Indy_Bones

I keep being told that decisions even out over a season (even if our human confirmation bias might say otherwise), so why is a bad VAR call in a single game the defining moment of a season? Would we make a similar argument that if Pukki's goal against Spurs hadn't been ruled out by VAR then the whole season would have changed? Sounds more like revisionism to be honest, and I'm sure we can all point to decisions from multiple games that if they had gone differently, would likely have changed at least a result if nothing else, but over the course of a season, it's very tough to argue that it was pure luck that a side stayed up because of a single VAR call. Villa were actually pretty good last season, had some excellent results against top teams, and finished 11th, you can purely attribute that to finances if you like (although I'm sure Liverpool and Chelsea have spent more than them, so what was their excuse for losing?), but the real problem this year seems to have been enforced changes in terms of personnel and tactics, either through sales, injuries or even board pressure to play Ings together with Watkins etc. Smith moved away from playing the way that got them results last season and it's cost him badly, there could be multiple reasons for this change, but they certainly didn't look like they were playing with the same confidence and freedom as last season, much like how we haven't either...

Not in the PL he doesn't, and I'm not even a fan of Dean Smith, but let's not ignore facts here.

I respect your opinion regarding the football being played, but by most standards, the PL is regarded as not just the richest, but the best and most prestigious league in world football. According the UEFA we have the top league by co-efficient: https://www.espn.com/soccer/uefa-europa-league/story/4373377/premier-league-ranked-no-1-league-in-europe-by-uefaovertaking-la-liga Point being, that the PL is a draw for almost ANY manager, and whilst we can debate the merits and internal competitiveness of differing leagues, most managers would rather take a job in the PL than in a more 'balanced' league and most would likely rather opt to go to teams lower down in the PL than teams in other countries in a similar position in their own respective leagues.

Got to be looking like a better and more possible scenario after today's info hasn't he?

My first point here is that the majority of the supposed candidates haven't been revealed by the club, it's based on media and bookies odds rather than confirmed information. I fully believe they may well have spoken to Lampard and also possibly Dean Smith, but nobody knows for sure what the actual shortlist looks like or what conversations may or may not have taken place since Farke was removed. Secondly, in response to the above point you made Hank, much of this can come down to multiple factors such as whether or not the new manager may already be domestically based, what contracts they may have with an existing club and gaining permission to speak to them, and the all important situation of organising the backroom staff to come with them. Some managers will already have a clear view of who'd they'd like with them, but this doesn't always mean it's a simple case of asking them and they leave their current employer the same day. Let's say we have approached Favre, he wanted time out of the game to recharge, and may also want to consider who he'd like to bring with him, and then begin the negotiations to get them if possible, and none of that is an overnight scenario. I think we'd all have liked a shorter time frame for answers here, but if we take an extra few days, or even an extra week, but it brings in the manager we want, surely that's more important than rushing to announce someone isn't it? Let's face it, most of the players are on international duty, so there wasn't going to be much interaction between them and the new manager in the short-term anyway regardless of who it may be. As tough as it is, I'd urge patience and hope that the delay is because we're simply working through complications to get the person we truly want, rather than a scenario where the club are flapping and don't know who to bring in despite sacking Farke.

Then why exclude Favre from the options Ken???? Surely if a large proportion of the supporters on this board would prefer an option who's been deliberately omitted from the poll, then the results are not only somewhat meaningless, it also fails to convey a message to our club who the small minority of supporters who use this board would like to see them appoint? Chances are that the club pay little to no attention to debates on a forum, but on the off chance that someone does, why wouldn't we want to accurately show a preferred candidate? I'd argue that this poll should be scrapped, make a new one including Favre and a few of the other options listed by the bookies, and let the fans vote accordingly.

It's not so much about having an open mind, we're discussing who we as supporters would ideally like in the role and giving our personal opinions and views as to why. Whoever is appointed will get my full support, and I expect the same would be true of any genuine supporter of our club, but that doesn't mean I can't state why I'd prefer option A over option B or option C, because until that appointment is made, we're free to debate amongst ourselves the relative merits of all possibilities. I'd much rather we were looking at seeing if Favre is a possibility than any other name that's been mentioned, but that doesn't mean that if we end up bringing in Lampard, Smith or whoever that I won't get behind my club and hope for the best. I'm very much a data/logic guy over emotion, and based on past records, Favre is so far ahead of everyone else it's not funny, and it's also why I'm not overly impressed by any of Lampard, Smith or Knutsen for that matter. It doesn't mean I'm right (or wrong for that matter), but the whole point of a discussion board is to actually discuss things...

Also interesting to note that in the past he's signed two of our existing players - Lees Melou and Rupp! Admittedly, Rupp was only at BMG for 6 months before being loaned out to Paderborn, but even so it's a somewhat intruiging bit of history. In regards to us being a step down from Dortmund, of course that's true, but then so would 99% of other clubs in the modern game outside of the consistent Champions League sides. But we are in the best league in the world, using the DoF format he knows and understands, will clearly give him time that bigger sides may not offer, and we've heavily invested into the facilities and youth development (including the new soccer bot) which will certainly resonate. Is it too much of a stretch? Who knows, but we should at least be asking the question rather than automatically assuming it's a non-starter.

Me too!

Bearing in mind that I've wanted Favre here all the way back from the days of Chris Hughton, you're not going to find me disagreeing with you on this one LDC. Head and shoulders above any other candidate, vastly experienced with an outstanding record, who not only plays good football, but develops youth players and can work under tighter budgets. Complete no-brainer IMHO, of course the key stumbling block is if he's interested, but if so, I wouldn't even bother interviewing anyone else!

He certainly does: I'm not saying it's perfectly fluent, but he absolutely does speak and understand it to a reasonable degree.

Of course has hasn't won a league, do you know what teams has was even managing and the incredible levels of overperformance he's instigated at each of them? He took a below average Hertha team to 4th in the league with a very limited budget., Took BMG who hadn't been a force in German football in donkeys years from the verge of relegation to 4th and 3rd place finishes in the bundesliga whilst bringing through some great youth players. Then took Nice to 3rd - their highest league finish in over 40 years. Finally went to Dortmund and lead them to successive 2nd place finishes (the same highest place as both Tuchel and Klopp since 12/13). So yes, he hasn't won titles, but what he has done is performed superbly at pretty much every club he's been at, in most cases under circumstances where nobody would have expected the finishes and results they managed. It's like taking sides such as Palace, Leeds and Southampton to finish 3rd-4th in the PL and then being criticised for not finishing above Man City or Chelsea... Oh, and he's also not had below a 40% win rate since 2000 despite the sides he's been at!

If the ability to lighten the mood was that important, we'd be approaching the likes of Jimmy Carr rather than someone with the knowledge and experience to get the best out of professional footballers. Depression comes from being bottom of the league and with no obvious solution at hand, with top players being left in the cold and wondering wtf is going on. You'll soon see smiles return if we go on a good run of games and players like Cantwell are restored to the starting XI. Hughton was a consumate professional and conducted himself superbly, the football and results were dire. Farke was a wonderful guy who gave us some incredible moments, but his PL performances (even in tough circumstances) are also dire. We don't need 'nice' professionals who get us relegated, we need someone who will turn this team around and get them playing to their maximum, and I couldn't care less if the manager is seen by some as 'miserable', his results and the football speak for themselves far more than the managers exterior personality.

It's not like I haven't mention Favre repeatedly in the past few days...

A) They may not have had Buendia and Pukki, but they did have Mount and Wilson, not to mention that they had two strikers who were scoring compared to us with Pukki, and both Waghorn and Marriott's returns were vastly superior to Srbeny's 1 in 15 in the league. They also didn't have a team of just kids, there was an awful lot of experience sprinkled throughout the team, with the likes of Carson, Keogh, Johnson, Nugent and Huddlestone, as well as other established players like Lawrence and Malone in there. Hell, they even had Ashley Cole ffs! B) Chelsea still had a side of top class players when Lampard was manager, and Tuchel is hardly likely to come out in the press (whether it was true or not) and say that Lampard had done a poor job is he? It's simply not professional. I can totally respect that you feel Lampard would be the right choice for us, but revisionism of history isn't going to help the argument (either way), and I personally don't want to risk someone with virtually no experience at the top of the game taking over a club in a very tough position and expecting wonders from them, when there are proven options available instead, that also don't fall into the dinosaur category like Bruce, Warnock etc.

If you're referring to Lampard, I couldn't give a stuff how rich he is, nor does the quality of players career define their ability as manager and shouldn't be the key point in a potential appointment. The fact is that he was poor at Derby considering the squad and funds available to him, and arguably just as bad at Chelsea where even with a team of top class players, couldn't get them above 8th, whereas Tuchel have got them top of the league and won the CL... His history is what would make me 'knock' him as a possible managerial selection, nothing to do with his personal fortune or his playing days! When you're in a situation like we are as a club, you don't appoint a relatively inexperienced manager to try to pull you out of a difficult position, whilst learning on the job, instead you need someone with relevant experience and the tactical savvy to make the right choices to give you the best chance, and Lampard simply doesn't fit this criteria.

I'm still nailing my colours to the Favre mast, so much better than ANY of the other names being touted and actually has form at the top level, rather than failing in the champs/prem like Lampard did, or having a rather unremarkable career in Norway for the past 25 years but doing very well in the last 2 of those... It's not even a contest is it really? yet we're still banging on about these guys rather than focusing our discussion on the guy who would make a vast difference to us, has the pedigree and tacitcal genius behind him, and was close to coming to the prem not so long ago with Palace, and also has a superb history of playing and developing youth whilst also performing under relatively tight budget constraints. It's like a perfect fit, but lets waffle on about why we don't want Lampard instead....

Not sure how me or RvW got dragged into this one!

Mclean is another one of those players that's good enough for the champs but not quite PL level, let's not forget he had some very good performances last season (much as I personally don't rate him that well), but like players such as Stipermann, at the top he simply doesn't have the skill-set, and as we've already seen in Normann, he does everything McLean does and better. Time for the Rangers move I think, but we still have to respect the contributions he has made to the club in the process.

We want someone who can get the best out of the talent we have and forge them into a cohesive unit that enables us to at the very least survive this season but build on this throughout for a clearer improvement next. I think many of us have questioned some of Farke's player choices, with many of our supposed 'top' players used sparingly or frozen out (Tzolis, Rashica, Todd, Gilmour etc), and I don't think we'd see that under Favre. Also, we don't really have the player types to 'win ugly', we're not a physical side who can bully teams off the ball, most of our players are slighter in stature and use technique, skill and movement to be effective, something which isn't suited to a more defensive/physical style of grinding out necessary wins. This is partly what happened under Hughton, who tried to enforce a more defensive minded approach on players it didn't suit, and frankly it was some of the worst football I've seen at this club! Many of the best managers we've ever seen in the PL didn't have experience here before joining, think Wenger, think Pep, think Tuchel, think Klopp, think Bielsa etc, NONE of them had PL experience, yet would you take Lampard over ANY of them based on his time at Chelsea??? If Favre set up us in a similar manner to what he used at BMG, I can absolutely see that working with our players, and it isn't a million miles from how they have been asked to play for the past few years, so adjustment time would be much smaller than completely changing our approach to a style you favour. Favre is one of the most underrated managers in the modern game, and would be an absolute coup if he came here, much like Leeds getting Bielsa was for them.

A manager I've long admired and feel would be a perfect fit for us at this point. Tactically astute, excellent with young players, vastly experienced at the top level and used to working within tighter budget constraints. Makes the likes of Lampard look like nothing more than a ball boy in comparison mangerially speaking...

I'd hardly call Lampards stints as a manager as qualifying him as "experienced"...

Has to be Lucien Favre for me, comfortable with the DoF system, plays good football with fantastic tactical knowledge, brings youth through and works within tighter budgets than many other top level managers. If he wanted to introduce a style similar to that used at BMG, many of our players would actually work pretty damn well within that framework, it would just take the coaching time for them to adapt to what's required, and would see the likes of Gilmour, Cantwell, Rashica and Tzolis all likely to get far more appearances as well.

Nope, not even vaguely interested.

It's because Dortmund was arguably his first absolute top echelon club. He did wonders at Zurich, Hertha, BMG and Nice - none of which you'd really call big clubs in the modern game, and I'd certainly argue that we're a much closer fit to the clubs he's truly thrived at than the likes of Dortmund who have much higher expectations and requirements and where even his excellent first season there wasn't enough when he had a run of poorer games. He was on the verge of joining Palace not so long ago (who are not exactly well run), and we've shown with Farke that we do give managers a fair chance (unlike say Watford who chop and change almost twice a season), we're being run in a way that develops youth (something he's big on), and we're a Premier League club which still makes us bigger than most of Europe outside the Champions League sides.