. I think structurally getting things sound can contribute more to consistency and ensures things don't fall apart, but with the right foundations it's ultimately still all about the manager and the players.Basically, you get the right manager and you go after the right targets. People obsess about structure, this and that. It's just having the right people in charge within the structure we have. Our structure, whatever we have now, Van Gaal said it himself that it isnt bad. It's just the wrong people at the positions.
When the manager wants to go after the wrong players, when they dont know how to coach the team properly, when they have a flawed idea of the way forward or their ambitions dont line up with the club... that's going to create problems. When the person in charge of transfers (or the one who gives approval) has a different idea to the manager, that creates problems. When the person in charge of managerial appointments doesn't know what they want for that position, it leads to what we've seen here, 4 drastically different managers post Sir Alex.
From Woodwards point of view, it doesn't necessarily have to change too much. If Ole is the right guy, then he just has to back him. If not, he has to know what direction the club should move forward in. Every manager should be one that will promote the youth and give them a chance, every manager should be one that plays attacking football in some way, and one that understands the expectations and can transmit these expectations to the team. They have to be trusted that the players they want will improve their plan, and that they can coach their plan effectively and that plan is in line with the overall club vision. City have done that and prepared for Pep and now hes succeeded massively because hes also just a brilliant coach. Liverpool's owners werent great, but the clubs history and timing lined up well for Klopp and they got lucky he wanted to join. Since he came, they backed him with what he wanted in the transfer market, and saw there was gradual improvement and it led to this.
Winning Scottish league on different occasions with team outside of Celtic, Rangers, and beat Madrid, Bayern to win European Cup Winner's Cup ain't just some random bloke.Wouldn't we of looked at Everton or Villa managers who had won the league?
Fair enough.Winning Scottish league on different occasions with team outside of Celtic, Rangers, and beat Madrid, Bayern to win European Cup Winner's Cup ain't just some random bloke.
The Aston Villa manager who won the title was literally destroying all his legacy (relegating 2 teams) after his success at the time SAF was looked at (up coming successful). The one who won the equivalent of CL was a caretaker who eventually couldn't maintain the standard, and returned to form as assistant manager for his next jobs.
Everton during that period was not shy of our history/ achievement of the time. We're in no position to cherry pick manager from a successful team, that's not taking into account of Scouse Manc rivalry even if it's inferior to that of the Red Scouse.
Exactly. A good structure can ensure consistency at the top and less transition time, but ultimately, it's down to transfers and the managers coaching/management ability. Liverpool "struck gold" with Klopp. They didnt sell some sort of amazing project for him. They were a sleeping giant club, a very historic club, but also one that could compete at the top financially because of the size of the club. Klopp isn't a manager who goes for the very biggest teams, he likes building up a team and he's always been a manager who all else equal, he'll pick the sleeping giant/underdog over the favourite of the competition. So all their owners had to "sell" was saying they would support him in the transfer market and give him time to turn it around.Yeah, even if a side is a mess structurally, there's no reason they can't still win stuff if they strike gold or plays their cards right. Chelsea have been a mess for years and sometimes that's come back to bite them drastically and (for us) hilariously, but a manager like Conte was also able to transform them almost instantly and win the league. Similarly Real Madrid often seem to be a perpetual circus and yet still regularly win the CL. I think structurally getting things sound can contribute more to consistency and ensures things don't fall apart, but with the right foundations it's ultimately still all about the manager and the players.
Just wrote in the other post, Klopp's main attraction to Liverpool was who they are as a football club historically, and being a sleeping giant so to speak. He's a manager who will always take on those jobs where he can build rather than join the best team around. That's why he never got tempted by Real Madrid or someone like that.Liverpool has DOF, technical director role. Have transfer committee...
To get Klopp, their "football men" were able to sell the club to him! Same with buying players for so called right price. If you can't pay silly wage on get go for unproven talent, selling the project is needed.
It's not like Liverpool was the only one in for Klopp. Adult Disneyland say hello. Same with their signings. Wage structure without pulling the new manager into a mess of underserved overpaid squad status.
While I am not disagreeing on Klopp want to a huge building project, it's not just a bigger challenge he bought into.Just wrote in the other post, Klopp's main attraction to Liverpool was who they are as a football club historically, and being a sleeping giant so to speak. He's a manager who will always take on those jobs where he can build rather than join the best team around. That's why he never got tempted by Real Madrid or someone like that.
If you compare United and Liverpool in 2015 - United is one of the biggest commercial clubs in the world, has unlimited spending, has the expectations to win everything asap, was recently dominating England. Liverpool a much smaller club globally and commercially, but used to be the top dogs long ago and want to get back to that and are prepared to give the time and patience to get there without there being these massive expectations of instant title challenges. Klopp likes projects and it's an easy project to sell because the football club and their failure over the past 30 years was basically a big part in him being drawn to it now. He never wanted to go to a Real Madrid type of team, that's just not his style or preference. Them having a transfer committee or whatever else meant feck all to him joining them, that's just different structural preferences but the main thing is the people behind the scenes put their faith in the manager and trust if they provide the money, he can get the results at the end of the day.
I think even with the same structures in place, Klopp chooses Liverpool over United simply because they are a much smaller club right now from a commercial/global point of view. That's also largely irrelevant because in 2013 when Fergie left, Klopp didn't want to leave Dortmund for anyone. Same in 2014 post Moyes. We signed Van Gaal, and were happy with him after 2014/15, while he had a rough season and felt he couldnt move forward with Dortmund anymore. Liverpool at the same time ended things with Rodgers because he had gone stale. As much as Klopp simply preferring Liverpools type of club over United, I think the timing just worked perfectly for Klopp to Liverpool more than anyone else so it was an easy choice at the time.While I am not disagreeing on Klopp want to a huge building project, it's not just a bigger challenge he bought into.
Liverpool challenged for title not long ago. We were an total mess post SAF. The team need a whole new identity. The time LVG struggling we're no better than Liverpool. Unlike Liverpool there was no plan to sell. If Klopp just wants to be in total control then he would have it. The reality is that Klopp seemed to notice Woodward's true intention of backseating driving, and failure to sell the project. It's not like we and Liverpool are different in our transfer strategy all these years before Woodward came into the scene. Both made big signings from time to time, but still teams to develop players to fulfill their potential , than trying to integrating Galaticos signings. What went wrong was Woodward pseudo Galaticos policy. Liverpool at that time has football men in place to do the sale. Other Liverpool fan just confirmed they have structure in place and Klopp didn't need to do everything.
I know what you are saying and obviously the coach is very important but there aren’t that many Klopps around (back to back CL finals and 95+ points while working on a normal big club budget is seriously impressive). Putting it down to “getting the right manager” - that sounds to me too much like a repeat of the 70s and 80s where we have 5 attempts at replacing Sir Matt before we land the right one. Ideally I’d want a system putting in place which, relying on our commercial muscle, is robust enough that it allows a merely good manager to succeed rather than relying on unearthing a great. That’s how the continental giants operate, and it has worked in England too (City with Mancini and Pelligrini, Liverpool with Fagin and Dalglish if you go back further).Basically, you get the right manager and you go after the right targets. People obsess about structure, this and that. It's just having the right people in charge within the structure we have. Our structure, whatever we have now, Van Gaal said it himself that it isnt bad. It's just the wrong people at the positions.
When the manager wants to go after the wrong players, when they dont know how to coach the team properly, when they have a flawed idea of the way forward or their ambitions dont line up with the club... that's going to create problems. When the person in charge of transfers (or the one who gives approval) has a different idea to the manager, that creates problems. When the person in charge of managerial appointments doesn't know what they want for that position, it leads to what we've seen here, 4 drastically different managers post Sir Alex.
From Woodwards point of view, it doesn't necessarily have to change too much. If Ole is the right guy, then he just has to back him. If not, he has to know what direction the club should move forward in. Every manager should be one that will promote the youth and give them a chance, every manager should be one that plays attacking football in some way, and one that understands the expectations and can transmit these expectations to the team. They have to be trusted that the players they want will improve their plan, and that they can coach their plan effectively and that plan is in line with the overall club vision. City have done that and prepared for Pep and now hes succeeded massively because hes also just a brilliant coach. Liverpool's owners werent great, but the clubs history and timing lined up well for Klopp and they got lucky he wanted to join. Since he came, they backed him with what he wanted in the transfer market, and saw there was gradual improvement and it led to this.
Liverpool actually had a DoF in the Dalglish and early Rogers eras: Damien Comolli. He signed Suarez. And Carroll, Adam, Downing etc.I think you're missing the changes behind the scenes that contributed to the failure of Rodgers and the success of Klopp.
FSG's transfer committee was massively criticised when they first came in. They wanted a Director of football to help bring everything together, but Rodgers was hugely against this and wanted sole control over who was brought in. When this led to a 'mixed bag' of signings between 2014 and 2015, Rodgers time was running out.
Klopp embraced the DoF route and Michael Edwards was soon promoted to this role to work with Klopp and the transfer committee. Since then, most of their signings have been absolutely bang on the money.
Man City run a similar model too and most of their signings work out.
It's not rocket science.
Oh I agree for sure, but even still, you need the right manager to get it right. Barca continuously have a world class 11 but have been embarrassed in the CL 2 years in a row. Madrid are a mess this season, predictably after losing Ronaldo. What I'm saying is that you dont need some massively different structure for that. Just whoever is in that background role to make every decision with the same vision for the club in mind (being one focused on the footballing development and in line with the clubs traditions). Every manager they go after should be similar types in terms of play style, youth development, etc and the transfers should be focused on what the team needs to improve according to that vision. That doesnt really need to be a different structure, it just has to be a mindset change, a change in priorities to go back to focusing on the footballing side, stop going after just big name players but go after the right players. That's why I'm not too fussed about Ole not being proven. If we get back to getting the right sort of players, then at least it'll put us back on track even if he isnt quite good enough personally as a manager. You want to be as "failure proof" as possible, but obviously at the end of the day the manager will have the biggest influence in terms of success/failure, provided they are backed.I know what you are saying and obviously the coach is very important but there aren’t that many Klopps around (back to back CL finals and 95+ points while working on a normal big club budget is seriously impressive). Putting it down to “getting the right manager” - that sounds to me too much like a repeat of the 70s and 80s where we have 5 attempts at replacing Sir Matt before we land the right one. Ideally I’d want a system putting in place which, relying on our commercial muscle, is robust enough that it allows a merely good manager to succeed rather than relying on unearthing a great. That’s how the continental giants operate, and it has worked in England too (City with Mancini and Pelligrini, Liverpool with Fagin and Dalglish if you go back further).
It's the structure. Even DOF doesn't work alone. Even the assistants, performance analysist... less celebrated job titles play their roles.Oh I agree for sure, but even still, you need the right manager to get it right. Barca continuously have a world class 11 but have been embarrassed in the CL 2 years in a row. Madrid are a mess this season, predictably after losing Ronaldo. What I'm saying is that you dont need some massively different structure for that. Just whoever is in that background role to make every decision with the same vision for the club in mind (being one focused on the footballing development and in line with the clubs traditions). Every manager they go after should be similar types in terms of play style, youth development, etc and the transfers should be focused on what the team needs to improve according to that vision. That doesnt really need to be a different structure, it just has to be a mindset change, a change in priorities to go back to focusing on the footballing side, stop going after just big name players but go after the right players. That's why I'm not too fussed about Ole not being proven. If we get back to getting the right sort of players, then at least it'll put us back on track even if he isnt quite good enough personally as a manager. You want to be as "failure proof" as possible, but obviously at the end of the day the manager will have the biggest influence in terms of success/failure, provided they are backed.
Our failures over the past 6 years I'd basically business 101. Such a scatter gun approach, no consistency in direction, no similarities in managerial appointments, ignoring team needs and going after big name players... it's like common sense shit on how not to run a football club. Seeing it at a club like Man United is beyond ridiculous and looks terrible, but you would also expect that maybe, just maybe, the person who fecked up so much would eventually realize that they're making poor decisions and change their approach. Woodwards whole approach could change easily, while a manager being good enough to effectively communicate his plan and being able to implement it to the team isnt something that can just be flipped like a switch. That's why the manager is still really important. You need one step at a time and we're a long way away from being able to just be one of the best teams in the world and be almost manager proof. Not even sure how possible that is in the premier league these days with the money in the top 6.
Blind, who is going to be winning the Champions League this season?A lot of talk on this forum is also about Ed Woodward and his ability as a CEO.
At City and Liverpool, a lot of riddance of failed players is happening relatively fast if a player doesn't work out. This gives the chance to a new talent obviously.
Woodward shipped out Di Maria fast, but besides that, we are currently stuck or have been stuck with players like Darmian, Blind, Jones, Rojo, Bailly, Schweinsteiger, Matic, Young, etc. I'd even say we're a bit stuck with Pogba, as he's on and then off, and can't really be counted on. If he doesn't go this summer, we'll just have a half-arsed moody player to take care of next season. At Liverpool, this type of player - Balotelli - was quickly moved on.
That's a real difference to me, and also why Woodward is probably not the best man for his job. Does he fire/ship away players too late?
Absolutely. Signings like Robertson and Wijnaldum may have looked strange on paper, but they knew exactly what they were doing.This is a great analysis. Basically, it is Moneyball. Please watch the movie and see the logic behind it in baseball. It was pioneered by Billy Beane as part of the Oakland Athletics in 2002. Then Red Sox wanted to hire him, but he did not go there. Red Sox used the Moneyball approach to build the Red Sox and win the world series in 2004!
Guess who owns the Red Sox? I ll give you a hint Fenway Sports Group!
Oh, he is getting paid. Same with all the other former players keeping their mouth shut.You have to be ruthless and loud to make it happen. A constant noise. Maybe get SAF to come out and say something negative if he is not being paid by current ownership.
Difference between Football and baseball is that football is more dynamic, more variables and x number of times harder to quantify. Baseball is a stop/start game, with fever variables and fairly doable to quantify as showcased in the movie.With the exception of Karius, every signing they have made since 16/17 has been a hit.
Absolutely. Signings like Robertson and Wijnaldum may have looked strange on paper, but they knew exactly what they were doing.
++FSG/Liverpool only did one thing right, is to hire Klopp. Nothing more.
Having a system is one thing. Implementing and motivating players to play it is another. That's where Klopp comes into his own.Does Ole even have a system? If so, what players would be perfect for him?