I was wrong...

[Monty13 2,247]

8 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Mental resilience gets mentioned a lot above. I don’t think I’ve seen this tweet from Nick Ma****er quoted before but it’s an interesting take (and before Farke fans jump on it, his wider point is that Stuart Webber’s time should have been up at least two seasons ago):

 

That’s an interesting point. It seemed pretty clear Farke did not like any dissenting voices, there was a steady stream of players put out in the cold.

Generally speaking the Lambert era was all about filling the team with leaders. Farke era appeared to rely on players who would follow an adhere to instruction. It was pretty clear we didn’t have the players to instigate Smiths think on the fly and react to situations idealism.

Would a Holt have been welcome in a Farke team? Even a Hoolahan? 

It worked for Farke (at this level) but we do seem to have a bunch of passive, fragile players. When things go wrong they seem to just blame each other, I don’t see any of them demonstrating the leadership needed.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

That’s an interesting point. It seemed pretty clear Farke did not like any dissenting voices, there was a steady stream of players put out in the cold.

Generally speaking the Lambert era was all about filling the team with leaders. Farke era appeared to rely on players who would follow an adhere to instruction. It was pretty clear we didn’t have the players to instigate Smiths think on the fly and react to situations idealism.

Would a Holt have been welcome in a Farke team? Even a Hoolahan? 

It worked for Farke (at this level) but we do seem to have a bunch of passive, fragile players. When things go wrong they seem to just blame each other, I don’t see any of them demonstrating the leadership needed.

I really don’t know enough to comment knowledgeably either way but on the face of it, it’s a plausible theory. 

On your last point though, if anyone is a leader on the pitch, I would say it’s Kenny. But he just seems to be mocked for it.

[Monty13 2,247]

48 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I really don’t know enough to comment knowledgeably either way but on the face of it, it’s a plausible theory. 

On your last point though, if anyone is a leader on the pitch, I would say it’s Kenny. But he just seems to be mocked for it.

Yea I’m a Kenny fan personally. He may not be the most talented player, but he always seems pretty much the only one trying to organise, keep communicating and lead by example.

[CDMullins 444]

The biggest switch for me has been the mentally/belief. Under Farke (at this level) we had a real belief that we would win every game, that's including when conceding first or them niggly 0-0 games with 5 minutes remaining. We had an aura of confidence around that we'd stick to our principals, keep playing the slick passing game and it would come.

So many times this season, I've watched us play ok, then bang 1-0 down and you just know it's game over. You just know that once we're at HT and it's level against the Rotherham's, Sunderland's and Wigan's we don't have the confidence to win game.

For this group of players not to make the top6 is unacceptable, most of the core of this squad have won two Championships.

Mid-October we were playing incredibly poorly but we're 9 unbeaten and top of the league, you don't do that unless you are a good group of players.

We've now taken a huge backwards step, our defence is flakier than ever, midfield nonexistent (Sara every other game aside) we have no wingers and complete reluctantcy to give Tzolis any sort of meaningful game time and we now have a Pukki shaped whole, alongside his two replacements who can't trap a bag of sand. 

Webber has made 3 fundamental errors.

I'm not including player recruitment because that's too simplistic with hindsight to analyse players.

But he should never have sacked Farke without a plan,

Should have sacked Smith pre-WC

Shouldn't have taken the easy option with Wagner.

All these have led to a culture shift, a toxic environment and a negativity which appears to resonate from the top down through the players and to the fans.

[king canary 7,654]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

That’s an interesting point. It seemed pretty clear Farke did not like any dissenting voices, there was a steady stream of players put out in the cold.

Generally speaking the Lambert era was all about filling the team with leaders. Farke era appeared to rely on players who would follow an adhere to instruction. It was pretty clear we didn’t have the players to instigate Smiths think on the fly and react to situations idealism.

Would a Holt have been welcome in a Farke team? Even a Hoolahan? 

It worked for Farke (at this level) but we do seem to have a bunch of passive, fragile players. When things go wrong they seem to just blame each other, I don’t see any of them demonstrating the leadership needed.

I think Farke was an autocrat and was much keener on having players who bought into his philosophy and followed his instructions, hence the often delayed process of getting new signings actually on the pitch. Smith seemed the opposite and the players seemed to shrink when given a bit of freedom in how they wanted to play rather than step up. 

I do think we've got an abnormally quiet team though. Gunn is a good shot stopper but not someone I'd describe as commanding. Aarons is known for being grumpy and quiet, neither Gibson or Hanley are exactly big characters on the pitch, Sorenson is known for being so laid he's horizontal etc etc. The last two managers have both commented on how quiet and emotionally fragile our squad appears to be. I wonder if what we have is a squad of players who need a Farke type autocrat telling them exactly what their role should be. 

[Nuff Said 5,173]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I think Farke was an autocrat and was much keener on having players who bought into his philosophy and followed his instructions, hence the often delayed process of getting new signings actually on the pitch. Smith seemed the opposite and the players seemed to shrink when given a bit of freedom in how they wanted to play rather than step up. 

I do think we've got an abnormally quiet team though. Gunn is a good shot stopper but not someone I'd describe as commanding. Aarons is known for being grumpy and quiet, neither Gibson or Hanley are exactly big characters on the pitch, Sorenson is known for being so laid he's horizontal etc etc. The last two managers have both commented on how quiet and emotionally fragile our squad appears to be. I wonder if what we have is a squad of players who need a Farke type autocrat telling them exactly what their role should be. 

Which is pretty much the point Mash1ter was making. It’s ironic when the narrative around moving to a sporting director was that we could better ensure continuity across changes of senior staff, when what we actually seem to have achieved is to create a team that can only be effectively coached by Daniel Farke or someone who adopts both the same playing philosophy and man management style. 

[king canary 7,654]

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Which is pretty much the point Mash1ter was making. It’s ironic when the narrative around moving to a sporting director was that we could better ensure continuity across changes of senior staff, when what we actually seem to have achieved is to create a team that can only be effectively coached by Daniel Farke or someone who adopts both the same playing philosophy and man management style. 

Yes, I'd argue this has probably been Webber's biggest failing. The point of the model was to make transition seamless but it seems to have achieved the opposite at this point.