Players setting the game plan?

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

That's the thing though - progress is rarely as linear as that, especially when you consider matters such as facilities, finances, youth development, unusual circumstances outside everyone's control... a league table position can reflect on a lot of good work, but it can also hide a multitude of sins.

As our not so friendly rivals found out when Mick McCarthy finally thought "bollox to this".

Yes, but the key point is that our rivals league position took a hammering after he departed. Brentford's did the opposite.

[Petriix 2,835]

I too was slightly alarmed to read that particular quote, but I can see the merits of involving the players in the tactical planning rather than simply dictating it. The main thing is achieving a successful balance, which we're not. Fundamentally you need to have a sound basic setup before you can open it up to the players to ad-lib. They need to know their roles and how they change in key transitions.

I will keep saying it until it changes: the 4-3-3 has given too little structure to our midfield in defensive transitions. The fullbacks are exposed and we end up with unmarked players running into the box. It happens so often that it's bordering on ridiculous. The solution is to fundamentally change the basic system.

I recall our beloved Emi having some serious flaws with how he responded when we lost the ball, often laying on the ground and complaining when he should have been chasing back. I think we all remember what happened when he took on more defensive responsibility, started consistently tracking back and worked harder out of possession. How much of that do we think was down to him 'coming up with a game plan' by himself and how much was down to the direction of the coaching team?

[astro 360]

I think this is a pretty sound approach to be honest. However I can’t see how it can work when we need to change the system due to an in-game injury or having to get back into a game after conceding - it’s those times that a good manager really earns their salary.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Yes, but the key point is that our rivals league position took a hammering after he departed. Brentford's did the opposite.

Sure, and my key point is that the league table doesn't tell anywhere near the full story. As the quote goes, statistics are like miniskirts; what they show is revealing, but what they hide is vital!

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, and my key point is that the league table doesn't tell anywhere near the full story. As the quote goes, statistics are like miniskirts; what they show is revealing, but what they hide is vital!

It's not the full story, but it is undoubtedly the most important measure of success for a football club, and ergo it's head coach.

[repman 635]

To me, the quote reveals that him and his staff don't know how/have no intention of coaching attacking patterns. It's all well and good telling the players what the style of play should be, but if you're not practicing that regularly I don't know why you'd expect it to suddenly appear on a matchday. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

24 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I too was slightly alarmed to read that particular quote, but I can see the merits of involving the players in the tactical planning rather than simply dictating it. The main thing is achieving a successful balance, which we're not. Fundamentally you need to have a sound basic setup before you can open it up to the players to ad-lib. They need to know their roles and how they change in key transitions.

I will keep saying it until it changes: the 4-3-3 has given too little structure to our midfield in defensive transitions. The fullbacks are exposed and we end up with unmarked players running into the box. It happens so often that it's bordering on ridiculous. The solution is to fundamentally change the basic system.

I recall our beloved Emi having some serious flaws with how he responded when we lost the ball, often laying on the ground and complaining when he should have been chasing back. I think we all remember what happened when he took on more defensive responsibility, started consistently tracking back and worked harder out of possession. How much of that do we think was down to him 'coming up with a game plan' by himself and how much was down to the direction of the coaching team?

Good point

 

A comment from DS after the defeat to Luton was that the final ball needed to be improved and players needed to be more creative in that part of the pitch.  He said he'd talked to the players about being more creative.  I find that surprising - shouldn't you be practising how to be more creative on the training pitch rather than talking about it ?  If we look at our new players, it seems to me they definitely have the ability to play more creative passes, but it's not happening and I don't think they're just going to be able to do that after DS has talked to them about it., they need to practice together.

 

We have two attackers who are completely different types of players.  Pukki wants balls played through that he can spin off to run onto, exploiting his speed over 5 yards compared to CBs.  Whereas Sergeant can compete for aerial balls and would like to attack crosses aimed at the far post.  Yet all too often we're lofting high balls towards Pukki, and when we're in a position to cross towards Sergeant we rarely take it.  It's down to DS to get the players to build the sort of understanding the team used to have with Pukki - it wasn't all about Buendia.

 

My concern, and the reason I think we need a change of manager now, is that we're not seeing any progress, in fact players are going backwards if anything.  I think DS has had enough time with this group of players that we should be seeing progress by now.  

 

I hope Webber & co are looking at alternatives behind the scenes to get someone lined up.  I'd say results are actually not the most important thing right now, it's seeing signs of progress that matters.  If we scrape a win tonight that changes nothing.  Conversely if we start to see real and consistent signs of improvement in how the players are combining, then I could see that buying DS more time.  It shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction based on short term results.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I was chatting to a chap who was a player at Fulham academy  in his younger days, who volunteered some interesting parallels between play direction and management. 

Poor directors on stage give no direction. Mediocre ones tell people how they should say their lines and where to be on stage at what time. Good directors get their actors learning their lines early, then ask the actors who their character is supposed to be and why they do what they do, so they're thinking about how they, as individuals, can bring their own performance and their interactions with the other performers to life. Then the director'll look at the big picture and give feedback to the actors on how to evolve their performance to make the show more balanced. 

The immediate impression I get is that Smiths's process is aimed at getting the players thinking about what they can add and communicating with the other players about what they can best do together to get results. That's something the manager listens to and works with, then either agrees or feeds back and it's evolved further. It sounds like an intelligent process that engages the players in thinking about bringing the best of their individual abilities to the big picture and instils a sense of collective responsibility towards the big picture.

I've no doubt this is not much different to how he has approached things at his other clubs, and it's not difficult to see why he has lasted so long at his previous clubs with success at all of them. 

 

 

I think I would give this a bit more credence if you'd said you had chatted to one of Pep's/Klopp's/Mourhino's players rather than a person who once was in the Fulham academy (presumably they didnt get any farther otherwise they would have been referred to as a Fulham player).  Nor do I see any presented evidence that devolving game plan strategy to players has ever been a successful approach.  Maybe, the next stage of the evolution is to allow the players to also pick the team and perhaps when they have ascended the evolutionary scale far enough to also choose transfer targets

[repman 635]

2 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

A comment from DS after the defeat to Luton was that the final ball needed to be improved and players needed to be more creative in that part of the pitch.  He said he'd talked to the players about being more creative.  I find that surprising - shouldn't you be practising how to be more creative on the training pitch rather than talking about it ?  If we look at our new players, it seems to me they definitely have the ability to play more creative passes, but it's not happening and I don't think they're just going to be able to do that after DS has talked to them about it., they need to practice together.

Creativity is a weird word in football as it tends to imply that players should do something magical, or make something out of nothing. If you think of all the passes Emi would play through to Pukki, obviously the pass wouldn't exist without the run and vice versa, but the fact we saw it so regularly shows that it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. Right now we seem far too reliant on actual moments of brilliance to create chances, instead of being a well drilled side that knows how to break teams down.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

It seems that the permanently disgruntled have completely disregarded the "that’s agreed by the coaches".

are you suggesting then that the conversation is something like this:

Deano "how should we play on Tuesday?"

Players "We think like this - option A?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option B?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option C?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option D?

Ad infinitum until........

Players "We think like this - option n?

Deano "Yeah - thats the one"

 

Seriously - because that sounds like a complete waste of time when you could tell them the answer at the outset 🙂

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 405]

3 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Oh look, another stick for some to beat Smith with…

How and why are you still backing him? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

I think I would give this a bit more credence if you'd said you had chatted to one of Pep's/Klopp's/Mourhino's players rather than a person who once was in the Fulham academy (presumably they didnt get any farther otherwise they would have been referred to as a Fulham player).  Nor do I see any presented evidence that devolving game plan strategy to players has ever been a successful approach.  Maybe, the next stage of the evolution is to allow the players to also pick the team and perhaps when they have ascended the evolutionary scale far enough to also choose transfer targets

 

Check out @TheGunnShow's comments then. His observations fully support what I said.

 

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

2 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

are you suggesting then that the conversation is something like this:

Deano "how should we play on Tuesday?"

Players "We think like this - option A?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option B?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option C?

Deano "No"

Players "We think like this - option D?

Ad infinitum until........

Players "We think like this - option n?

Deano "Yeah - thats the one"

 

Seriously - because that sounds like a complete waste of time when you could tell them the answer at the outset 🙂

No.

 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

It's interesting that we are told that players 'come up with a game plan' after one win in seven but not after six wins on the bounce.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence.

[Big Vince 318]

4 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

When we played Watford, at the opening they'd moved Sarr to the side to target Aarons which was very effective for them.

 

At half time we rejigged our setup and were looking very dangerous for the first 15 minutes after which they seemed to change their setup to counter it and they looked much more in control, we didn't really look like a convincing goal threat towards the end of the game.

I certainly can't imagine DF leaving it to the players to come up with a game plan.

It was an extraordinary statement to make. Is Smith really up for this job, or just going through the motions?

The entire defence should be got rid of. Not one of them can defend. He identified that we don't have enough big, physical players, but nothing has been done about it apart from Hayden who's too little too late. Spine of the team has no spine. Gibbs and Nunez as holding players is a joke.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

1 hour ago, Inch High aka Inchy.. said:

How and why are you still backing him? 

How and why did you never back him?

I have said numerous times I don’t really care who the manager is, never have and never will.  They are all transient, some will work better than others, but all deserve a decent chance.  It seems that ‘a decent chance’ is very short with some, longer with others.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, City Stand Ultra said:

This is the quote from Deano 

“We give them all the information they need and a good look at the opposition for each match. But we know what are our style of play is, how we want to play, and the players come up with a game plan that’s agreed by the coaches.”

interesting approach.   I’d have thought the game plan would firmly be the remit of the manager and coaches    This suggests the pendulum has swung too far  Players execute the game plan - of course it’s good if they have bought into it but that’s what the coaching team are there for not to be chopping and changing tactics according to player whims ….

 

Bizarre. What if they all think differently?

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

If the players are coming up with the game plan, is this something else we can blame McLean for?

[kenfoggo 247]

Players coming up with the game plan sounds a lot like “the lunatics have taken over the asylum “. And when you consider that this will include McLean,  Hanley and some other equally questionable intellectuals, then you have the perfect answer to the rubbish recent form.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Bizarre. What if they all think differently?

Then they have a discussion,  toss up the relative merits of the arguments, and come to some conclusions. They're professional footballers; not users on a football forum. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Mason 47 1,379]

Nothing really notable to see here IMO. Decentralising leadership and sharing responsibility down through the ranks is a well-known and pretty decent way to manage any team.

I'd be more concerned if we continue sticking with the 4-3-3 shape. Seems to accentuate our weaknesses whilst dulling our advantages.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Mason 47

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

4 hours ago, City Stand Ultra said:

I think I would give this a bit more credence if you'd said you had chatted to one of Pep's/Klopp's/Mourhino's players rather than a person who once was in the Fulham academy (presumably they didnt get any farther otherwise they would have been referred to as a Fulham player).  Nor do I see any presented evidence that devolving game plan strategy to players has ever been a successful approach.  Maybe, the next stage of the evolution is to allow the players to also pick the team and perhaps when they have ascended the evolutionary scale far enough to also choose transfer targets

Incidentally, here's an explanation of Jürgen Klopp's approach; it's very similar to what Smith describes.

https://www.aoec.com/knowledge-bank/what-every-team-leader-can-learn-jurgen-klopp/#:~:text=The foundation for high performance,pitch rather than on it.

[astro 360]

4 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

How and why did you never back him?

I have said numerous times I don’t really care who the manager is, never have and never will.  They are all transient, some will work better than others, but all deserve a decent chance.  It seems that ‘a decent chance’ is very short with some, longer with others.

Surely a the length of a ‘decent chance’ changes with the clubs needs? Right now, we need promotion as opposed to stability in a division. 
As soon as form dips below the magic 2-points-per-game mark for a considerable time, the club has to seriously consider changing the manager. 

[repman 635]

45 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Incidentally, here's an explanation of Jürgen Klopp's approach; it's very similar to what Smith describes.

https://www.aoec.com/knowledge-bank/what-every-team-leader-can-learn-jurgen-klopp/#:~:text=The foundation for high performance,pitch rather than on it.

Saying they put great emphasis on what happens off the pitch compared to on it does not mean they are devolving responsibility to the players on the pitch. Liverpool have not achieved 3 90+ point PL seasons without being coached extremely thoroughly on what to do with and without the ball.

Also your point about the academy player you talked with may be true, but there's a big difference between development coaching and first team coaching. When you're progressing through the age ranks, results aren't the number one priority, therefore the coaches have the opportunity to give the players more tools to use in their career. In this situation, putting the onus onto the player in the way you described fits, as a player who knows not only what to do but why to do it will be better than one who only knows the former. However, once you hit first team football, the time for individual development goes out the window (I'll note here that I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it's how it is right now). The focus in training sessions are on game models, and how best to win football matches. Obviously a player may themselves improve through these scenarios, whether that be their crossing ability due to doing it in volume on the training ground. 

Helping players improve is a good thing, but it doesn't impact results half as much as preparing a team fully, which is something it seems Smith has shirked away from. The evidence so far under Smith is that our players look worse in possession, which is probably down to a lack of coaching on the training pitch regarding attacking patterns. It should be noted that Smith says the players are responsible, but also has talked about how he viewed pressing as the key component to our style this season. There's little doubt there's been work on the training ground into our pressing and organisation, it was clear in some of the pre season training videos that's what was being done. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Then they have a discussion,  toss up the relative merits of the arguments, and come to some conclusions. They're professional footballers; not users on a football forum. 

What conclusions? Deano was right all along? DF was right all along? Sarge isn't a winger? We can blame Kenny?

I find it absolutely unbelievable that there is a coach who would leave it to the players.

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 405]

6 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

How and why did you never back him?

I have said numerous times I don’t really care who the manager is, never have and never will.  They are all transient, some will work better than others, but all deserve a decent chance.  It seems that ‘a decent chance’ is very short with some, longer with others.

I never backed him because I had a feeling he was a square peg in a round hole here.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

12 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Oh look, another stick for some to beat Smith with…

I think 2pts from 6 matches makes all the arguments anyone needs 

Bottom of the form table. 

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Just now, City Stand Ultra said:

I think 2pts from 6 matches makes all the arguments anyone needs 

Bottom of the form table. 

Wtf does that have to do with this thread?  

[City Stand Ultra 41]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

Wtf does that have to do with this thread?  

That allowing players to pick the game plan and strategy is a mistake.   We were able to exceed expectations against really weak teams and now the strategy of player-led tactics is unravelling 

I am confused by your confusion   I’m happy to explain in simpler terms if you are still confused or unable to understand the constructs I have put forward 

 

 

 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

No wonder Webber has such high regard for Smith - they are birds of a feather. Both of them are quick to take the credit when things go well, but equally quick to divert the blame when they don't (Webber sacking Farke and refusing to discuss last year's dreadful recruitment, Smith now informing us that the players come up with the game plan and - surprise, surprise - choosing to do so in the middle of a terrible run. "It was the players, guv. Nothing to do with me." He should be sacked for that alone.